| By Author | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Title | [ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z | Other Symbols ] |
| By Language |
|
Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ] Look for this book on Amazon Tweet |
Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 2, Slice 5 - "Arculf" to "Armour, Philip"
Author: Various
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 2, Slice 5 - "Arculf" to "Armour, Philip"" ***
Transcriber's notes:
(1) Numbers following letters (without space) like C2 were originally
printed in subscript. Letter subscripts are preceded by an
underscore, like C_n.
(2) Characters following a carat (^) were printed in superscript.
(3) Side-notes were relocated to function as titles of their respective
paragraphs.
(4) Macrons and breves above letters and dots below letters were not
inserted.
(5) [root] stands for the root symbol; [alpha], [beta], etc. for greek
letters.
ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA
A DICTIONARY OF ARTS, SCIENCES, LITERATURE
AND GENERAL INFORMATION
ELEVENTH EDITION
VOLUME II, SLICE V
Arculf to Armour, Philip
ARTICLES IN THIS SLICE:
ARCULF ARIMASPI
ARDASHIR ARIMINUM
ARDEA ARIOBARZANES
ARDEBIL ARION
ARDÈCHE ARIOSTO, LODOVICO
ARDEE ARISTAENETUS
ARDEN, FOREST OF ARISTAEUS
ARDENNES (district) ARISTAGORAS
ARDENNES (department of France) ARISTANDER
ARDGLASS ARISTARCHUS (of Samos)
ARDITI, LUIGI ARISTARCHUS (of Samothrace)
ARDMORE ARISTEAS (Greek mythical personage)
ARDRES ARISTEAS (author of "Letter")
ARDROSSAN ARISTIDES (Athenian statesman)
AREA ARISTIDES (of Miletus)
ARECIBO ARISTIDES (of Thebes)
AREMBERG ARISTIDES, AELIUS
ARENA ARISTIDES, QUINTILIANUS
ARENDAL ARISTIDES, APOLOGY OF
ARENIG GROUP ARISTIPPUS
AREOI ARISTO (of Chios)
AREOPAGUS ARISTO (of Pella)
AREQUIPA (department of Peru) ARISTOBULUS (of Cassandreia)
AREQUIPA (city of Peru) ARISTOBULUS (of Paneas)
ARES ARISTOCRACY
ARETAEUS ARISTODEMUS
ARETAS ARISTOLOCHIA
ARÊTE ARISTOMENES
ARETHAS ARISTONICUS
ARETHUSA ARISTOPHANES (Greek dramatist)
ARETINO, PIETRO ARISTOPHANES (of Byzantium)
AREZZO ARISTOTLE
ARGALI ARISTOXENUS
ARGAO ARISUGAWA
ARGAUM ARITHMETIC
ARGEI ARIUS
ARGELANDER, FRIEDRICH AUGUST ARIZONA
ARGENS, JEAN BAPTISTE DE BOYER ARJUNA
ARGENSOLA, LUPERCIO LEONARDO DE ARK
ARGENSON ARKANSAS (river of the U.S.)
ARGENTAN ARKANSAS (state)
ARGENTEUIL ARKANSAS CITY
ARGENTINA ARKLOW
ARGENTINE ARKWRIGHT, SIR RICHARD
ARGENTITE ARLES (town of France)
ARGENTON ARLES (kingdom)
ARGHANDAB ARLINGTON, HENRY BENNET
ARGHOUL ARLINGTON
ARGOL ARLON
ARGON ARM
ARGONAUTS ARMADA, THE
ARGONNE ARMADILLO
ARGOS ARMAGEDDON
ARGOSTOLI ARMAGH (county of Ireland)
ARGOSY ARMAGH (city)
ARGUIN ARMAGNAC
ARGUMENT ARMATOLES
ARGUS ARMATURE
ARGYLL, EARLS AND DUKES OF ARMAVIR
ARGYLLSHIRE ARMENIA
ARGYRODITE ARMENIAN CHURCH
ARGYROKASTRO ARMENIAN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE
ARGYROPULUS, JOHN ARMENTIÈRES
ARIA ARMET
ARIADNE ARMFELT, GUSTAF MAURITZ
ARIANO DI PUGLIA ARMIDALE
ARIAS MONTANO, BENITO ARMILLA
ARICA ARMINIUS
ARICIA ARMINIUS, JACOBUS
ARICINI ARMISTICE
ARIÈGE ARMOIRE
ARIES ARMORICA
ARIKARA ARMOUR, PHILIP DANFORTH
ARCULF, a Gallican bishop and pilgrim-traveller, who visited the Levant
about 680, and was the earliest Christian traveller and observer of any
importance in the Nearer East after the rise of Islam. On his return he
was driven by contrary winds to Britain, and so came to Iona, where he
related his experiences to his host, the abbot Adamnan (679-704). This
narrative, as written out by Adamnan, was presented to Aldfrith the
Wise, last of the great Northumbrian kings, at York about 701, and came
to the knowledge of Bede, who inserted a brief summary of the same in
his _Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation_, and also drew up a
separate and longer digest which obtained great popularity throughout
the middle ages as a standard guide-book (the so-called _Libellus de
locis sanctis_) to the Holy Places of Syria. Arculf is the first to
mention the column at Jerusalem, which claimed to mark the exact centre
of the Inhabited Earth, and later became one of the favourite Palestine
wonders. Besides a valuable account of the principal sacred sites of
Judaea, Samaria and Galilee as they existed in the 7th century, he also
gives important information as to Alexandria and Constantinople, briefly
describes Damascus and Tyre, the Nile and the Lipari volcanoes, and
refers to the caliph Moawiya I. (A.D. 661-680), whom he pictures as
befriending Christians and rescuing the "sudarium" of Christ from the
Jews. Arculf's record is especially useful from its plans, drawn from
personal observation by the traveller himself, of the churches of the
Holy Sepulchre and of Mount Sion in Jerusalem, of the Ascension on
Olivet and of Jacob's well at Sichem. It is also a useful witness to the
prosperity and trade of Alexandria after the Moslem conquest: it tells
us how the Pharos was still lit up every night; and it gives us (from
Constantinople) the first form of the story of St George which ever
seems to have attracted notice in Britain.
Thirteen MSS, of the original Arculf-Adamnan narrative exist, and
fully 100 of Bede's abridgment: of the former, the most important,
containing all the plans, are (1) Bern, Canton Library, 582, of 9th
cent.; (2) Paris, National Library, Lat. 13,048, of 9th cent.; a
third MS., London, B. Mus., Cotlon, Tib. D. V., of 8th-9th cents.,
though damaged by fire and lacking the illustrations, is of value for
the text, being the oldest of all. Among editions the first is of
1619, by Gretser; the best, that of 1877, by Tobler, in _Itinera et
Descriptiones Terrae Sanctae_; we may also mention that of 1870, by
Delpit, in his _Essai sur les anciens pelerinages à Jérusalem_; see
also Delpit's remarks upon Arculf in the same work, pp. 260-304;
Beazley, _Dawn of Modern Geography_, i. 131-40 (1897).
ARDASHIR, the modern form of the Persian royal name ARTAXERXES (q.v.),
"he whose empire is excellent." After the three Achaemenian kings of
this name, it occurs in Armenia, in the shortened form Artaxias
(Armenian, Artashes or Artaxes), and among the dynasts of Persia who
maintained their independence during the Parthian period (see PERSIS).
One of these, (1) Artaxerxes or ARDASHIR I. (in his Greek inscriptions
he calls himself Artaxares, and the same form occurs in Agathias II. 25,
iv. 24), became the founder of the New-Persian or Sassanian empire. Of
his reign we have only very scanty information, as the Greek and Roman
authors mention only his victory over the Parthians and his wars with
Rome. A trustworthy tradition about the origin of his power, from
Persian sources, has been preserved by the Arabic historian Tabari (Th.
Nöldeke, _Geschichte der Perser und Araber zur Zeit der Sasaniden, aus
der arabischen Chronik des Tabari_, 1879). He was the second son of
Papak (Babek), the offspring of Sassan (Sasan), after whom the dynasty
is named. Papak had made himself king of the district of Istakhr (in the
neighbourhood of Persepolis, which had fallen to ruins). After the death
of Papak and his oldest son Shapur (Shahpuhr, Sapores), Ardashir made
himself king (probably A.D. 212), put his other brothers to death and
began war against the neighbouring dynasts of Persis. When he had
conquered a great part of Persis and Carmania, the Parthian king
Artabanus IV. interfered. But he was defeated in three battles and at
last killed (A.D. 236). Ardashir now considered himself sovereign of the
whole empire of the Parthians and called himself "King of Kings of the
Iranians." But his aspirations went farther. In Persis the traditions of
the Achaemenian empire had always been alive, as the name of Ardashir
himself shows, and with them the national religion of Zoroaster.
Ardashir, who was a zealous worshipper of Ahuramazda and in intimate
connexion with the magian priests, established the orthodox Zoroastrian
creed as the official religion of his new kingdom, persecuted the
infidels, and tried to restore the old Persian empire, which under the
Achaemenids had extended over the whole of Asia from the Aegean Sea to
the Indus. At the same time he put down the local dynasts and tried to
create a strong concentrated power. His empire is thus quite different
in character from the Parthian kingdom of the Arsacids, which had no
national and religious basis but leant towards Hellenism, and whose
organization had always been very loose. Ardashir extirpated the whole
race of the Arsacids, with the exception of those princes who had found
refuge in Armenia, and in many wars, in which, however, as the Persian
tradition shows, he occasionally suffered heavy defeats, he succeeded in
subjugating the greater part of Iran, Susiana and Babylonia. The
Parthian capital Ctesiphon (q.v.) remained the principal residence of
the Sassanian kingdom, by the side of the national metropolis Istakhr,
which was too far out of the way to become the centre of administration.
Opposite to Ctesiphon, on the right bank of the Tigris, Ardashir
restored Seleucia under the name of Weh-Ardashir. The attempt to conquer
Mesopotamia, Armenia and Cappadocia led to a war with Rome, in which he
was repelled by Alexander Severus (A.D. 233). Before his death (A.D.
241) Ardashir associated with himself on the throne his son Shapur, who
successfully continued his work.
Under the tombs of Darius I. at Persepolis, on the surface of the rock,
Ardashir has sculptured his image and that of the god Ahuramazda (Ormuzd
or Ormazd). Both are on horseback; the god is giving the diadem to the
king. Under the horse of the king lies a defeated enemy, the Parthian
king Artaban; under the horse of Ormuzd, the devil Ahriman, with two
snakes rising from his head. In the bilingual inscription (Greek and
Pahlavi), Ardashir I. calls himself "the Mazdayasnian [i.e. "worshipper
of Ahuramazda"] god Artaxares, king of the kings of the Arianes
(Iranians), of godly origin, son of the god Papak the king." (See Sir R.
Ker Porter, _Travels_ (1821-1822), i. 548 foll.; Flandin et Coste,
_Voyage en Perse_, iv. 182; F. Stolze and J.C. Andreas, _Persepolis_,
pl. 116; Marcel Diculafoy, _L'Art antique de la Perse_, 1884-1889, v.
pl. 14). A similar inscription and sculpture is on a rock near Gur
(Firuzabad) in Persia. On his coins he has the same titles (in Pahlavi).
We see that he, like his father and his successors, were worshipped as
gods, probably as incarnations of a secondary deity of the Persian
creed.
Like the history of the founder of the Achaemenian empire, that of
Ardashir has from the beginning been overgrown with legends; like Cyrus
he is the son of a shepherd, his future greatness is predicted by dreams
and visions, and by the calculations of astronomers he becomes a servant
at the court of King Artabanus and then flies to Persia and begins the
rebellion; he fights with the great dragon, the enemy of god, &c. A
Pahlavi text, which contains this legend, has been translated by Nöldeke
(_Geschichte des Artachshir i Pãpakan_, 1879). On the same tradition the
account of Firdousi in the Shahnama is based; it occurs also, with some
variations, in Agathias ii. 26 f. Another work, which contained
religious and moral admonitions which were put into the mouth of the
king, has not come down to us. On the other hand the genealogy of
Ardashir has of course been connected with the Achaemenids, on whose
behalf he exacts vengeance from the Parthians, and with the legendary
kings of old Iran.
(2) ARDASHIR II. (379-383). Under the reign of his brother Shapur II. he
had been governor (king) of Adiabene, where he persecuted the
Christians. After Shapur's death, he was raised to the throne by the
magnates, although more than seventy years old. Having tried to make
himself independent from the court, and having executed some of the
grandees, he was deposed after a reign of four years.
(3) ARDASHIR III. (628-630), son of Kavadh II., was raised to the throne
as a boy of seven years, but was killed two years afterwards by his
general, Shahrbaraz. (Ed. M.)
ARDEA, a town of the Rutuli in Latium, 3 m. from the S.W. coast, where
its harbour (_Castrum Inui_) lay, at the mouth of the stream now known
as Fosso dell' Incastro, and 23 m. S. of Rome by the Via Ardeatina. It
was founded, according to legend, either by a son of Odysseus and Circe,
or by Danae, the mother of Perseus. It was one of the oldest of the
coast cities of Latium, and a place of considerable importance;
according to tradition the Ardeatines and Zacynthians joined in the
foundation of Saguntum in Spain. It was the capital of Turnus, the
opponent of Aeneas. It was conquered by Tarquinius Superbus, and appears
as a Roman possession in the treaty with Carthage of 509 B.C., though it
was later one of the thirty cities of the Latin league. In 445 B.C. an
unfair decision by the Romans in a frontier dispute with Aricia led,
according to the Roman historians, to a rising; the town became a Latin
colony 442 B.C., and shortly afterwards it appears as the place of exile
of Camillus. It had the charge of the common shrine of Venus in
Lavinium. It was devastated by the Samnites, was one of the 12 Latin
colonies that refused in 209 B.C. to provide more soldiers, and was in
186 used as a state prison, like Alba and Setia. In imperial times the
unhealthiness of the place led to its rapid decline, though it remained
a colony. In the forests of the neighbourhood the imperial elephants
were kept. A road, the Via Ardeatina, led to Ardea direct from Rome; the
gate by which it left the Servian wall was the Porta Naevia; a large
tomb behind the baths of Caracalla lay on its course. The gate by which
it left the Aurelian wall has been obliterated by the bastion of Antonio
da Sangallo (Ch. Hülsen in _Römische Mitteilungen_, 1894, 320).
The site of the primitive city, which later became the citadel, is
occupied by the modern town; it is situated at the end of a long plateau
between two valleys, and protected by perpendicular tufa cliffs some 60
ft. high on all sides except the north-east, where it joins the plateau.
Here it is defended by a fine wall of _opus quadratum_ of tufa, in
alternate courses of headers and stretchers. Within its area are scanty
remains of the podium of a temple and of buildings of the imperial
period. The road entering it from the south-west is deeply cut in the
rock. The area of the place was apparently twice extended, a further
portion of the narrow plateau, which now bears the name of Civita
Vecchia, being each time taken in and defended by a mound and ditch; the
nearer and better-preserved is about ½ m. from the city and measures
some 2000 ft. long, 133 ft. wide and 66 ft. high, the ditch being some
80 ft. wide. The second, ½ m. farther north-east, is smaller. In the
cliffs below the plateau to the north are early rock habitations, and
upon the plateau primitive Latin pottery has been found. In 1900 a group
of tombs cut in the rock was examined; they are outside the farther
mound and ditch, and belong, therefore, to the period after the second
extension of the city.
See O. Richter, in _Annali dell' Istituto_ (1884), 90; J.H. Parker in
_Archaeologia_, xlix. 169 (1885); A. Pasqui, in _Notizie degli scavi_,
(1900) 53. (T. As.)
ARDEBIL, or ARDABIL, chief town of a district, or sub-province, of same
name, of the province of Azerbaijan in north-western Persia, in lat. 38°
14' N., and long. 48° 21' E., and at an elevation of 4500 ft. It is
situated on the Baluk Su (Fish river), a tributary of the Kara Su (Black
river), which flows northwards to the Aras, and in a fertile plain
bounded on the west by Mount Savelan, a volcanic cone with an altitude
of 15,792 ft. (Russian triangulation), and on the east by the Talish
mountains (9000 ft.). Ardebil has a population of about 10,000, and post
and telegraph offices. Its trade, principally in the hands of Armenians,
is still important, but is chiefly a transit trade between Russia and
Persia by way of Astara, a port on the Caspian 30 m. north-east of
Ardebil. It is surrounded by a ruinous mud wall flanked by towers; a
quarter of a mile east of it stands a mud fort, 180 yds. square,
constructed according to European system of fortification. Inside the
city are the famous sepulchres and shrines of Shaikh Safi ud-din and his
descendant Shah Ismail I. (1502-1524) the first Shiah shah of Persia and
founder of the Safavi dynasty. Plans and photographs of the shrines were
taken in 1897 by Dr F. Sarre of Berlin and published in 1901 (_Denkmäler
Persischer Baukunst_; 65 large folio plates).
European and Chinese merchants resided at Ardebil in the middle ages,
and for a long time the city was a great emporium for central Asian and
Indian merchandise, which was forwarded to Europe via Tabriz, Trebizond
and the Black Sea, and also by way of the Caucasus and the Volga. Since
the beginning of the 16th century, when Persia fell under the sway of
the Safavis, the place has been much frequented by pilgrims who come to
pay their devotions at the shrine of Shaikh Safi. This shrine is a
richly endowed establishment with mosques and college attached, and had
a fine library containing many rare and valuable MSS. presented by Shah
Abbas I. at the beginning of the 17th century, and mostly carried off by
the Russians in 1828 and placed in the library at St Petersburg. The
grand carpet which had covered the floor of one of the mosques for three
centuries was purchased by a traveller about 1890 for 100 pounds, and
was finally acquired by the South Kensington Museum for many thousands.
This beautiful carpet measures 34 ft. by 17 ft. 6 in., and contains 380
hand-tied knots in the square inch, which gives over 32,500,000 knots to
the whole carpet (W. Griggs, _Asian Carpet Designs_). (A. H. S.)
ARDÈCHE, an inland department of south-eastern France, formed in 1790
from the Vivarais, a district of Languedoc. Pop. (1906) 347,140. Area,
2145 sq. m. It is bounded N.W. by the department of Loire, E. by the
Rhone which divides it from Isère and Drôme, S. by Gard and W. by Lozère
and Haute-Loire. The surface of Ardèche is almost entirely covered by
the Cévennes mountains, the main chain, continued in the Boutières
mountains, forming its western boundary. Its centre is traversed from
south-east to north-west by the Coiron range which extends from the
Rhone to the Mont Mézenc (5755 ft.), the highest point in the
department, and the oldest of its many volcanoes. These mountains
separate the southern half of the department, which comprises the basin
of the Ardèche, from the northern half which is watered by numerous
smaller tributaries of the Rhone, the chief of which are the Érieux and
the Doux. A few rivers belong to the Atlantic side of the watershed, the
chief being the Loire, which rises on the western borders of the
department, and the Allier, which for a short distance separates it from
Lozère. Nearly all the rivers of the department are of torrential
swiftness and subject to sudden floods. The scenery through which they
flow is often of great beauty and grandeur. Natural curiosities are the
Pont d'Arc, over the Ardèche, and the Chaussée des Géants, near Vals.
The climate in the valley of the Rhone is, in general, warm, and
sometimes very hot; but westward, as the elevation increases, the cold
becomes more intense and the winters longer. Some districts, especially
in summer, are liable to sudden alterations in the temperature. Rye,
wheat and potatoes are the chief crops cultivated. Good red and white
wines are grown in the hilly region bordering the Rhone valley, the
white wine of St Péray being highly esteemed. The principal fruits are
the chestnut, which is largely exported, the olive and the walnut. In
the rearing of silk-worms, Ardèche ranks second to Gard among French
departments, and great numbers of mulberry trees are grown for the
purposes of this industry. The many goats and sheep of Ardèche make it
one of the chief sources of supply of skins for glove-making. Mines of
coal, iron, lead and zinc are worked, and the quarries furnish hydraulic
lime (Le Teil) and other products. Besides flour-mills, distilleries and
saw-mills, there are important silk-mills and leather-works and
paper-factories. Annonay is the principal industrial town. The
department exports wine, cattle, lime, mineral waters, silk, paper, &c.
Hot springs are numerous, and some of them, as those of Vals, St
Laurent-les-Bains, Celles and Neyrac, are largely resorted to. Ardèche
is served by the Paris-Lyon-Méditerranée railway and has some 43 m. of
navigable waterway. The department is divided into the arrondissements
of Privas, Largentière and Tournon, with 31 cantons and 342 communes. It
forms the diocese of Viviers and part of the archiepiscopal province of
Avignon. It is in the region of the XV. army corps, and within the
circumscription of the _académie_ (educational division) of Grenoble.
Its court of appeal is at Nimes. Privas, the capital, Annonay, Aubenas,
Largentière and Tournon are the principal towns. Bourg-St Andéol,
Thines, Mélas and Cruas have interesting Romanesque churches. Mazan has
remains of a Cistercian abbey founded in the 12th century to which its
vast church belongs. Viviers is an old town with a church of various
styles of architecture and several old houses.
ARDEE, a market-town of Co. Louth, Ireland, in the south parliamentary
division, on the river Dee, 48 m. N. by W. from Dublin on a branch of
the Great Northern railway. Pop. (1901) 1883. It has some trade in grain
and basket-making. The town is of high antiquity, and its name
(Ather-dee) is taken to signify the ford of the Dee. A form Ath-Firdia,
however, is connected with the ancient story of the warrior Cuchullain
of Ulster, who, while defending the ford against the men of Connaught,
was forced to slay many with whom he was on friendly terms, and among
them the warrior Firdia, whom he regarded with special affection. A
castle of the lords of the manor was built early in the 14th century,
and remains, as does another adjacent fortified building of the same
period. Roger de Peppart, lord of the manor early in the 13th century,
founded the present Protestant church and a house of Crutched Friars.
There was also a house of Carmelite Friars, but neither of these
remains. Ardee received its first recorded charter in 1377. It had a
full share in the several Irish wars, being sacked by Edward Bruce
(1315) and by O'Neill (1538); and it was taken by the Irish and
recaptured by the English in the wars of 1641, and was occupied later by
the forces of James II. and of William III. It returned two members to
the Irish parliament. A large rath, or encampment, with remains of
fortifications, stands to the south of the town.
ARDEN, FOREST OF, a district in the north of Warwickshire, England, the
"woodland" as opposed to the "felden," or "fielden," i.e. open country,
in the south, the river Avon separating the two. Originally it was part
of a forest tract of far wider extent than that within the confines of
the county, and now, though lacking the true character of a forest, it
is still unusually well wooded. The undulating surface ranges for the
most part from 250 to 500 ft. in elevation. Wide lands in this district
were held in the time of Edward the Confessor by Alwin, whose son
Thurkill of Warwick, or "of Arden," founded the family of the
Warwickshire Ardens who in Queen Elizabeth's time still held several of
the manors ascribed to Thurkill in _Domesday_. Shakespeare, whose mother
Mary Arden claimed to be of this family, knew the district well, living
as he did at Stratford; and its natural characteristics, then still
unchanged, inspired his pictures of forest life in _As You Like It_. The
name of the Forest of Arden, besides remaining a convenient designation
of a well-marked physical area, is preserved in such place-names as
Henley-in-Arden and Hampton-in-Arden.
ARDENNES, a district covering some portion of the ancient forest of
Ardenne, and extending over the Belgian province of Luxemburg, part of
the grand duchy, and the French department of Ardennes. Bruzen
Lamartinière states in his _Dictionnaire Géographique_ that the Gauls
and Bretons called it by a word signifying "the forest," which was
turned into Latin as _Arduenna silva_, and he thinks it quite probable
that the name was really derived from the Celtic word _ardu_ (dark,
obscure). The Arduenna Silva was the most extensive forest of Gaul, and
Caesar (_Bello Gallico_, lib. vi. cap. 29) describes it as extending
from the Rhine and the confines of the Treviri as far as the limits of
the Nervii. In book v. the Roman conqueror describes his campaign
against Indutiomarus and the Treviri in the Ardenne forest. Strabo gave
it still greater extent, treating it as covering the whole region from
the Rhine to the North Sea. It is safer to give it the more reasonable
dimensions of Caesar, and to accept the verdict of later commentators
that it never extended west of the Scheldt. At the division of the
empire of Charlemagne between the three sons of Louis the Débonnaire,
effected by the pact of Verdun in 843, the forest had become a district
and is called therein _pagus Arduensis_. It was part of the division
that fell to Lothair, and several of the charters of 843 expressly
specify certain towns as being situated in this _pagus_. In the 10th
century the district had become a _comitatus_, subject to the powerful
count of Verdun, who changed his style to that of count of Ardenne.
The Belgian Ardennes may be said now to extend from the Meuse above
Dinant on the west to the grand duchy of Luxemburg and Rhenish Prussia
as far north as the Baraque de Michel on the east, and from a line drawn
eastward from Dinant through Marche, Durbuy and Stavelot to the Hautes
Fagnes on the north, to the French frontier roughly marked by the Semois
valley in the south. Within these limits there are still some of the
finest woods in Europe, which seem to have come down to us almost intact
from the days of the Arduenna of Caesar. Notable among these portions of
the great forest are the woods of St Hubert, the woods round La Roche,
and those of the Amerois, Herbeumont, and Chiny on the Semois. In the
grand duchy the forest has almost entirely disappeared, but owing to the
compulsory law of replanting in Belgium this fate does not seem likely
to attend the Belgian Ardennes.
In addition to being a forest the Ardennes is a plateau, and it offers
to the geologist a most interesting field of investigation. The greater
part of the Ardennes is occupied by a large area of Devonian beds,
through which rise the Cambrian masses of Rocroi and Stavelot, and a few
others of smaller size. Upon the folded slates and schists which
constitute these inliers the Devonian rests with marked unconformity;
but north of the ridge of Condroz Ordovician and Silurian beds make
their appearance. Near Dinant carboniferous beds are infolded among the
Devonian. Along the northern margin lies the intensely folded belt which
constitutes the coalfield of Namur, and, beneath the overlying Mesozoic
beds, is continued to the Boulonnais, Dover and beyond. The southern
boundary of this belt is formed by a great thrust-plane, the _faille du
midi_, along which the Devonian beds of the south have been thrust over
the carboniferous beds of the coalfield.
The Ardennes are the holiday ground of the Belgian people, and much of
this region is still unknown except to the few persons who by a happy
chance have discovered its remoter and hitherto well-guarded charms.
There is still an immense quantity of wild game to be found in the
Ardennes, including red and roe deer, wild boar, &c. The shooting is
preserved either by the few great landed proprietors left in the
country, or by the communes, who let the right of shooting to
individuals. Occasionally it is still stated in the press that wolves
have been seen in the Ardennes, but this is a mere fiction. The last
wolf was destroyed there in the 18th century.
ARDENNES, a department of France on the N.E. frontier, deriving its name
from that of the forest, and formed in 1790 from parts of Champagne,
Picardy and Hainault. Pop. (1906) 317,505. Area, 2028 sq. m. It is
bounded N. and N.E. by Belgium, E. by the department of Meuse, S. by
that of Marne, and W. by that of Aisne. In shape it is quadrilateral
with a cape-like prolongation into Belgium on the north. The slope of
the department is from north-east to south-west, though its longest
river, the Meuse, entering it in the south-east, pursues a winding
course of 111 m. in a north-westerly, and afterwards through deep gorges
in a northerly, direction. The other principal river, the Aisne, crosses
the southern border and takes a northerly, then a westerly course,
separating the region known as Champagne Pouilleuse from the more
elevated plateau of Argonne which forms the central zone of the
department and stretches to the left bank of the Meuse. The highest
points of the department are found in the wooded highlands of the
Ardennes which, with an altitude varying between 980 and 1640 ft., cover
the north and north-east. The climate is comparatively mild in the
south-west, but becomes colder and more rainy towards the north and
north-east. Agriculture is carried on to most advantage in the
Champagne and Argonne. Wheat and oats are the predominant cereals.
Potatoes, rye, lucerne and other kinds of forage are also important
crops. Pasturage is found chiefly on the banks of the Aisne and Meuse
and on the plateau of Rocroi in the north. Horse-raising is carried on
in the neighbourhood of Buzancy in the south, and at Bourg-Fièele in the
north. Fruit-growing is confined to the west and central districts. The
working of slate is very important, especially in the neighbourhood of
Fumay, and quarries producing freestone, lime-stone and other minerals
are found in several places. Flour-mills, saw-mills, sugar-works,
distilleries and leather-works are scattered over the department, but
iron-founding and various branches of metal-working which are active
along the valley of the Meuse (Nouzon, &c.) are the chief industries. To
these may be added wool-weaving, centred at Sedan, and minor industries
such as the manufacture of basket-work, wooden shoes, &c. Coal and raw
wool are prominent imports, while iron goods, cloth, timber, live-stock,
alcohol and the products of the soil are exported. Various branches of
the Eastern railway traverse the department. The Meuse is canalized
within the department, and the Canal des Ardennes, uniting that river
with the Aisne, and the lateral canal of the Aisne are together about 65
m. long. Ardennes is divided into five arrondissements: Mézières,
Rocroi, Rethel, Vouziers and Sedan, with 31 cantons and 503 communes.
The department forms part of the ecclesiastical province of Reims and of
the circumscriptions of the appeal-court of Nancy and the VI. army
corps. In educational matters, it is included in the _academic_
(educational area) of Lille. Mézières, the capital, Charleville, Rocroi,
Sedan and Rethel are the chief towns. Outside them its finest examples
of architecture are the churches of Mouzon (13th century) and Vouziers
(15th century).
ARDGLASS ("Green Height"): a small town of Co. Down, Ireland, in the
east parliamentary division, at the head of a rocky bay, in a
picturesque situation between two hills, 32 m. S. by E. of Belfast on a
branch of the Belfast & Co. Down railway. Pop. (1901) 501. Soon after
the Norman invasion it became of the first importance as a port, a fact
attested by the remains of no fewer than five castles in close
proximity, which give the town a picturesque aspect. There are also an
ancient church crowning the eastern hill, and a curious fortified
warehouse (called the New Works), dating probably from the 14th century,
when a trading company was established here under a grant from Henry IV.
Ardglass was a royal burgh and sent a representative to the Irish
parliament. The chief industry is the herring fishery. Ships of 500 tons
may enter the harbour at all times. In summer Ardglass is a frequented
resort of visitors; good bathing and a golf links contribute to its
attractions.
ARDITI, LUIGI (1822-1903), Italian musical composer and conductor, was
born in Piedmont, and studied music at the Conservatoire in Milan,
starting professionally as a violinist, and touring with Bottesini, the
double-bass player, in the United States in 1847. He began composing at
an early age, and in 1840 produced an overture, followed by an opera _I
Briganti_ in 1841, and other works. He paid frequent visits to America,
conducting the opera in New York, where he produced his _La Spia_ in
1856. In 1858 he became conductor of the opera at Her Majesty's theatre
in London, and both in London and abroad he became famous in this
capacity, having the reputation of being Madame Patti's favourite
conductor. His vocal waltz _Il Bacio_ was often sung by her. In 1896 he
published his _Reminiscences_, and after a long and active musical life
he died at Brighton on the 1st of May 1903.
ARDMORE, a township and the county-seat of Carter county, Oklahoma,
U.S.A., just S. of the Arbuckle Mountains, about 120 m. S. by E. of
Guthrie. Pop. (1900) 5681; (1907) 8759 (2122 being negroes, and 108
Indians); (1910) 8618. It is served by the Chicago, Rock Island &
Pacific, the St Louis & San Francisco, and the Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fé
railways. Ardmore is the market-town and distributing point for the
surrounding agricultural region, which is the home of a large part of
the Chickasaw and Choctaw nations. It is situated 890 ft. above the sea
in a cotton and grain producing region, in which cattle are raised and
fruit and vegetables grown; coal, oil, natural gas and rock asphalt
(which is used for paving the streets of Ardmore) are found in the
vicinity. Ardmore is an important cotton market, and has cotton gins, a
cotton compress, machine shops, bridge works, foundries, bottling works
and manufactories of cotton-seed oil, brick, concrete, flour, brooms,
mattresses and dressed lumber. At Ardmore are the Saint Agnes Academy, a
Catholic school for girls, and Saint Agnes College for boys, a
conservatory of music, Hargrove College, and the Selvidge Commercial
College. Near Ardmore is a summer school on the Chautauqua (q.v.)
system. Ardmore was founded in 1887, and was incorporated in 1898.
ARDRES, a town of northern France in the department of Pas-de-Calais,
10½ m. by rail S.S.E. of Calaís', with which it is also connected by a
canal. Pop. (1906) 1269. The "Field of the Cloth of Gold," where Henry
VIII. of England and Francis I. of France met in 1520, was at Balinghem
in the immediate neighbourhood. The town is an important market for
cattle.
ARDROSSAN, a seaport, burgh of barony, and police burgh of Ayrshire,
Scotland, 32 m. from Glasgow by the Glasgow & South-Western railway, and
29½ m. by the Lanarkshire & Ayrshire branch of the Caledonian railway.
Pop. (1901) 6077. The rise of Ardrossan was due to the enterprise of
Hugh, 12th earl of Eglinton, who began the construction of the present
town and harbour in 1806. The harbour was intended to be in connexion
with a canal from Glasgow to Ardrossan, but this was only completed as
far as Johnstone. Owing to the costliness of the undertaking, and the
death of the earl in 1819, the works were suspended after an outlay of
£100,000, but his successor completed the scheme on a reduced scale at
an expense of another £100,000. The dock accommodation has since been
considerably extended, and the town enjoys great prosperity. Steamers
run every week-day to Arran and Belfast, and during summer there is a
service also to Douglas in the Isle of Man. The exports consist
principally of coal and iron from collieries and ironworks in the
neighbourhood; and the imports of timber, ores and general goods.
Shipbuilding thrives and the fisheries are important. The town is
governed by a provost and council.
SALTCOATS (pop. 8120), a mile to the south, is a popular seaside resort,
with a brisk trade, due to its proximity to Ardrossan and Stevenston;
the making of salt, once a leading industry, has ceased.
Ardrossan dates from an early period. The name Arthur of Ardrossan is
found in connexion with a charter dated 1226; and Sir Fergus of
Ardrossan accompanied Edward Bruce in his Irish expedition in 1316, and
in 1320 signed the appeal to the pope, made by the barons of Scotland,
against the aggressions of England. The family of Ardrossan is now
merged, by marriage, in that of the earl of Eglinton and Winton. The
castle where Wallace surprised the English garrison and threw their
corpses into the dungeon, grimly styled "Wallace's Larder," was finally
destroyed by Cromwell, who is said to have used part of its masonry for
the construction of the fort at Ayr; but its ruins still exist.
AREA, a Latin word, originally meaning a threshing-floor, namely a
raised space in a field exposed on all sides to the wind; now applied in
English (1) to a plot of ground on which a structure is to be erected,
(2) to the court or sunk space in the front or rear of a building, (3)
to the superficial space covered by a district, country, &c., or by a
building or court.
ARECIBO, a city and port on the north coast of Porto Rico, at the mouth
of a small stream called the Rio Grande de Arecibo, and contiguous to
one of the most fertile regions of the island. Pop. (1899) 8008; of the
tributary district, about 30,000; (1910) 9612. It is connected with San
Juan, Mayaguezand Ponce by railway. It is a well-built and active
commercial city, and has a large export trade in coffee and sugar. The
harbour is an open roadstead, very dangerous to shipping in northerly
winds, and the discharge and loading of cargoes is effected by means of
lighters at considerable risk and expense. Arecibo was founded in 1788.
AREMBERG, or ARENBERG, formerly a German duchy of the Holy Roman Empire
in the circle of the Rhine Palatinate, between Julich and Cologne, and
now belonging to the Prussian administrative district of Coblenz. The
hamlet of Aremberg is at the foot of a basalt hill 2067 ft. high, on the
summit of which are the ruins of the castle which was the original seat
of the family of Aremberg.
The lords of Aremberg first appear early in the 12th century, but had
died out in the male line by 1279. From the marriage of the heiress
Mathilda (1282-1299) with Engelbert II., count of La Marck (d. 1328),
sprang two sons. The elder of these, Adolf II, (d. 1347), inherited the
countship of La Marck; the second, Engelbert III. (d. 1387), the
lordship of Aremberg, which he increased by his marriage with Marie de
Looz, heiress of Lumain. The lordship of Aremberg remained in his family
till 1547, when it passed, by his marriage with Margaret, sister of the
childless Robert III., to John of Barbancon, of the great house of
Ligne, who assumed the name and arms of Aremberg, and was created a
count of the Empire by Charles V. He was governor of Friesland, and for
a while commanded the Spanish and Catholic forces against the "beggars,"
falling at the battle of Heiligerlee in 1568. His son Charles (d. 1618)
greatly increased the possessions of the house by his marriage with Ann
of Croy, heiress of Croy and of Chimay-Aerschot, and in 1576 was made
prince of the Empire by Maximilian II. His grandson, Philip Francis, was
made duke in 1644 by the emperor Ferdinand III., and was succeeded by
his brother Charles Eugene (d. 1681), who married Marie Henriette de
Vergy de Cusance, heiress of Perwez (d. 1700). Their son, Duke Philip
Charles Francis, was killed in 1691 fighting against the Turks, and was
succeeded by Leopold (1754), a distinguished soldier of the War of the
Spanish Succession, and patron of Rousseau and Voltaire. His son Charles
(d. 1778) was an Austrian field-marshal during the Seven Years' War, and
married Louise Margaret of La Marck-Lumain, heiress of the countship of
Schleiden and lordship of Saffenberg. By the peace of Luneville
(February 1801), the next duke, Louis Engelbert, lost the greater part
of his ancestral domain, but received in compensation Meppen and
Recklinghausen. On the establishment of the confederation of the Rhine,
his son Prosper Louis (to whom, becoming blind, he had ceded his domains
in 1803) became a member (1806), and showed great devotion to the
interests of France; but in 1810 he lost his sovereignty, Napoleon
incorporating Meppen with France and Recklinghausen with the grand-duchy
of Berg, and indemnifying him by a rent of 240,702 francs. In 1815 he
received back his possessions, which were mediatized by the congress of
Vienna, Recklinghausen falling to Prussia and Meppen to Hanover. On
account of the one portion he became a peer of the Westphalian estates,
and by the other a member of the upper house in Hanover. George IV. of
England (9th May 1826) elevated the duke's Hanoverian possessions to a
dukedom under the title of Aremberg Meppen. His brother Auguste Raymond,
Comte de la Marck (1753-1833), became famous during the early stages of
the French Revolution for his friendship with Mirabeau (q.v.). Duke
Prosper Louis died in 1861, and was succeeded by his son Engelbert (d.
1875), who was followed in his turn by his son Engelbert (b. 1872).
The duke of Aremberg is one of the wealthiest of the great continental
nobles. His feudal domain in Germany covers an area of over 1100 sq. m.,
besides which he has large estates in Belgium and France. The duke has
residences in Brussels, where he has a famous collection of pictures,
and at the château of Klemenswerth near Meppen.
ARENA (Lat. for "sand"), the central area of an amphitheatre on which
the gladiatorial displays took place, its name being derived from the
sand with which it was covered. The word is applied sometimes to any
level open space on which spectacles take place.
ARENDAL, a seaport of Norway, in Nedenaes _amt_ (county), on the south
coast, 46 m. N.E. from Christiansand. Pop. (1900) 11,155. It rises
picturesquely above the mouth of the river Nid, with a good harbour
protected by an island from the open waters of the Skagerrack. The town
itself occupies several islets, and some of the houses are supported
above the water on piles. The chief exports are timber (very largely
exported to Great Britain), wood-pulp, sealskins and felspar. In 1879
Arendal ranked second (after Christiania) as a ship-owning port; in 1899
it had dropped to the fifth place. In and near the town are factories
for wood-pulp, paper, cotton and joinery; and at Fevig, 8 m. north-east,
a shipbuilding yard and engineering works. The neighbourhood is
remarkable for the number of beautiful and rare minerals found there;
one of these, a variety of epidote, was formerly called Arendalite.
Louis Philippe stayed here for some time during his exile.
ARENIG GROUP, in geology, the name now applied by British geologists to
the lowest stage of the Ordovician System in Britain. The term was first
used by Adam Sedgwick in 1847 with reference to the "Arenig Ashes and
Porphyries" in the neighbourhood of Arenig Fawr, in Merioneth, North
Wales.
The rock-succession in the Arenig district has been recognized by W.G.
Fearnsides ("On the Geology of Arenig Fawr and Moel Llanfnant,"
_Q.J.G.S._ vol. lxi., 1905, pp. 608-640, with maps) as follows:--
Ordovician
Caradoc / _Dicranograptus_--shales.
\ Defrel or _Orthis_--limestone.
/ Rhyolitic ashes = Upper \ Upper Ashes
| Massive ashes = Middle > of
Llandeilo < Acid andesitic ashes = Lower / Arenig.
Group | Daerfawr Shales. Zone of _Didymograptus Murchisoni_.
| Platy ashes \ Lower Ashes of Arenig
\ Great Agglomerate / (Hypersthene Andesites).
/ Olchfa or _Bifidus--shales_ (_Didymograptus bifidus_).
| Filltirgerig or _Hirundo_ Beds \ _Didymograptus
Arenig < Erewnt or _Ogygia_--limestone / Hirundo._
Group | Henllan or _Calymene_--ashes \ _Didymograptus
| Llyfnant or _Extensus_ flags / extensus._
\ Basal Grit
\~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/
(unconformity)
The above succession is divisible into: (1) a lower series of gritty and
calcareous sediments, the "Arenig Series," as it is now understood; (2)
a middle series, mainly volcanic, with shales, the "Llandeilo Series";
and (3) the shales and limestones of the Bala or Caradoc Stage. It was
to the middle series (2) that Sedgwick first applied the term "Arenig."
In the typical region and in North Wales generally the Arenig series
appears to be unconformable upon the Cambrian rocks; this is not the
case in South Wales. The Arenig series is represented in North Wales by
the Garth grit and Ty-Obry beds, by the Shelve series of the Corndon
district, the Skiddaw slates of the Lake District, the Ballantrae group
of Ayrshire, and by the Ribband series of slates and shales in Wicklow
and Wexford. It may be mentioned here that the "Llanvirn" Series of H.
Hicks was equivalent to the bifidus-shales and the Lower Llandeilo
Series.
REFERENCES.-Adam Sedgwick, _Synopsis of the Classification of the
British Palaeozoic Rocks_ (1885); Sir A. Ramsay, "North Wales," _Geol.
Survey Memoir_, vol. iii.; C. Lapworth, _Ann. Mag. Nat, Hist._ vol.
vi., 1880; G.A.J. Cole and C.V. Jennings, _Q.J.G.S._ vol. xlv., 1889;
C.V. Jennings and G.J. Williams, _ibid._ vol. xlvii., 1891; Messrs
Crosfield and Skeat, _ibid_. vol. lii., 1896; G.L. Elles, _Geol.
Mag._, 1904; J.E. Marr and T. Roberts, _Q.J.G.S._, 1885; H. Hicks,
_ibid._ vol. xxxi., 1875. See also ORDOVICIAN. (J. A. H.)
AREOI, or AREOITI, a secret society which originated in Tahiti and later
extended its influence to other South Pacific islands. To its ranks both
sexes were admitted. The society was primarily of a religious character.
Members styled themselves descendants of Oro-Tetifa, the Polynesian god,
and were divided into seven or more grades, each having its
characteristic tattooing. Chiefs were at once qualified for the highest
grade, but ordinary members attained promotion only through initiatory
rites. The Areois enjoyed great privileges, and were considered as
depositaries of knowledge and as mediators between God and man. They
were feared, too, as ministers of the taboo and were entitled to
pronounce a kind of excommunication for offences against its rules. The
chief religious purpose of the society was the worship of the generative
powers of nature, and the ritual and ceremonies of initiation were
grossly licentious. But the Areois were also a social force. They aimed
at communism in all things. The women members were common property; the
period of cohabitation was limited to three days, and the female Areois
were bound by oath at initiation to strangle at birth any child born to
them. If, however, the infant was allowed to survive half an hour only,
it was spared; but to have the right of keeping it the mother must find
a male Areoi willing to adopt it. The Areois travelled about, devoting
their whole time to feasting, dancing (the chief dance of the women
being the grossly indecent _Timorodee_ mentioned by Captain Cook), and
debauchery, varied by elaborate realistic stage presentments of the
lives and loves of gods and legendary heroes.
AREOPAGUS ([Greek: Hareios Pagos]), a bare, rocky hill, 370 ft. high,
immediately west of the northern rim of the acropolis of Athens. The
ancients interpreted the name as "Hill of Ares." Though accepted by some
modern scholars, this derivation of the word is rendered improbable by
the fact that Ares was not worshipped on the Areopagus. A more
reasonable explanation connects the name with _Arae_, "Curses," commonly
known as _Semnae_, "Awful Goddesses," whose shrine was a cave at the
foot of the hill, of which they were the guardian deities (Aeschyl.
Eumen. 417, 804; Schol. on Lucian, vol. iii. p. 68, ed. Jacobitz; Paus.
i. 28. 6).
The Boule, or Council, of the Areopagus ([Greek: he en Harehio Pago
boule]), named after the hill, is to be compared in origin and
fundamental character with the council of chiefs or elders which we find
among the earliest Germans, Celts, Romans, and other primitive peoples.
Under the kings of Athens it must have closely resembled the Boule of
elders described by Homer; and there can be no doubt that it was the
chief factor in the work of transforming the kingship into an
aristocracy, in which it was to be supreme. It was composed of
ex-archons. Aristotle attributes to it for the period of aristocracy the
appointment to all offices (_Ath. Pol_. viii. 2), the chief work of
administration, and the right to fine or otherwise punish in cases, not
only of violation of laws, but also of immorality (_ibid._ iii. 6; cf.
Isoc. vii. 46; Androtion and Philochorus, in Müller, _Frag. Hist.
Graec_. i. 387. 17, 394 60).[1] This evidence is corroborated by the
remnants of political power left to it in later time, after its
importance had been greatly curtailed, and by the designation Boule,
which in itself indicates that the body so termed was once a state
council. In a passage bearing incidentally upon the early constitution
of Athens, Thucydides (i. 126. 8) informs us that at the time of the
Cylonian insurrection the Athenians, we may suppose in their assembly
([Greek: Hekklesia]), commissioned the archons with absolute power to
deal with the trouble at their discretion. From this passage, if we
accept the Aristotelian view as to the early supremacy of the
Areopagitic council, we must infer that a modification of the
aristocracy in a popular direction had at that time already taken place.
In addition to its political functions, the council from the time of
Draco, if not earlier, exercised jurisdiction in certain cases of
homicide (see below, _ad fin_.). The assumption that in their criminal
jurisdiction the Areopagites were called Ephetae till after the
legislation of Draco (of. Philoch. 58, in Müller, _ibid_. 394) would
explain the otherwise obscure circumstances that, according to Plutarch
(_Sol_. 19), Draco (q.v.) in his laws mentioned only the Ephetae, and
that Pollux (viii. 125) included the Areopagus among the localities in
which sat the Ephetae.[2] The same assumption would supply a reason for
the notion entertained by many writers of later time that the
Areopagitic council was instituted by Solon (q.v.)--a notion partly
explained also by the desire of political thinkers to ascribe to Solon
the making of a complete constitution. Conformably with the view here
presented we may suppose that the name "Boule of the Areopagus"
developed from the simple term "Boule" in order to distinguish it from
the new Boule (q.v.), or Council of Four Hundred. The popular reforms of
Solon (594 B.C.), so far as they were carried into effect, tended
practically to limit the Council of the Areopagus, though
constitutionally it retained all its earlier powers and functions,
augmented by the right to try persons accused of conspiracy against the
state (Arist. _Ath. Pol._ viii. 4). In the exercise of its duty as the
protector of the laws it must have had power to inhibit in the Four
Hundred, or in the Ecclesia, a measure which it judged unconstitutional
or in any way prejudicial to the state, and in the levy of fines for
violation of law or moral usage it remained irresponsible. As censor of
the conduct of citizens it inquired into every man's source of income
and punished the idle (Plut. _Sol._ 22).
The tyrants (560-510 B.C.) left to the council its cognizance of murder
cases (Demosth. xxiii. 66; Arist. _Ath. Pol_. xvi. 8) and probably the
nominal enjoyment of all its prerogatives; but their method of filling
the archonship with their own kinsmen and creatures gradually converted
the Areopagites into willing supporters of tyranny. Though hostile,
therefore, to the policy of Cleisthenes, their council seems to have
suffered no direct abridgment of power from his reforms. After his
legislation it gradually changed character and political sentiment by
the annual admission of ex-archons who had held office under a popular
constitution. In 487 B.C., however, the introduction of the lot as a
part of the process of filling the archonship (see ARCHON) began to
undermine its ability. This deterioration was necessarily slow; it could
not have advanced far in 480 B.C., when on the eve of the battle of
Salamis, as we are informed (Arist. _Polit._ viii. 4, p. 1304a, 17;
_Ath. Pol._ xxiii. 25; Plut. _Them._ 10; Cic. _Off._ i. 22, 75), the
council of the Areopagus succeeded in manning the fleet by providing pay
for the seamen, thereby regaining the confidence and respect of the
people. The patriotic action of the council and its attendant popularity
enabled it to recover considerable administrative control, which it
continued to exercise for the next eighteen years, although its
deterioration in ability, becoming every year more noticeable, as well
as the rapid rise of democratic ideas, prevented it from fully
re-establishing the supremacy which Aristotle, with some exaggeration,
attributes to it for this period. Its prestige was seriously undermined
by the conduct of individual members, whose corrupt use of power was
exposed and punished by Ephialtes, the democratic leader. Following up
this advantage, Ephialtes (462 B.C.), and less prominently Archestratus
and Pericles (q.v.), proposed and carried measures for the transfer of
most of its functions to the Council of Five Hundred, the Ecclesia, and
the popular courts of law (Arist. _Ath. Pol._ xxv. 2, xxvii. 1, xxxv. 2;
Plut. _Per_. 9). Among these functions were probably jurisdiction in
cases of impiety, the supervision of magistrates and the censorship of
the morals of citizens, the inhibition of illegal and unconstitutional
resolutions in the Five Hundred and the Ecclesia, the examination into
the fitness of candidates for office, and the collection of rents from
the sacred property (of. Wilamowitz-Mollendorff, _Arist. u. Ath._ ii.
186-197; Busolt, _Griech. Gesch._ (2nd ed.) iii. 269-294; G. Gilbert,
_Const. Antiq. of Sparta and Athens_, Eng. trans., 154 f.). It retained
jurisdiction in cases of homicide and the care of sacred olive trees.
From this time to the establishment of the Thirty (462-404 B.C.) the
Areopagitic council, degraded still further by the opening of the
archonship to the Zeugitae (457 B.C.) and by the absolute use of the lot
in filling the office, was a political nullity. The first indication of
a revival of its prestige is to be traced in the action attributed to it
by Lysias during the siege of Athens (404 B.C.) (in Eratosth. 69:
[Greek: prattousês men tês en Areiô Pagô boulês sôtêria]). After the
surrender of Athens and the appointment of the Thirty, the repeal of the
laws of Ephialtes and Archestratus prepared the way for the
rehabilitation of the council as guardian of the constitution by the
restored democracy (Arist. _Ath. Pol._ xxxv. 2; decree of Tisamenus, in
Andoc. i. 84; cf. Din. i. 9). Although under the new conditions the
Areopagites could not hope to recover their full supremacy, they did
exercise considerable political influence, especially in crises. In the
time of Demosthenes, accordingly, we find them annulling the election of
individuals to offices for which they were unfit (Plut. _Phoc_. 16),
exercising during a crisis a disciplinary power extending to life and
death over all the Athenians "in conformity with ancestral law,"
procuring the banishment of one, the racking of another, and the
infliction of capital punishment on several of the citizens. This
authority seems to have been delegated to them by the assembly with
reference either to individual cases or temporarily to the whole body of
Athenians (Din. i. 10, 62 f.; Aeschin. iii. 252; Lye. _Leoc_. 52;
Demosth. xviii. 132 f.; Plut. _Demosth_. 14). Religion, too, was their
care (Pseud. Demosth. lix. 80 f.). Lycurgus (_ibid_.) even goes so far
as to claim chat by their action during the crisis after Chaeroneia they
had saved the state. After the period of the great orators their
influence continued to grow. Demetrius of Phalerum empowered them to
assist the _gynaeconomi_ in supervising festivals held in private houses
(_Philoch_. in Müller, _ibid_. i. 408. 143). Under Roman supremacy in
addition to earlier functions they had jurisdiction in cases of forgery,
tampering with the standard measures, and probably other high crimes,
the supervision of buildings, and the care of religion and of education
(Cic. _Fam_. xiii. i; _Att_. v. 9; Tac. _Ann_. ii. 55; Plut. _Cic_. 24;
_C.I.G._ i. 123. 9; _C.I.A._ ii. 476; iii. 703, 714, 716; Acts xvii.
19). Their council acquired, too, in conjunction with the assembly, with
or without the cooperation of the Five Hundred (or Six Hundred), the
right to pass decrees and to represent their city in foreign relations
(_C.I.A._ iii. 10, 31, 40, 41, 454, 457, 458). From the overthrow of the
Thirty to the end of their history they enjoyed a high reputation for
ability and integrity (Isoc. vii.; Demosth. xxiii. 65 f.; Val. Max.
viii. 1. _Amb_. 2; Gell. xii. 7; Lucian, _Bis Acc._ iv. 12. 14). About
A.D. 400 their council came to an end (Theodoret, _Curat_. ix. 55).
With regard to the jurisdiction of the council in cases of homicide, the
procedure, so far as it may be gathered from the orators and other
sources, was as follows:--accusations were brought by relatives within
the circle of brothers' and sisters' children, supported by the wider
kin and the phratry (Demosth. xliii. 57). On receiving the accusation
the king-archon by proclamation warned the accused to keep away from
temples and other places forbidden to such persons. He made three
investigations of the case in the three successive months, and brought
it to trial in the fourth month. As he was forbidden to hand a case over
to his successor, it resulted that in the last three months of the year
no accusations of homicide could be brought (Ant. vi. 42). After the
examination he assigned the case to the proper court, and presided over
it during the trial, which took place in the open air, that the judges
and the accuser might not be polluted by being brought under the same
roof with the offender (Ant. v. 11). The accuser and the accused,
standing on two white stones termed "Relentlessness" ([Greek: Anaideia])
and "Outrage" ([Greek: Hubois]) respectively (Paus. i. 28. 5), bound
themselves to the truth by most solemn oaths (Demosth. xxiii. 68). Each
was allowed two speeches, and the trial lasted three days. After the
first speech the accused, unless charged with parricide, was at liberty
to withdraw into exile (Poll. viii. 117). If condemned, he lost his
life, and his property was confiscated. A tie vote acquitted (Aeschyl.
_Eumen_. 735; Ant. v. 51; Aeschin. iii. 252). See further GREEK LAW.
AUTHORITIES.--Among other works may be mentioned E. Dugit, _Étude sur
I'Areopage athenien_ (Paris, 1867); E. Caillemer, "Areopagus," in
Daremberg et Saglio, _Dict. d. Antiq. grecq. et rom._ (Paris, 1873) i.
395-404; A. Philippi, _Areopag und Epheten_ (Berlin, 1874). The
discovery of the Aristotelian "Constitution of Athens" (_Ath. Pol._)
has largely rendered obsolete all works published before 1891. See
Hermann-Thumser, _Griechische Staatsaltertumer_ (6th ed., Freiburg,
1892), 365-371, 387-391, 788; U. von Wilamowitz-Mollendorff,
_Aristoteles und Athen_ (Berlin, 1893), ii. 186-200; J.J. Terwen, _De
Areopago Atheniensium Quaestiones Variae_ (Utrecht, 1894); G. Gilbert,
_Constitutional Antiquities of Athens and Sparta_ (Eng. trans., London
and New York, 1895), 114, 122, 137, 154, 282; F. Cauer, "Aischylos und
der Areopag," in _Rhein. Mus._ (1895), N.F. i. 348-356; Wachsmuth and
Thalheim, s.v. "Areios pagos" in Pauly-Wissowa, _Realencycl. d. kl.
Altertumswiss_. (Stuttgart, 1896), ii. 627-633; G. de Sanctis,[Greek:
Atthis], _Storia delta Repubblica Ateniese_ (Rome, 1898); L. Ziehen,
"Drakontische Gesetzgebung," in _Rhein. Mus._ (1899), N.F. liv.
321-344. See also CLEISTHENES; PERICLES and ATHENS. (G. W. B.)
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Neither Herodotus nor Thucydides tells us anything as to its
powers; but their silence on this point need not surprise us, as they
had no especial occasion for referring to the subject, and in general
it may be said that before the 4th century B.C. writers took little
interest in the constitutional history of the remote past. The
statement of Thucydides (i. 126. 8) that at the time of the Cylonian
insurrection the nine archons attended to a great part of the
business of government does not contradict the Aristotelian view, for
their administration may well have been under Areopagitic supervision
(see also ARCHON); and, as is stated in the text, the supremacy of
the council may have already suffered considerable limitation. _The
Eumenides of Aeschylus_ is a glorification of the institution, though
for obvious reasons it is there represented as an essentially
judicial body.
[2] It is possible also to explain the alleged absence of reference
to the Areopagitic council in the Draconian laws by the supposition
that Solon, while leaving untouched the Draconian laws concerned with
the cases of homicide which came before the Ephetae, substituted a
law of his own regarding wilful murder, which fell within the
jurisdiction of the Areopagites. This view finds strong support in
the circumstance that the copy of the Draconian laws (_C.I.A._ i.
61), made in pursuance of a decree of the people of the year 409-408
B.C., does not contain the provision for cases of premeditated
homicide; cf. G. de Sanctis, [Greek: Attis], 135. The relation of the
Ephetae to the court of the Areopagus is obscure; cf. Philippi, _Der
Areopag und die Epheten_ (Berlin, 1874); Busolt, _Griechische
Geschichte_ (2nd ed.), ii. 138 ff.
AREQUIPA, a coast department of southern Peru, bounded N. by the
departments of Ayacucho and Cuzco, E. by Puno and Moquegua, S. and W. by
Moquegua and the Pacific. It is divided into seven provinces. Area,
21,947 sq. m.; pop. (1896) 229,007. It is traversed by an important
railway line from Mollendo (Islay) to Puno, on Lake Titicaca, 325 m.
long, with extensions to Santa Rosa, Peru and La Paz, Bolivia. The
highest point reached by this line is 14,660 ft. The department includes
an arid, sand-covered region on the coast traversed by deep gorges
formed by river courses, and a partly barren, mountainous region inland
composed of the high Cordillera and its spurs toward the coast, between
which are numerous highly fertile valleys watered by streams from the
snow-clad peaks. These produce cotton, rice, sugar-cane, wheat, coffee,
Indian corn, barley, potatoes and fruit. The mountainous region is rich
in minerals, and there is a valuable deposit of borax near the capital,
Arequipa.
AREQUIPA, a city of southern Peru, capital of the department of the same
name, about 90 m. N.E. by N. of its seaport Mollendo (107 m. by rail),
and near the south-west foot of the volcano Misti which rises to a
height of 19,029 ft. above sea-level. The population was estimated at
35,000 in 1896. The city is provided with a tram line, and is connected
with the coast at Mollendo (Islay) by a railway 107 m. long, and with
Puno, on Lake Titicaca, by an extension of the same line 218 m. long.
The city occupies a green, fertile valley of the Rio Chile, 7753 ft.
above the sea, surrounded by an arid, barren desert. It is built on the
usual rectangular plan and the streets are wide and well paved. The
edifices in general are low, and are massively built with thick walls
and domed ceilings to resist earthquakes, and lessen the danger from
falling masonry. The material used is a soft, porous magnesian
limestone, which is well adapted to the purpose in view. Arequipa is the
seat of a bishopric created in 1609-1612, and possesses a comparatively
modern cathedral, its predecessor having been destroyed by fire in 1849.
It has several large churches, and formerly possessed five monasteries
and three nunneries, which have been closed and their edifices devoted
to educational and other public purposes. The religious element has
always been a dominating factor in the life of the city. A university,
founded in 1825, three colleges, one of them dating from colonial times,
a medical school, and a public library, founded in 1821, are
distinguishing features of the city, which has always taken high rank in
Peru for its learning and liberalism, as well as for its political
restlessness. The city's water-supply is derived from the Chile river
and is considered dangerous to new arrivals because of the quantity of
saline and organic matter contained. The climate is temperate and
healthy, and the fertile valley (10 m. long by 5 m. wide) surrounding
the city produces an abundance of cereals, fruits and vegetables common
to both hot and temperate regions. Pears and strawberries grow side by
side with oranges and granadillas, and are noted for their size and
flavour. The trade of the city is principally in Bolivian
products--mineral ores, alpaca wool, &c.--but it also receives and
exports the products of the neighbouring Peruvian provinces, and the
output of the borax deposits in the neighbourhood. Arequipa was founded
by Pizarro in 1540, and has been the scene of many events of importance
in the history of Peru. It was greatly damaged in the earthquakes of
1582, 1609, 1784 and 1868, particularly in the last. It was captured by
the Chileans in 1883, near the close of the war between Chile and Peru.
ARES, in ancient Greek mythology, the god of war, or rather of battle,
son of Zeus and Hera. (For the Roman god, identified with Ares, see
MARS.) As contrasted with Athena, who added to her other attributes that
of being the goddess of well-conducted military operations, he
personifies brute strength and the wild rage of conflict. His delight is
in war and bloodshed; he loves fighting for fighting's sake, and takes
the side of the one or the other combatant indifferently, regardless of
the justice of the cause. His quarrelsomeness was regarded as inherited
from his mother, and it may have been only as an illustration of the
perpetual strife between Zeus and Hera that Ares was accounted their
son. According to a later tradition, he was the son of Hera (Juno)
alone, who became pregnant by touching a certain flower (Ovid, _Fasti_,
v. 255). All the gods, even Zeus, hate him, but his bitterest enemy is
Athena, who fells him to the ground with a huge stone. Splendidly armed,
he goes to battle, sometimes on foot, sometimes in the war chariot made
ready by his sons Deimos and Phobos (Panic and Fear) by whom he is
usually accompanied. In his train also are found Enyo, the goddess of
war who delights in bloodshed and the destruction of cities; his sister,
Eris, goddess of fighting and strife; and the Keres, goddesses of death,
whose function it is especially to roam the battle-field, carrying off
the dead to Hades. In later accounts (and even in the _Odyssey_) Ares'
character is somewhat toned down; thus, in the "Homeric" hymn to Ares he
is addressed as the assistant of Themis (Justice), the enemy of tyrants,
and leader of the just. It is to be noted, however, that in this little
poem he is to some extent confounded with the planet named after him
(Ares, or Mars).
The primitive character of Ares has been much discussed. He is a god of
storms; a god of light or a solar god; a chthonian god, one of the
deities of the subterranean world, who could bring prosperity as well as
ruin upon men, although in time his destructive qualities obscured the
others. In this last aspect he was one of the chief gods of the
Thracians, amongst whom his home was placed even in the time of Homer.
In Scythia an old iron sword served as the symbol of the god, to which
yearly sacrifices of cattle and horses were made, and in earlier times
(as apparently also at Sparta) human victims, selected from prisoners of
war, were offered. Thus Ares developed into the god of war, in which
character he made his way into Greece. This theory may have been nothing
more than an instance of the Greek tendency to assign a northern or
"hyperborean" home to deities in whose character something analogous to
the stormy elements of nature was found. But it appears that the
Thracians and Scythians in historical times (Herodotus i. 59) worshipped
chiefly a war god, and that certain Thracian settlements, formed in
Greece in prehistoric times, left behind them traces of the worship of a
god whom the Greeks called Ares. The story of his imprisonment for
thirteen months by the Aloïdae (_Iliad_, v. 385) points to the conquest
of this chthonian destroyer of the fields by the arts of peace,
especially agriculture, of which the grain-fed sons of Aloeus (the
thresher) are the personification.
In Homer Ares is the lover of Aphrodite, the wife of Hephaestus, who
catches them together in a net and holds them up to the ridicule of the
gods. In what appears to be a very early development of her character,
Aphrodite also was a war goddess, known under the name of Areia; and in
Thebes, the most important seat of the worship of Ares, she is his wife,
and bears him Eros and Anteros, Deimos and Phobos, and Harmonia, wife of
Cadmus, the founder of the city (Hesiod, _Theog._ 933). In the legend of
Cadmus and his family Ares plays a prominent part. His worship was not
so widely spread over Greece as that of other gods, although he was
honoured here and there with festivals and sacrifices. Thus, at Sparta,
under the name of Theritas, he was offered young dogs and even human
beings. The Dioscuri were said to have brought his image from Colchis to
Laconia, where it was set up in an old sanctuary on the road from Sparta
to Therapnae. At Athens, he had a temple at the foot of the Areopagus,
with a statue by Alcamenes. It was here, according to the legend, that
he was tried and acquitted by a council of the gods for the murder of
Halirrhothius, who had violated Alcippe, the daughter of Ares by
Agraulos. The figure of Ares appears in various stories of ancient
mythology. Thus, he engages in combat with Heracles on two occasions to
avenge the death of his son Cycnus; once Zeus separates the combatants
by a flash of lightning, but in the second encounter he is severely
wounded by his adversary, who has the active support of Athena; maddened
by jealousy, he changes himself into the boar which slew Adonis, the
favourite of Aphrodite; and stirs up the war between the Lapithae and
Centaurs. His attributes were the spear and the burning torch,
symbolical of the devastation caused by war (in ancient times the
hurling of a torch was the signal for the commencement of hostilities).
The animals sacred to him were the dog and the vulture.
The worship of Ares being less general throughout Greece than that of
the gods of peace, the number of statues of him is small; those of
Ares-Mars, among the Romans, are more frequent. Previous to the 5th
century B.C. he was represented as full-bearded, grim-featured and in
full armour. From that time, apparently under the influence of Athenian
sculptors, he was conceived as the ideal of a youthful warrior, and was
for a time associated with Aphrodite and Eros. He then appears as a
vigorous youth, beardless, with curly hair, broad head and stalwart
shoulders, with helmet and chlamys. In the Villa Ludovisi statue (after
the style of Lysippus) he appears seated, in an attitude of thought; his
arms are laid aside, and Eros peeps out at his feet. In the Borghese
Ares (also taken for Achilles) he is standing, his only armour being the
helmet on his head. He also appears in many other groups, with
Aphrodite, in marble and on engraved gems of Roman times. But before
this grouping had recommended itself to the Romans, with their legend of
Mars and Rhea Silvia, the Greek Ares had again become under Macedonian
influence a bearded, armed and powerful god.
AUTHORITIES.--H.D. Müller, Ares (1848), H.W. Stoll, _Über die
ursprungliche Bedeutung des A. und der Athene_ (1881); F.A. Voigt,
"Beiträge zur Mythologie des Ares und Athena" in _Leipziger Studien_,
iv. 1881; W.H. Roscher, _Studien zur vergleichenden Mythologie_, i.,
1873; C. Tümpel, _Ares und Aphrodite_ (1880); articles in
Pauly-Wissowa's _Realencyclopadie_, Roscher's _Lexikon der
Mythologie_, and Daremberg and Saglio's _Dictionnaire des Antiquités_
(s.v. MARS); Preller, _Griechische Mythologie_.
ARETAEUS, of Cappadocia, a Greek physician, who lived at Rome in the
second half of the 2nd century A.D. We possess two treatises by him,
each in four books, in the Ionic dialect: _On the Causes and Indications
of Acute and Chronic Diseases, and On their Treatment_. His work was
founded on that of Archigenes; like him, he belonged to the eclectic
school, but did not ignore the theories of the "Pneumatics," who made
the heart the seat of life and of the soul.
Editions by Kühn (1828), Ermerius (1848). English translations: Wigan
(1723); Moffat (1786); Reynolds (1837); Adams (1856). See Locher,
_Aretaeus aus Kappadocien_ (1847).
ARETAS (Arab. Haritha), the Greek form of a name borne by kings of the
Nabataeans resident at Petra in Arabia, (i) A king in the time of
Antiochus IV. Epiphanes (2 Mace. v. 8). (2) The father-in-law of Herod
Antipas (Jos. _Ant._ xviii. 5. 1, 3), In 2 Cor. xi. 32 he is described
as ruler of Damascus (q.v.) at the time of Paul's conversion. Herod
Antipas had married a daughter of Aretas, but afterwards discarded her
in favour of Herodias. This led to a war with Aretas in which Antipas
was defeated.
An Aretas is mentioned in 1 Macc. xv. 22, but the true reading is
probably Ariarathes (king of Cappadocia). See NABATAEANS.
ARÊTE (O. Fr. _areste_, Lat. _arista_, ear of corn, fish-bone or spine),
a ridge or sharp edge; a French term used in Switzerland to denote the
sharp bayonet-like edge of a mountain (such as the Matterhorn), that
slopes steeply upward with two precipitous sides meeting in a long
ascending ridge. Hence the word has passed into common use to denote any
sharp mountain edge denuded by frost action above the snowline, where
the consequent angular ridges give the characteristic "house-roof
structure" of these altitudes.
ARETHAS (c. 860-940), Byzantine theological writer and scholar,
archbishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, was born at Patrae. He was the
author of a Greek commentary on the Apocalypse, avowedly based upon that
of Andrew, his predecessor in the archbishopric. In spite of its
author's modest estimate, Arethas's work is by no means a slavish
compilation; it contains additions from other sources, and especial care
has been taken in verifying the references. His interest was not,
however, confined to theological literature; he annotated the margins of
his classical texts with numerous scholia (many of which are preserved),
and had several MSS. copied at his own expense, amongst them the Codex
Clarkianus of Plato (brought to England from the monastery of St John in
Patmos), and the Dorvillian MS. of Euclid (now at Oxford).
Most divergent opinions have been held as to the time in which Arethas
lived; the reasons for the dates given above will be found succinctly
stated in the article "Aretas," by A. Jülicher in Pauly-Wissowa's
_Realencyclopadie der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft_ (1896). The
text of the commentary is given in Migne, _Patrologia Graeca_, cvi.;
see also O. Gebhardt and A. Harnack, _Texte und Untersuchungen zur
Geschichte der altchristlichen Litt._ i. pp. 36-46 (1882), and _Vita
Euthymii_ (patriarch of Constantinople, d. 917), ed. C. de Boor
(1888); H. Wace, _Dictionary of Christian Biography_, i.; C.
Krumbacher, _Geschichte der byzantinischen Litteratur_ (1897); G.
Heinrici in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopadie_ (1897).
ARETHUSA, in Greek mythology, a nymph who gave her name to a spring in
Elis and to another in the island of Ortygia near Syracuse. According to
Pausanias (v. 7. 2), Alpheus, a mighty hunter, was enamoured of
Arethusa, one of the retinue of Artemis; Arethusa fled to Ortygia, where
she was changed into a spring; Alpheus, in the form of a river, made his
way beneath the sea, and united his waters with those of the spring. In
Ovid (_Metam._ v. 572 foll.), Arethusa, while bathing in the Alpheus,
was seen and pursued by the river god in human form; Artemis changed her
into a spring, which, flowing underground, emerged at Ortygia. In the
earlier form of the legend, it is Artemis, not Arethusa, who is the
object of the god's affections, and escapes by smearing her face with
mire, so that he fails to recognize her (see L.R. Farnell, _Cults of the
Greek States_, ii. p. 428). The probable origin of the story is the part
traditionally taken in the foundation of Syracuse by the Iamidae of
Olympia, who identified the spring Arethusa with their own river
Alpheus, and the nymph with Artemis Alpheiaia, who was worshipped at
Ortygia. The subterranean passage of the Alpheus in the upper part of
its course (confirmed by modern explorers), and the freshness of the
water of Arethusa in spite of its proximity to the sea, led to the
belief that it was the outlet of the river. Further, according to Strabo
(vi. p. 270), during the sacrifice of oxen at Olympia the waters of
Arethusa were disturbed, and a cup thrown into the Alpheus would
reappear in Ortygia. In Virgil (_Ecl_. x. 1) Arethusa is addressed as a
divinity of poetical inspiration, like one of the Muses, who were
themselves originally nymphs of springs.
For Arethusa on Syracusan coins, see B.V. Head, _Historia Numorum_,
pp. 151, 155.
ARETINO, PIETRO (1492-1556), Italian author, was born in 1492 at Arezzo
in Tuscany, from which place he took his name. He is said to have been
the natural son of Luigi Bacci, a gentleman of the town. He received
little education, and lived for some years poor and neglected, picking
up such scraps of information as he could. When very young he was
banished from Arezzo on account of a satirical sonnet which he composed
against indulgences. He went to Perugia, where for some time he worked
as a bookbinder, and continued to distinguish himself by his daring
attacks upon religion. After some years' wandering through parts of
Italy he reached Rome, where his talents, wit and impudence commended
him to the papal court. This favour, however, he lost in 1523 by writing
a set of obscene sonnets, to accompany an equally immoral series of
drawings by the great painter, Giulio Romano. He left Rome and was
received by Giovanni de' Medici, who introduced him at Milan to Francis
I. of France. He gained the good graces of that monarch, and received
handsome presents from him. Shortly after this Aretino attempted to
regain the favour of the pope, but, having come to Rome, he composed a
sonnet against a rival in some low amour, and in return was assaulted
and severely wounded. He could obtain no redress from the pope, and
returned to Giovanni de' Medici. On the death of the latter in December
1526, he withdrew to Venice, where he afterwards continued to reside. He
spent his time here in writing comedies, sonnets, licentious dialogues,
and a few devotional and religious works. He led a profligate life, and
procured funds to satisfy his needs by writing sycophantish letters to
all the nobles and princes with whom he was acquainted. This plan proved
eminently successful, for large sums were given him, apparently from
fear of his satire. So great did Aretino's pride grow, that he styled
himself the "divine," and the "scourge of princes." He died in 1556,
according to some accounts by falling from his chair in a fit of
laughter caused by hearing some indecent story of his sisters. The
reputation of Aretino in his own time rested chiefly on his satirical
sonnets or burlesques; but his comedies, five in number, are now
considered the best of his works. His letters, of which a great number
have been printed, are also commended for their style. The dialogues and
the licentious sonnets have been translated into French, under the title
_Académie des Dames_.
AREZZO (anc. _Arretium_), a town and episcopal see of Tuscany, Italy,
the capital of the province of Arezzo, 54 m. S.E. of Florence by rail.
Pop. (1901) town, 16,780; commune, 46,926. It is an attractive town,
situated on the slope of a hill 840 to 970 ft. above sea-level, in a
fertile district. The walls by which it is surrounded were erected in
1320 by Guido Tarlati di Pietramala, its warlike bishop, who died in
1327, and is buried in the cathedral; they were reconstructed by Cosimo
I. de Medici between 1541 and 1568, on which occasion the bronze statues
of Pallas and the Chimaera, now at Florence, were discovered. The town
itself is fan-shaped, the streets, which contain some fine old houses
with projecting eaves and many towers, radiating from the citadel
(Fortezza), which was constructed in 1502, and dismantled by the French
in 1800. The cathedral, close by, is a fine specimen of Italian Gothic
begun in 1277, but not completed internally until 1511, while the façade
was not begun until 1880. The interior is spacious and contains some
fine 14th-century sculptures, those of the high altar, which contains
the tomb of St Donatus, the patron saint of Arezzo, being the best; very
good stained-glass windows of the beginning of the 16th century by
Guillaume de Marcillat, and some terra-cotta reliefs by Andrea della
Robbia. Another fine church is S. Maria della Pieve, having a campanile
and a façade of 1216, the latter with three open colonnades running for
its whole length above the doors. The interior was restored to its
original style in 1863-1865. The Romanesque choir and apse belong to the
11th century, the rest of the interior is contemporary with the façade.
In the square behind the church is a colonnade designed by Vasari. In
the cloisters of S. Bernardo, on the site of the ancient amphitheatre,
is a remarkable view of medieval Rome. S. Francesco contains famous
frescoes by Piero de' Franceschi, representing scenes from the legend of
the Holy Cross, and others by Spinello Aretino, a pupil of Giotto. There
are several other frescoes by the latter in S. Domenico. Among the
Renaissance buildings the churches of S. Maria delle Grazie and the
Santissima Annunziata may be noted. The collection of majolica in the
municipal museum is very fine, and so is that of the Funghini family. In
the middle ages Arezzo was generally on the Ghibelline side; it
succumbed to Florence in 1289 at the battle of Campaldino, but at the
end of the century recovered its strength under the Tarlati family. In
1336 it became subject to Florence for six years, and after intestine
struggles, finally came under her rule in 1384. Among the natives of
Arezzo the most famous are the Benedictine monk Guido of Arezzo, the
inventor of the modern system of musical notation (died _c_. 1050), the
poet Petrarch, Pietro Aretino, the satirist (1492-1556), and Vasari,
famous for his lives of Italian painters. The town never possessed a
distinct school of artists.
See C. Signorini, _Arezzo, Città y Provincia, Guida illustrata_
(Arezzo,1904). (T. As,)
ARGALI, the Tatar name of the great wild sheep, _Ovis ammon_, of the
Altai and other parts of Siberia. Standing as high as a large donkey,
the argali is the finest of all the wild sheep, the horns of the rams,
although of inferior length, being more massive than those of _Ovis
poli_ of the Pamirs. There are several local races of argali, among
which _O. ammon hodgsoni_ of Ladak and Tibet is one of the best known.
There are likewise several nearly related central Asian species, such as
_O. sairensis_ and _O. littledalei_. (See SHEEP.)
ARGAO, a town on the east coast of Cebu, Philippine Islands, 36 m.
S.S.W. of the town of Cebu. Pop. (1903) 35,448. Large quantities of a
superior quality of cacao are produced in the vicinity, and rice and
Indian corn are other important products. A limited amount of cotton is
raised and woven into cloth. The language is Cebu-Visayan. Argao was
founded in 1608.
ARGAUM, a village of British India in the Akola district of the Central
Provinces, 32 m. north of Akola. The village is memorable for an action
which took place on the 28th of November 1803 between the British army,
commanded by Major-General Wellesley (afterwards duke of Wellington),
and the Mahrattas under Sindhia and the raja of Berar, in which the
latter were defeated with great loss. A medal struck in England in 1851
commemorates the victory.
ARGEI, the name given by the ancient Romans to a number of rush puppets
(24 or 27 according to the reading of Varro, _de Ling_. _lat_. vii. 44,
or 30 according to Dionysius i. 38) resembling men tied hand and foot,
which were taken down to the ancient bridge over the Tiber (_pans
sublicius_) on the 14th of May by the pontifices and magistrates, with
the flaminica Dialis in mourning guise, and there thrown into the Tiber
by the Vestal virgins. There were also in various parts of the four
Servian regions of the city a number of _sacella Argeorum_ (chapels),
round which a procession seems to have gone on the 17th of March (Varro,
_L.L._ v. 46-54; Jordan, _Rom. Topogr._ vol. ii. 603), and it has been
conjectured that the puppets were kept in these chapels until the time
came for them to be cast into the river. The Romans had no historical
explanation of these curious rites, and neither the theories of their
scholars nor the beliefs of the common people, who fancied that the
puppets were substitutes for old men who used at one time to be
sacrificed to the river, are worth serious consideration. Recently two
explanations have been given: (1) that of W. Mannhardt, who by comparing
numerous examples of similar customs among other European peoples
arrived at the conclusion that the rite was of extreme antiquity and of
dramatic rather than sacrificial character, and that its object was
possibly to procure rain; (2) that of Wissowa, who refuses to date it
farther back than the latter half of the 3rd century B.C., and sees in
it the yearly representation of an original sacrifice of twenty-seven
captive Greeks (taking Argei as a Latin form of [Greek: Argeioi]) by
drowning in the Tiber. This second theory is, however, not borne out by
any Roman historical record.
See Wissowa's arguments in the article "Argei" in his edition of
Pauly's _Realencydopadie_. For the other view see W. Mannhardt,
_Antike Wald und Feldkulte_, 178 foll.; W.W. Fowler, _Roman
Festivals_, pp. 111 foll. (W. W. F.*)
ARGELANDER, FRIEDRICH WILHELM AUGUST (1799-1875), German astronomer,
was born at Memel on the 22nd of March 1799. He studied at the
university of Konigsberg, and was attracted to astronomy by F.W. Bessel,
whose assistant he became (October 1, 1820). His treatise on the path of
the great comet of 1811 appeared in 1822; he was, in 1823, entrusted
with the direction of the observatory at Åbo; and he exchanged it for a
similar charge at Helsingfors in 1832. His admirable investigation of
the sun's motion in space was published in 1837; and in the same year he
was appointed professor of astronomy in the university of Bonn, where he
died on the 17th of February 1875. He also published _Observations
Astronomicae Aboae Factae_ (3 vols., 1830-1832); _DLX Stellarum Fixarum
Positiones Mediae_ (1835); and the first seven volumes of _Astronomische
Beobachtungen auf der Sternwarte zu Benn_ (1846-1869), containing his
observations of northern and southern star-zones, and his great
_Durchmusterung_ (vols, iii,-v., 1859-1862) of 324,198 stars, from the
north pole to -2° Dec. The corresponding atlas was issued in 1863. His
observations (begun in 1838) and discussions of variable stars were
embodied in vol. vii. of the same series.
See E. Schönfeld in _Vierteljahrsschrift der Astronomischen
Gesellschaft_, x. pp. 150-178.
ARGENS, JEAN BAPTISTE DE BOYER, MARQUIS D' (1704-1771), was born at Aix
in Provence on the 24th of June 1704. He entered the army at the age of
fifteen, and after a dissipated and adventurous youth settled for a time
at Amsterdam, where he wrote some historical compilations and began his
more famous _Lettres juives_ (The Hague, 6 vols., 1738-1742), _Lettres
chinoises_ (The Hague, 6 vols., 1730-1472), and _Lettres cabalistiques_
(2nd ed., 7 vols., 1769); also the _Mémoires secrets de la république
des lettres_ (7 vols., 1743-1478), afterwards revised and augmented as
_Histoire de l'esprit humain_ (Berlin, 14 vols., 1765-1768). He was
invited by Prince Frederick (afterwards Frederick the Great) to Potsdam,
and received high honours at court; but Frederick was bitterly offended
by his marrying a Berlin actress, Mlle Cochois. Argens returned to
France in 1769, and died near Toulon on the 11th of January 1771.
ARGENSOLA, LUPERCIO LEONARDO DE (1559-1613), Spanish dramatist and poet,
was baptized at Barbastro on the 14th of December 1559. He was educated
at the universities of Huesca and Saragossa, becoming secretary to the
duke de Villahermosa in 1585. He was appointed historiographer of Aragon
in 1599, and in 1610 accompanied the count de Lemos to Naples, where he
died in March 1613. His tragedies--_Filis, Isabela_ and _Alejandra_--are
said by Cervantes to have "filled all who heard them with admiration,
delight and interest"; _Filis_ is lost, and _Isabela_ and _Alejandra_,
which were not printed till 1772, are ponderous imitations of Seneca.
Argensola's poems were published with those of his brother in 1634; they
consist of excellent translations from the Latin poets, and of original
satires. His "echoing sonnets"--such as _Después que al mundo el rey
divino vino_--lend themselves to parody; but his diction is singularly
pure.
His brother, BARTOLOMÉ LEONARDO DE ARGENSOLA (1562-1631), Spanish poet
and historian, was baptized at Barbastro on the 26th of August 1562,
studied at Huesca, took orders, and was presented to the rectory of
Villahermosa in 1588. He was attached to the suite of the count de
Lemos, viceroy of Naples, in 1610, and succeeded his brother as
historiographer of Aragon in 1613. He died at Saragossa on the 4th of
February 1631. His principal prose works are the _Conquista de las Islas
Molucas_ (1609), and a supplement to Zurita's _Anales de Aragón_, which
was published in 1630. His poems (1634), like those of his elder
brother, are admirably finished examples of pungent wit. His
commentaries on contemporary events, and his _Alteraciones populares_,
dealing with a Saragossa rising in 1591, are lost. An interesting life
of this writer by Father Miguel Mir precedes a reprint of the _Conquista
de las Islas Molucas_, issued at Saragossa in 1891.
ARGENSON, the name, derived from an old hamlet situated in what is now
the department of Indre-et-Loire, of a French family which produced some
prominent statesmen, soldiers and men of letters.
RENÉ DE VOYER, seigneur d'Argenson (1596-1651), French statesman, was
born on the 21st of November 1596. He was a lawyer by profession, and
became successively _avocat_, councillor at the parlement of Paris,
_maître des requêtes_, and councillor of state. Cardinal Richelieu
entrusted him with several missions as inspector and intendant of the
forces. In 1623 he was appointed intendant of justice, police and
finance in Auvergne, and in 1632 held similar office in Limousin, where
he remained till 1637. After the death of Louis XIII. (1643) he retained
his administrative posts, was intendant of the forces at Toulon (1646),
commissary of the king at the estates of Languedoc (1647), and intendant
of Guienne (1648), and showed great capacity in defending the authority
of the crown against the rebels of the Fronde. After his wife's death he
took orders (February 1651), but did not cease to take part in affairs
of state. In 1651 he was appointed by Mazarin ambassador at Venice,
where he died on the 14th of July 1651.
His son, MARC RENÉ DE VOYER, comte d'Argenson (1623-1700), was born at
Blois on the 13th of December 1623. He also was a lawyer, being
councillor at the parlement of Rouen (1642) and _maître des requêtes_.
He attended his father in all his duties and succeeded him at the
embassy at Venice. In 1655 he returned from his embassy, ruined, and
lost favour with Mazarin, who removed him from his office of councillor
of state. He then gave up public affairs and retired to his estates,
where he occupied himself with good works. In September 1656 he entered
the Company of the Holy Sacrament, a secret society for the diffusion of
the Catholic religion. Besides writing the _Annals_ of the society, he
composed many pious works, which were destroyed in the fire at the
Louvre in 1871. Some of his correspondence with the once famous
letter-writer, Jean Louis Guez de Balzac (1597-1654), has been
published. He died in May 1700, leaving two sons, Marc René (see below),
and François Élie (1656-1728), who became archbishop of Bordeaux.
See Fr. Rabbe, "Compagnie du Saint-Sacrement," in the _Revue
historique_ (Nov. 1899); Beaucher-Filleau, _Les Annales de la
compagnie_ du Saint-Sacrement (Paris, 1900); R. Allier, _La Cobalt des
dévots_ (Paris, 1902).
MARC RENÉ DE VOYER, marquis de Paulmy and marquis d'Argenson
(1652-1721), son of the preceding, was born at Venice on the 4th of
November 1652. He became _avocat_ in 1669, and lieutenant-general in the
_sénéchaussée_ of Angoulême (1679). After the death of Colbert, who
disliked his family, he went to Paris and married Marguerite Lefèvre de
Caomartin, a kinswoman of the comptroller-general Pontchartrain. This
was the beginning of his fortunes. He became successively _maître des
requêtes_ (1694), member of the _conseil des prises_ (prize court)
(1695), _procureur-général_ of the commission of inquest into false
titles of nobility (1696), and finally lieutenant-general of police
(1697). This last office, which had previously been filled by N.G. de la
Reynie, was very important. It not only gave him the control of the
police, but also the supervision of the corporations, printing press,
and provisioning of Paris. All contraventions of the police regulations
came under his jurisdiction, and his authority was arbitrary and
absolute. Fortunately, he had, in Saint-Simon's phrase, "a nice
discernment as to the degree of rigour or leniency required for every
case that came before him, being ever inclined to the mildest measures,
but possessed of the faculty of making the most innocent tremble before
him; courageous, bold, audacious in quelling _êmeutes_, and consequently
the master of the people." During the twenty-one years that he exercised
this office he was a party to every private and state secret; in fact,
he had a share in every event of any importance in the history of Paris.
He was the familiar friend of the king, who delighted in scandalous
police reports; he was patronized by the duke of Orleans; he was
supported by the Jesuits at court; and he was feared by all. He
organized the supply of food in Paris during the severe winter of 1709,
and endeavoured, but with little success, to run to earth the libellers
of the government. He directed the destruction of the Jansenist
monastery of Port Royal (1709), a proceeding which provoked many
protests and pamphlets. Under the regency, the Chambre de Justice,
assembled to inquire into the malpractices of the financiers, suspected
d'Argenson and arrested his clerks, but dared not lay the blame on him.
On the 28th of January 1718 he voluntarily resigned the office of
lieutenant-general of police for those of keeper of the seals--in the
place of the chancellor d'Aguesseau--and president of the council of
finance. He was appointed by the regent to suppress the resistance of
the parlements and to reorganize the finances, and was in great measure
responsible for permitting John Law to apply his financial system,
though he soon quarrelled with Law and intrigued to bring about his
downfall. The regent threw the blame for the outcome of Law's schemes on
d'Argenson, who was forced to resign his position in the council of
finance (January 1720). By way of compensation he was created
inspector-general of the police of the whole kingdom, but had to resign
his office of keeper of the seals (June 1720). He died on the 8th of May
1721, the people of Paris throwing taunts and stones at his coffin and
accusing him of having ruined the kingdom. In 1716 he had been created
an honorary member of the Académie des Sciences and, in 1718, a member
of the French Academy.
See the contemporary memoirs, especially those of Saint-Simon (de
Boislisle's ed.), Dangeau and Math. Marais; Barbier's _Journal_;
"Correspondance administrative sous Louis XIV." in _Coll. des doc.
inéd. sur I'histoire de France_, edited by G.B. Depping (1850-1855);
_Correspondance des contrôleurs-généraux des finances_, pub. by de
Bois-lisle (1873-1900); _Correspondance de M. de Marville avec M. de
Maurepas_ (1896-1897); _Rapports de police de René d'Argenson_, pub.
by P. Cottin (Paris, undated); P. Clément, _La police sous Louis XIV_.
(1873).
RENÉ LOUIS DE VOYER DE PAULMY, marquis d'Argenson (1694-1757), eldest
son of the preceding, was a lawyer, and held successively the posts of
councillor at the parlement (1716), _maître des requêtes_ (1718),
councillor of state (1719), and intendant of justice, police and finance
in Hainaut. During his five years' tenure of the last office he was
mainly employed in provisioning the troops, who were suffering from the
economic confusion resulting from Law's system. He returned to court in
1724 to exercise his functions as councillor of state. At that time he
had the reputation of being a conscientious man, but ill adapted to
intrigue, and was nicknamed "la bête." He entered into relations with
the philosophers, and was won over to the ideas of reform. He was the
friend of Voltaire, who had been a fellow-student of his at the Jesuit
college Louis-le-grand, and frequented the Club de l'Entresol, the
history of which he wrote in his memoirs. It was then that he prepared
his _Considérations sur le gouvernement de la France_, which was
published posthumously by his son. He was also the friend and counsellor
of the minister G.L. de Chauvelin. In May 1744 he was appointed member
of the council of finance, and in November of the same year the king
chose him as secretary of state for foreign affairs, his brother, the
comte d'Argenson (see below), being at the same time secretary of state
for war. France was at that time engaged in the War of the Austrian
Succession, and the government had been placed by Louis XV. virtually in
the hands of the two brothers. The marquis d'Argenson endeavoured to
reform the system of international relations. He dreamed of a "European
Republic," and wished to establish arbitration between nations in
pursuance of the ideas of his friend the abbé de Saint-Pierre. But he
failed to realize any part of his projects. The generals negotiated in
opposition to his instructions; his colleagues laid the blame on him;
the intrigues of the courtiers passed unnoticed by him; whilst the
secret diplomacy of the king neutralized his initiative. He concluded
the marriage of the dauphin to the daughter of Augustus III., king of
Poland, but was unable to prevent the election of the grand-duke of
Tuscany as emperor in 1745. On the both of January 1747 the king thanked
him for his services. He then retired into private life, eschewed the
court, associated with Voltaire, Condillac and d'Alembert, and spent his
declining years in working at the Academic des Inscriptions, of which he
was appointed president by the king in 1747, and revising his
_Mémoires_. Voltaire, in one of his letters, declared him to be "the
best citizen that had ever tasted the ministry." He died on the 26th of
January 1757.
He left a large number of manuscript works, of which his son, Antoine
René (1722-1787), known as the marquis de Paulmy, published the
_Considérations sur le gouvernement de France_ (Amsterdam, 1764) and
_Essais dans le gout de ceux de Montaigne_ (_ib._ 1785). The latter,
which contains many useful biographical notes and portraits of his
contemporaries, was republished in 1787 as _Loisirs d'un ministre
d'état_. Argenson's most important work, however, is his _Mémoires_,
covering in great detail the years 1725 to 1756, with an introductory
part giving his recollections since the year 1696. They are, as they
were intended to be, valuable "materials for the history of his time."
There are two important editions, the first, with some letters, not
elsewhere published, by the marquis d'Argenson, his great-grand-nephew
(5 vols., Paris, 1857 et seq.); the second, more correct, but less
complete, published by J.B. Rathery, for the Société de l'Histoire de
France (9 vols., Paris, 1859 et seq.). The other works of the marquis
d'Argenson, in MS., were destroyed in the fire at the Louvre library in
1871.
See Sainte-Beuve, _Causeries du lundi_ (vols. xii. and xiv.);
Levasseur. "Le Marquis d'Argenson" in the _Mémoires de l'Academie des
Sciences Morales et Politiques_ (vol. lxxxvii., 1868); and,
especially, E. Zevort, _Le Marquis d'Argenson et le ministère des
affaires étrangères_ (Paris, 1880). See also G. de R. de Flassan,
_Histoire de la diplomatie française_ (2nd ed., 1811); Voltaire,
_Siècle de Louis XV_.; E. Boutaric, _Correspondance secrète inédite de
Louis XV_. (1866); E. Champion, "Le Marquis d'Argenson," in the
_Révolution française_ (vol. xxxvi., 1899); A. Alem, _D'Argenson
économiste_ (Paris, 1899); Arthur Ogle, _The Marquis d'Argenson_
(1893).
MARC PIEERE DE VOYER DE PAULMY, comte d'Argenson (1696-1764), younger
brother of the preceding, was born on the 16th of August 1696. Following
the family tradition he studied law and was councillor at the parlement
of Paris. He succeeded his father as lieutenant-general of police in
Paris, but held the post only five months (January 26 to June 30, 1720).
He then received the office of intendant of Tours, and resumed the
lieutenancy of police in 1722. On the 2nd of January 1724 he was
appointed councillor of state. He gained the confidence of the regent
Orleans, administering his fortune and living with his son till 1737.
During this period he opened his salon to the philosophers Chaulieu, la
Fare and Voltaire, and collaborated in the legislative labours of the
chancellor d'Aguesseau. In March 1737 d'Argenson was appointed director
of the censorship of books, in which post he showed sufficiently liberal
views to gain the approval of writers--a rare thing in the reign of
Louis XV. He only retained this post for a year. He became president of
the grand council (November 1738), intendant of the _généralité_ of
Paris (August 1740), was admitted to the king's council (August 1742),
and in January 1743 was appointed secretary of state for war in
succession to the baron de Breteuil. As minister for war he had a heavy
task; the French armies engaged in the War of the Austrian Succession
were disorganized, and the retreat from Prague had produced a disastrous
effect. After consulting with Marshal Saxe, he began the reform of the
new armies. To assist recruiting, he revived the old institution of
local militias, which, however, did not come up to his expectation. In
the spring of 1744 three armies were able to resume the offensive in the
Netherlands, Germany and Italy, and in the following year France won the
battle of Fontenoy, at which d'Argenson was present. After the peace in
1748 he occupied himself with the important work of recasting the French
army on the model of the Prussian. He unified the types of cannon,
grouped the grenadiers into separate regiments, and founded the École
Militaire for the training of officers (1751). An edict of the 1st of
November 1751 granted patents of nobility to all who had the rank of
general officer. In addition to his duties as minister of war he had the
supervision of the printing, postal administration and general
administration of Paris. He was responsible for the arrangement of the
promenade of the Champs Elysées and for the plan of the present Place de
la Concorde. He was exceedingly popular, and, although the court
favourites hated him, he had the support of the king. Nevertheless,
after the attempt of R.F. Damiens to assassinate the king, Louis
abandoned d'Argenson to the machinations of the court favourites and
dismissed both him and his colleague, J.B. de Machault d'Arnouville
(February 1757). D'Argenson was exiled to his estates at Les Ormes near
Saumur, but he had previously found posts for his brother, the marquis
d'Argenson, as minister of foreign affairs, for his son Marc René as
master of the horse, and for his nephew Marc Antoine René as commissary
of war. From the time of his exile he lived in the society of savants
and philosophers. He had been elected member of the Académie des
Inscriptions in 1749. Diderot and d'Alembert dedicated the
_Encyclopedie_ to him, and Voltaire, C.J.F. Hénault, and J.F. Marmontel
openly visited him in his exile. After the death of Madame de Pompadour
he obtained permission to return to Paris, and died a few days after his
return, on the 22nd of August 1764.
MARC ANTOINE RENÉ DE VOYER, marquis de Paulmy d'Argenson (1722-1787),
nephew of the preceding and son of René Louis, was born at Valenciennes
on the 22nd of November 1722. Appointed councillor at the parlement
(1744), and _maître des requêtes_ (1747), he was associated with his
father in the ministry of foreign affairs and with his uncle in the
ministry of war, and, in recognition of this experience, was
commissioned to inspect the troops and fortifications and sent on
embassy to Switzerland (1748). In 1751 his uncle recognized him as his
deputy and made over to him the reversion of the secretariate of war. He
then worked on the great reform of the army, and after the dismissal of
his uncle became minister of war (February 1757). But the outbreak of
the Seven Years' War made this post exceedingly difficult to hold, and
he resigned on the 23rd of March 1758. He was ambassador to Poland from
1762 to 1764, but failed to procure the nomination of the French
candidate to that throne. From 1766 to 1770 he was ambassador at Venice.
Failing to obtain the embassy at Rome, he retired at the age of
forty-eight and devoted the rest of his life to indulging his tastes for
history and biography. He brought together a large library, very rich in
French poetry and romance, and undertook various publications with the
help of his librarian. In 1775 he began his _Bibliothèque universelle
des romans_, of which forty volumes appeared within three years, but
subsequently handed over the publication to other editors. His great
work, _Mélanges tirês d'une grande bibliothèque_, was published in 65
volumes (Paris, 1779-1788). At his death he forbade his library to be
dispersed: it was bought by the comte d'Artois (afterwards Charles X.)
and formed the nucleus of the present Bibliothèque de l'Arsenal at Paris
(the marquis having been governor of the arsenal). He died on the 13th
of August 1787.
See contemporary memoirs; also Dacier's eulogium in the _Académie des
Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres_ (November 1788); and Sainte-Beuve,
_Causeries du lundi_ (vol. xii.).
MARC RENÉ, marquis de Voyer de Paulmy d'Argenson (1721-1782), known as
the marquis de Voyer, son of Marc Pierre de Voyer, the minister of war,
was born in Paris on the 20th of September 1721. He served in the army
of Italy and the army of Flanders in the War of the Austrian Succession,
and was _mestre de camp_ (proprietary colonel) of the regiment of Berry
cavalry at the battle of Fontenoy (May 10, 1745), where he was promoted
brigadier. He was associated with his father in his work of reorganizing
the army, was made inspector of cavalry and dragoons (1749), and
succeeded his father as master of the horse (1752). He introduced
English horses into France. He was lieutenant-general of Upper Alsace in
1753 and governor of Vincennes in 1754, and served afterwards under
Soubise in the Seven Years' War. He was wounded at Crefeld in 1758, and
was promoted lieutenant-general (1759). He followed his father into
exile at Les Ormes (1763), and in the last years of the reign of Louis
XV. sided with the malcontents headed by Choiseul; but on the rupture
with England he rejoined the service of the king (1775). He was
appointed inspector of the sea-board, and put the roadstead of the
island of Aix in a state of defence during the American War of
Independence. He caught marsh-fever while attempting to drain the
marshes of Rochefort, and died at Les Ormes on the 18th of September
1782.
MARC RENÉ MARIE DE VOYER DE PAULMY, marquis d'Argenson (1771-1842), son
of the preceding, was born in Paris in September 1771. He was brought up
by his father's cousin, the marquis de Paulmy, governor of the arsenal,
and was made lieutenant of dragoons in 1789. Although, at the age of
eighteen, he had succeeded to several estates and a large fortune, he
embraced the revolutionary cause, joining the army of the North as
Lafayette's aide-de-camp and remaining with it even after Lafayette's
defection. Leaving France to take one of his sisters to England, he was
denounced on his return as a royalist conspirator, on the charge of
having in his possession portraits of the royal family. He then went to
live in Touraine, married the widow of Prince Victor de Broglie, and
saved her and her children from proscription. He introduced new
agricultural instruments and processes on his estates, and installed
machinery imported from England in his ironworks in Alsace. He was an
enthusiastic adherent of Napoleon, by whom he was appointed in May 1809
prefect of Deux-Nèthes. He helped to repel the English invasion of the
islands of South Beveland and Walcheren (August 1809), and afterwards
directed the defence works of Antwerp, but resigned this post (March
1813) in consequence of the complaints of the inhabitants and the
exacting demands of the emperor. In May 1814 he refused the prefecture
of Marseilles offered to him by the Bourbons, but was elected deputy
from Belfort in 1815 during the Hundred Days. On the 5th of July 1815 he
took part in the declaration protesting against any tampering with the
immutable rights of the nation. He was a member of the _Chambre
introuvable_, where he became one of the orators of the democratic
party. He was one of the founders of the journal _Le censeur européen_
and of the _Club de la liberté de la presse_, and was an uncompromising
opponent of reaction. Not re-elected in 1824 on account of his liberal
ideas, he returned to the chamber under the Martignac ministry (1828),
and resolutely persisted in his championship of the liberty of the press
and of public worship. On the death of his wife he voluntarily renounced
his mandate (July 1829), and hailed the revolution of 1830 with great
satisfaction. On the 3rd of November 1830 he was elected to the chamber
as deputy from Châtellerault, and took the oath, adding, however, the
reservation "subject to the progress of the public reason." His
independent attitude resulted in his defeat in the following year at the
Châtellerault election, but he was returned for Strassburg. He wished
the incidence of the taxes to be arranged according to social condition,
and advocated a single tax proportionate to income like the English
income tax. He harped incessantly on this idea in his speeches and
articles (see his letters in _La Tribune_ of June 20, 1832). Although he
was a proprietor of ironworks he opposed the protectionist laws, which
he considered injurious to the workmen. He became the mouthpiece of the
advanced ideas; subsidized the opposition newspapers, especially the
_National_; received into his house F.M. Buonarroti, who in 1796 had
been implicated in the conspiracy of "Gracchus" Babeuf (q.v.); and
became a member of the committee of the Society of the Rights of Man. He
was even sued in the courts for a pamphlet called _Boutade d'un homme
riche a sentiments populaires_, and delivered a speech to the jury in
which he displayed very daring social theories. But he gradually grew
discouraged and retired from public affairs, refusing even municipal
office, and living in seclusion at La Grange in the forest of Guerche,
where he devoted his inventive faculty to devising agricultural
improvements. He subsequently returned to Paris, where he died on the
1st of August 1842.
CHARLES MARC RENÉ DE VOYER, marquis d'Argenson (1796-1862), son of the
preceding, was born at Boulogne-sur-Spine on the 20th of April 1796. He
concerned himself little with politics. He was, however, a member of the
council-general of Vienne for six years, but was expelled from it in
1840 in consequence of his advanced ideas and his relations with the
Opposition. In 1848 he was elected deputy from Vienne to the Constituent
Assembly by 12,000 votes. He was an active member of the Archaeological
Society of Touraine and the Society of Antiquaries of the West, and
wrote learned works for these bodies. He collaborated in preparing the
archives of the scientific congress at Tours in 1847; brought out two
editions of the MSS. of his great-grand-uncle, the minister of foreign
affairs under Louis XV., under the title _Mémoires du marquis
d'Argenson_, one in 1825, and the other, in 5 vols., in 1857-1858; and
published _Discours et opinions de mon père, M. Voyer d'Argenson_ (2
vols., 1845). He died on the 31st of July, 1862.
ARGENTAN, a town of north-western France, capital of an arrondissement
in the department of Orne, 27 m. N.N.W. of Alençon on the railway from
Le Mans to Caen. Pop. (1906) 5072. It is situated on the slope of a hill
on the right bank of the Orne at its confluence with the Ure. The town
has remains of old fortifications, among them the Tour Marguerite, and a
château, now used as a law-court, dating from the 15th century. The
church of St Germain (15th, 16th and 17th centuries) has several
features of architectural beauty, notably the sculptured northern
portal, and the central and western towers. The church of St Martin,
dating from the 15th century, has good stained glass. The handsome
modern town-hall contains among other institutions the tribunal of
commerce, the museum and the library. Argentan is the seat of a
sub-prefect, has a tribunal of first instance and a communal college.
Leather-working and the manufacture of stained glass are leading
industries. There are quarries of limestone in the vicinity. Argentan
was a viscounty from the 11th century onwards; it was often taken and
pillaged. During the Religious Wars it remained attached to the Catholic
party. François Eudes de Mézeray, the historian, was born near the town,
and a monument has been erected to his memory.
ARGENTEUIL, a town of northern France in the department of
Seine-et-Oise, on the Seine, 5 m. N.W. of the fortifications of Paris by
the railway from Paris to Mantes. Pop. (1906) 17,330. Argenteuil grew up
round a monastery, which, dating from A.D. 656, was by Charlemagne
changed into a nunnery; it was afterwards famous for its connexion with
Héloise (see ABELARD), and on her expulsion in 1129 was again turned
into a monastery. Asparagus, figs, and wine of medium quality are grown
in the district; and heavy iron goods, chemical products, clocks and
plaster are among the manufactures.
ARGENTINA, or the ARGENTINE REPUBLIC (officially, _Republica
Argentina_), a country occupying the greater part of the southern
extremity of South America. It is of wedge shape, extending from 21° 55'
S. to the most southerly point of the island of Tierra del Fuego in 55°
2' 30" S., while its extremes of longitude are 53° 40' on the Brazilian
frontier and 73° 17' 30" W. on the Chilean frontier. Its length from
north to south is 2285 statute miles, and its greatest width about 930
m. It is the second largest political division of the continent, having
an area of 1,083,596 sq. m. (Gotha measurement). It is bounded N. by
Bolivia and Paraguay, E. by Paraguay, Brazil, Uruguay and the Atlantic,
W. by Chile, and S. by the converging lines of the Atlantic and Chile.
_Boundaries._--At different times Argentina has been engaged in disputes
over boundary lines with every one of her neighbours, that with Chile
being only settled in 1902. Beginning at the estuary of the Rio de la
Plata, the boundary line ascends the Uruguay river, on the eastern side
of the strategically important island of Martin García, to the mouth of
the Pequiry, thence under the award of President Grover Cleveland in
1894 up that small river to its source and in a direct line to the
source of the Santo Antonio, a small tributary of the Iguassú, thence
down the Santo Antonio and Iguassú to the upper Paraná, which forms the
southern boundary of Paraguay. From the confluence of the upper Paraná
and Paraguay the line ascends the latter to the mouth of the Pilcomayo,
which river, under the award of President R.B. Hayes in 1878, forms the
boundary between Argentina and Paraguay from the Paraguay river
north-west to the Bolivian frontier. In accordance with the
Argentine-Bolivian treaty of 1889 the boundary line between these
republics continues up the Pilcomayo to the 22nd parallel, thence west
to the Tarija river, which it follows down to the Bermejo, thence up the
latter to its source, and westerly through the Quiaca ravine and across
to a point on the San Juan river opposite Esmoraca. From this point it
ascends the San Juan south and west to the Cerro de Granadas, and thence
south-west to Cerro Incahuasi and Cerro Zapalegui on the Chilean
frontier. The boundary with Chile, extending across more than 32° lat.,
had been the cause of disputes for many years, which at times led to
costly preparations for war. The debts of the two nations resulted
largely from this one cause. In 1881 a treaty was signed which provided
that the boundary line should follow the highest crests of the Andes
forming the watershed as far south as the 52nd parallel, thence east to
the 70th meridian and south-east to Cape Dungeness at the eastern
entrance to the Straits of Magellan. Crossing the Straits the line
should follow the meridian of 68° 44', south to Beagle Channel, and
thence east to the Atlantic, giving Argentina the eastern part of the
Tierra del Fuego and Staten Island. By this agreement Argentina was
confirmed in the possession of the greater part of Patagonia, while
Chile gained control of the Straits of Magellan, much adjacent territory
on the north, the larger part of Tierra del Fuego and all the
neighbouring islands south and west.
When the attempt was made to mark this boundary the commissioners were
unable to agree on a line across the Puna de Atacama in the north, where
parallel ranges enclosing a high arid plateau without any clearly
defined drainage to the Atlantic or Pacific, gave an opportunity for
conflicting claims. In the south the broken character of the Cordillera,
pierced in places by large rivers flowing into the Pacific and having
their upper drainage basins on the eastern side of the line of highest
crests, gave rise to unforeseen and very difficult questions. Finally,
under a convention of the 17th of April 1896, these conflicting claims
were submitted to arbitration. In 1899 a mixed commission with Hon. W.I.
Buchanan, United States minister at Buenos Aires, serving as arbitrator,
reached a decision on the Atacama line north of 26° 52' 45" S. lat.,
which was a compromise though it gave the greater part of the territory
to Argentina. The line starts at the intersection of the 23rd parallel
with the 67th meridian and runs south-westerly and southerly to the
mountain and volcano summits of Rincón, Socompa, Llullaillaco, Azufre,
Aguas Blancas and Sierra Nevada, thence to the initial point of the
British award. (See _Geogr. Jour._, 1899, xiv. 322-323.) The line south
of 26° 52' 45" S. lat. had been located by the commissioners of the two
republics with the exception of four sections. These were referred to
the arbitration of Queen Victoria, and, after a careful survey under the
direction of Sir Thomas H. Holdich, the award was rendered by King
Edward VII. in 1902. (See _Geogr. Jour._, 1903, xxi. 45-50.) In the
first section the line starts from a pillar erected in the San Francisco
pass, about 26° 50' S. lat., and follows the water-parting southward to
the highest peak of the Tres Cruces mountains in 27° 0' 45" S. lat., 68°
49' 5" W. long. In the second, the line runs from 40° 2' S. lat., 71°
40' 36" W. long., along the water-parting to the southern termination of
the Cerro Perihueico in the valley of the Huahum river, thence across
that river, 71° 40' 36" W. long., and along the water-parting around the
upper basin of the Huahum to a junction with the line previously
determined. In the third and longest section, the line starts from a
pillar erected in the Perez Rosales pass, near Lake Nahuel-Huapi, and
follows the water-parting southward to the highest point of Mt.
Tronador, and thence in a very tortuous course along local
water-partings and across the Chilean rivers Manso, Puelo, Fetaleufu,
Palena, Pico and Aisen, and the lakes Buenos Aires, Pueyrredón and San
Martin, to avoid the inclusion of Argentine settlements within Chilean
territory, to the Cerro Fitzroy and continental water-parting north-west
of Lake Viedma, between 49° and 50° S. lat. The northern half of this
line does not run far from the 72nd meridian, except in 44° 30' S. where
it turns eastward nearly a degree to include the upper valley of the
Frias river in Chilean territory, but south of the 49th parallel it
curves westward to give Argentina sole possession of lakes Viedma and
Argentino. The fourth section, which was made particularly difficult of
solution by the extension inland of the Pacific coast inlets and sounds
and by the Chilean colonies located there, was adjusted by running the
line eastward from the point of divergence in 50° 50' S. lat. along the
Sierra Baguales, thence south and south-east to the 52nd parallel,
crossing several streams and following the crests of the Cerro Cazador.
The Chilean settlement of Ultima Esperanza (Last Hope), over which there
had been much controversy, remains under Chilean jurisdiction.
_Physical Geography._--For purposes of surface description, Argentina
may be divided primarily into three great divisions--the mountainous
zone and tablelands of the west, extending the full length of the
republic; the great plains of the east, extending from the Pilcomayo
to the Rio Negro; and the desolate, arid steppes of Patagonia. The
first covers from one-third to one-fourth of the width of the country
between the Bolivian frontier and the Rio Negro, and comprises the
elevated Cordilleras and their plateaus, with flanking ranges and
spurs toward the east. In the extreme north, extending southward from
the great Bolivian highlands, there are several parallel ranges, the
most prominent of which are: the Sierra de Santa Catalina, from which
the detached Cachi, Gulumpaji and Famatina ranges project southward;
and the Sierra de Santa Victoria, south of which are the Zenta,
Aconquija, Ambato and Ancaste ranges. These minor ranges, excepting
the Zenta, are separated from the Andean masses by comparatively low
depressions and are usually described as distinct ranges;
topographically, however, they seem to form a continuation of the
ranges running southward from the Santa Victoria and forming the
eastern rampart of the great central plateau of which the Puna de
Atacama covers a large part. The elevated plateaus between these
ranges are semi-arid and inhospitable, and are covered with extensive
saline basins, which become lagoons in the wet season and morasses or
dry salt-pans in the dry season. These saline basins extend down to
the lower terraces of Córdoba, Mendoza and La Pampa. Flanking this
great widening of the Andes on the south-east are the three short
parallel ranges of Córdoba, belonging to another and older formation.
North of them is the great saline depression, known as the "salinas
grandes," 643 ft. above sea-level, where it is crossed by a railway;
north-east is another extensive saline basin enclosing the "Mar
Chiquita" (of Córdoba) and the morasses into which the waters of the
Rio Saladillo disappear; and on the north are the more elevated
plains, partly saline, of western Córdoba, which separate this
isolated group of mountains from the Andean spurs of Rioja and San
Luis. The eastern ranges parallel to the Andes are here broken into
detached extensions and spurs, which soon disappear in the elevated
western pampas, and the Andes contract south of Aconcagua to a single
range, which descends gradually to the great plains of La Pampa and
Neuquen. The lower terrace of this great mountainous region, with
elevations ranging from 1000 to 1500 ft., is in reality the western
margin of the great Argentine plain, and may be traced from Oran (1017
ft.) near the Bolivian frontier southward through Tucumán (1476 ft.),
Frias (1129 ft.), Córdoba (1279 ft.), Rio Cuarto (1358 ft.), Paunero
(1250 ft.), and thence westward and southward through still unsettled
regions to the Rio Negro at the confluence of the Neuquen and Limay.
The Argentine part of the great La Plata plain extends from the
Pilcomayo south to the Rio Negro, and from the lower terraces of the
Andes eastward to the Uruguay and Atlantic. In the north the plain is
known as the Gran Chaco, and includes the country between the
Pilcomayo and Salado del Norte and an extensive depression immediately
north of the latter river, believed to be the undisturbed bottom of
the ancient Pampean sea. The northern part of the Gran Chaco is partly
wooded and swampy, and as the slope eastward is very gentle and the
rivers much obstructed by sand bars, floating trees and vegetation,
large areas are regularly flooded during rainy seasons. South of the
Bermejo the land is more elevated and drier, though large depressions
covered with marshy lagoons are to be found, similar to those farther
north. The forests here are heavier. Still farther south and
south-west there are open grassy plains and large areas covered with
salt-pans. The general elevation of the Chaco varies from 600 to 800
ft. above sea-level. The Argentine "mesopotamia," between the Paraná
and Uruguay rivers, belongs in great measure to this same region,
being partly wooded, flat and swampy in the north (Corrientes), but
higher and undulating in the south (Entre Rios). The Misiones
territory of the extreme north-east belongs to the older highlands of
Brazil, is densely wooded, and has ranges of hills sometimes rising to
a height of 1000 to 1300 ft.
The remainder of the great Argentine plain is the treeless, grassy
_pampa_ (Quichua for "level spaces"), apparently a dead level, but in
reality rising gradually from the Atlantic westward toward the Andes.
Evidence of this is to be found in the altitudes of the stations on
the Buenos Aires and Pacific railway running a little north of west
across the pampas to Mendoza. The average elevation of Buenos Aires is
about 65 ft.; of Mercedes, 70 m. westward, 132 ft.; of Junín (160 m.),
267 ft.; and of Paunero (400 m.) it is 1250 ft., showing an average
rise of about 3 ft. in a mile. The apparently uniform level of the
pampas is much broken along its southern margin by the Tandil and
Ventana sierras, and by ranges of hills and low mountains in the
southern and western parts of the territory of La Pampa. Extensive
depressions also are found, some of which are subject to inundations,
as along the lower Salado in Buenos Aires and along the lower courses
of the Colorado and Negro. In the extreme west, which is as yet but
slightly explored and settled, there is an extensive depressed area,
largely saline in character, which drains into lakes and morasses,
having no outlet to the ocean. The rainfall is under 6 in. annually,
but the drainage from the eastern slopes of the Andes is large enough
to meet the loss from evaporation and keep these inland lakes from
drying up. At an early period this depressed area drained southward to
the Colorado, and the bed of the old outlet can still be traced. The
rivers belonging to this inland drainage system are the Vermejo, San
Juan and Desaguadero, with their affluents, and their southward flow
can be traced from about 28° S. lat. to the great lagoons and morasses
between 36° and 37° S. lat. in the western part of La Pampa territory.
Some of the principal affluents are the Vinchina and Jachal, or
Zanjon, which flow into the Vermejo, the Patos, which flows into the
San Juan, and the Mendoza, Tunuyan and Diamante which flow into the
Desaguadero, all of these being Andean snow-fed rivers. The
Desaguadero also receives the outflow of the Laguna Bebedero, an
intensely saline lake of western San Luis. The lower course of the
Desaguadero is known as the Salado because of the brackish character
of its water. Another considerable river flowing into the same great
morass is the Atuel, which rises in the Andes not far south of the
Diamante. (A description of the Patagonian part of Argentina will be
found under PATAGONIA.)
_Rivers and Lakes._--The hydrography of Argentina is of the simplest
character. The three great rivers that form the La Plata system--the
Paraguay, Paraná and Uruguay--have their sources in the highlands of
Brazil and flow southward through a great continental depression, two
of them forming eastern boundary lines, and one of them, the Paraná,
flowing across the eastern part of the republic. The northern part of
Argentina, therefore, drains eastward from the mountains to these
rivers, except where some great inland depression gives rise to a
drainage having no outlet to the sea, and except, also, in the
"mesopotamia" region, where small streams flow westward into the
Paraná and eastward into the Uruguay. The largest of the rivers
through which Argentina drains into the Plata system are the
Pilcomayo, which rises in Bolivia and flows south-east along the
Argentine frontier for about 400 m.; the Bermejo, which rises on the
northern frontier and flows south-east into the Paraguay; and the
Salado del Norte (called Rio del Jura-mento in its upper course),
which rises on the high mountain slopes of western Salta and flows
south-east into the Paraná. Another river of this class is the
Carcarañal, about 300 m. long, formed by the confluence of the Tercero
and Cuarto, whose sources are in the Sierra de Córdoba; it flows
eastward across the pampas, and discharges into the Paraná at Gaboto,
about 40 m. above Rosario. Other small rivers rising in the Córdoba
sierras are the Primero and Segundo, which flow into the lagoons of
north-east Córdoba, and the Quinto, which flows south-easterly into
the lagoons and morasses of southern Córdoba. The Luján rises near
Mercedes, province of Buenos Aires, is about 150 m. long, and flows
north-easterly into the Paraná delta. Many smaller streams discharge
into the Paraguay and Paraná from the west, some of them wholly
dependent upon the rains, and drying up during long droughts. The
Argentine "mesopotamia" is well watered by a large number of small
streams flowing north and west into the Paraná, and east into the
Uruguay. The largest of these are the Corrientes, Feliciano and
Gualeguay of the western slope, and the Aguapey and Miriñay of the
eastern. None of the tributaries of the La Plata system thus far
mentioned is navigable except the lower Pilcomayo and Bermejo for a
few miles. These Chaco rivers are obstructed by sand bars and snags,
which could be removed only by an expenditure of money unwarranted by
the present population and traffic. In the southern pampa region there
are many small streams, flowing into the La Plata estuary and the
Atlantic; most of these are unknown by name outside the republic. The
largest and only important river is the Salado del Sud, which rises in
the north-west corner of the province of Buenos Aires and flows
south-east for a distance of 360 m. into the bay of Samborombon. On
the southern margin of the pampas are the Colorado and Negro, both
large, navigable rivers flowing entirely across the republic from the
Andes to the Atlantic. Many of the rivers of Argentina, as implied by
their names (Salado and Saladillo), are saline or brackish in
character, and are of slight use in the pastoral and agricultural
industries of the country. The lakes of Argentina are exceptionally
numerous, although comparatively few are large enough to merit a name
on the ordinary general map. They vary from shallow, saline lagoons in
the north-western plateaus, to great, picturesque, snow-fed lakes in
the Andean foothills of Patagonia. The province of Buenos Aires has
more than 600 lakes, the great majority small, and some brackish. The
La Pampa territory also is dotted with small lakes. The Bebedero, in
San Luis, and Porongos, in Córdoba, and others, are shallow, saline
lakes which receive the drainage of a considerable area and have no
outlet. The large saline Mar Chiquita, of Córdoba, is fed from the
Sierra de Córdoba and has no outlet. In the northern part of
Gorrientes there is a large area of swamps and shallow lagoons which
are believed to be slowly drying up.
_Harbours._--Although having a great extent of coast-line, Argentina
has but few really good harbours. The two most frequented by
ocean-going vessels are Buenos Aires and Ensenada (La Plata), both of
which have been constructed at great expense to overcome natural
disadvantages. Perhaps the best natural harbour of the republic is
that of Bahia Blanca, a large bay of good depth, sheltered by islands,
and 534 m. by sea south of Buenos Aires; here the government is
building a naval station and port called Puerto Militar or Puerto
Belgrano, and little dredging is needed to render the harbour
accessible to the largest ocean-going vessels. About 100 m. south of
Bahia Blanca is the sheltered bay of San Bias, which may become of
commercial importance, and between the 42nd and 43rd parallels are the
land-locked bays of San José and Nueva (Golfo Nuevo)--the first as yet
unused; on the latter is Puerto Madryn, 838 m. from Buenos Aires, the
outlet for the Welsh colony of Chubut. Other small harbours on the
lower Patagonian coast are not prominent, owing to lack of population.
An occasional Argentine steamer visits these ports in the interests of
colonists. The beet-known among them are Puerto Deseado (Port Desire)
at the mouth of the Deseado river (1253 m.), Santa Cruz, at the mouth
of the Santa Cruz river (1481 m.), and Ushuaia, on Beagle Channel,
Tierra del Fuego. North of Buenos Aires, on the Paraná river, is the
port of Rosario, the outlet for a rich agricultural district, ranking
next to the federal capital in importance. Other river ports, of less
importance, are Concordia on the Uruguay river, San Nicolás and
Campana on the Paraná river, Santa Fé on the Salado, a few miles from
the Paraná, the city of Paraná on the Paraná river, and Gualeguay on
the Gualeguay river.
_Geology._--The Pampas of Argentina are generally covered by loess.
The Cordillera, which bounds them on the west, is formed of folded
beds, while the Sierras which rise in their midst, consist mainly of
gneiss, granite and schist. In the western Sierras, which are more or
less closely attached to the main chain of the Cordillera, Cambrian
and Silurian fossils have been found at several places. These older
beds are overlaid, especially in the western part of the country, by a
sandstone series which contains thin seams of coal and many remains of
plants. At Bajo de Velis, in San Luis, the plants belong to the
"Glossopteris flora," which is so widely spread in South Africa, India
and Australia, and the beds are correlated with the Karharbári series
of India (Permian or Permo-Carboni-ferous). Elsewhere the plants
generally indicate a higher horizon and are considered to correspond
with the Rhaetic of Europe. Jurassic beds are known only in the
Cordillera itself, and the Cretaceous beds, which occur in the west of
the country, are of fresh-water origin. As far west, therefore, as the
Cordillera, there is no evidence that any part of the region was ever
beneath the sea in Mesozoic times, and the plant-remains indicate a
land connexion with Africa. This view is supported by Neumayr's
comparison of Jurassic faunas throughout the world. The Lower Tertiary
consists largely of reddish sandstones resting upon the old rocks of
the Cordillera and of the Sierras. Towards the east they lie at a
lower level; but in the Andes they reach a height of nearly 10,000
ft., and are strongly folded, showing that the elevation of the chain
was not completed until after their deposition. The marine facies of
the later Tertiaries is confined to the neighbourhood of the coast,
and was probably formed after the elevation of the Andes; but inland,
fresh-water deposits of this period are met with, especially in
Patagonia. Contemporaneous volcanic rocks are associated with the
Ordovician beds and with the Rhaetic sandstones in several places.
During the Tertiary period the great volcanoes of the Andes were
formed, and there were smaller eruptions in the Sierras. The principal
rocks are andesites, but trachytes and basalts are also common. Great
masses of granite, syenite and diorite were intruded at this period,
and send tongues even into the andesitic tuffs.
Silver, gold, lead and copper ores occur in many localities. They are
found chiefly in the neighbourhood of the eruptive masses of the hilly
regions. (See also ANDES.)[1]
_Climate._--The great extent of Argentina in latitude--about 33°--and
its range in altitude from sea-level westward to the permanently
snow-covered peaks of the Andes, give it a highly diversified climate,
which is further modified by prevailing winds and mountain barriers.
The temperature and rainfall are governed by conditions different from
those in corresponding latitudes of the northern hemisphere. Southern
Patagonia and Tierra del Fuego, for instance, although they correspond
in latitude to Labrador, are made habitable and an excellent
sheep-grazing country by the southerly equatorial current along the
continental coast. The climate, however, is colder than the
corresponding latitudes of western Europe, because of the prevailing
westerly winds, chilled in crossing the Andes. In the extreme
north-west an elevated region, whose aridity is caused by the
"blanketing" influence of the eastern Andean ranges, extends southward
to Mendoza. The northern part of the republic, east of the mountains,
is subject to the oscillatory movements of the south-east trade winds,
which cause a division of the year into wet and dry seasons. Farther
south, in Patagonia, the prevailing wind is westerly, in which case
the Andes again "blanket" an extensive region and deprive it of rain,
turning it into an arid desolate steppe. Below this region, where the
Andean barrier is low and broken, the moist westerly winds sweep over
the land freely and give it a large rainfall, good pastures and a
vigorous forest growth. If the republic be divided into sections by
east and west lines, diversities of climate in the same latitude
appear. In the extreme north a little over a degree and a half of
territory lies within the torrid zone, extending from the Pilcomayo
about 500 m. westward to the Chilean frontier; its eastern end is in
the low, wooded plain of the Gran Chaco, where the mean annual
temperature is 73° F., and the annual rainfall is 63 in.; but on the
arid, elevated plateau at its western extremity the temperature falls
below 57° F., and the rainfall has diminished to 2 in. The character
of the soil changes from the alluvial lowlands of the Gran Chaco,
covered with forests of palms and other tropical vegetation, to the
sandy, saline wastes of the Puna de Atacama, almost barren of
vegetation and overshadowed by permanently snow-crowned peaks.
Between the 30th and 31st parallels, a region essentially sub-tropical
in character, the temperature ranges from 66° on the eastern plains to
62-5° in Córdoba and 64° F. on the higher, arid, sun-parched
tablelands of San Juan. The rainfall, which varies between 39 and 47
in. in Entre Rios, decreases to 27 in. in Córdoba and 2 in. in San
Juan. The republic has a width of about 745 m. at this point,
three-fourths of which is a comparatively level alluvial plain, and
the remainder an arid plateau broken by mountain ranges. In the
vicinity of Buenos Aires the climatic conditions vary very little from
those of the pampa region; the mean annual temperature is about 63°
(maximum 104°; minimum 32°), and the annual rainfall is 34 in.; snow
is rarely seen. South of the pampa region, on the 40th parallel, the
mean temperature varies only slightly in the 370 m. from the mouth of
the Colorado to the Andes, ranging from 57° to 55°; but the rainfall
increases from 8 in. on the coast to 16 in. on the east slope of the
Cordillera. This section is near the northern border of the arid
Patagonian steppes. In Tierra del Fuego (lat. 53° to 55°), the
climatic conditions are in strong contrast to those of the north. Here
the mean temperature is between 46° and 48° in summer and 36° and 38°
in winter, rains are frequent, and snow falls every month in the year.
The central and southern parts of the island and the neighbouring
Staten Island are exceptionally rainy, the latter having 251½ rainy
days in the year. The precipitation of rain, snow and hail is about 55
in.
[Illustration: Map of Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay.]
The prevailing winds through this southern region are westerly, being
moist below the 52nd parallel, and dry between it and the 40th
parallel. In the north and on the pampas the north wind is hot and
depressing, while the south wind is cool and refreshing. The north
wind usually terminates with a thunderstorm or with a _pampero_, a
cold south-west wind from the Andes which blows with great violence,
causes a fall in temperature of 15° to 20°, and is most frequent from
June to November--the southern winter and spring. In the Andean
region, a dry, hot wind from the north or north-west, called the
_Zonda_, blows with great intensity, especially in September-October,
and causes much discomfort and suffering. It is followed by a cold
south wind which often lowers the temperature 25°. The climate of the
pampas is temperate and healthy, and is admirably suited to
agricultural and pastoral pursuits. Its greatest defect is the cold
southerly and westerly storms, which cause great losses in cattle and
sheep. The Patagonian coast-line and mountainous region are also
healthy, having a dry and bracing climate. In the north, however, the
hot lowlands are malarial and unsuited to north European settlement,
while the dry, elevated plateaus are celebrated for their healthiness,
those of Catamarca having an excellent reputation as a sanatorium for
sufferers from pulmonary and bronchial diseases.
_Flora._--The flora of Argentina should be studied according to
natural zones corresponding to the physical divisions of the
country--the rich tropical and sub-tropical regions of the north, the
treeless pampas of the centre, the desert steppes of the south, and
the arid plateaus of the north-west. The vegetation of each region has
its distinctive character, modified here and there by elevation,
irrigation from mountain streams, and by the saline character of the
soil. In the extreme south, where an Arctic vegetation is found, the
pastures are rich, and the forests, largely of the Antarctic beech
(_Fagus antarctica_), are vigorous wherever the rainfall is heavy. The
greater part of Patagonia is comparatively barren and has no arboreal
growth, except in the well-watered valleys of the Andean foothills.
The water-courses and depressions of the shingly steppts afford
pasturage sufficient for the guanaco, and in places support a thorny
vegetation of low growth and starved appearance. The Antarctic beech
and Winter's bark (_Drimys Winteri_) are found at intervals along the
Andes to the northern limits of this zone. The pampas, which cover so
large a part of the republic, have no native trees whatever, and no
woods except the scrubby growth of the delta islands of the Paraná,
and a fringe of low thorn-bushes along the Atlantic coast south to Mar
Chiquita and south of the Tandil sierra, which, strictly speaking,
does not belong to this region. The great plains are covered with
edible grasses, divided into two classes, _pasto duro_ (hard grass)
and _pasto blando_, or _tierno_ (soft grass)--the former tall, coarse,
nutritious and suitable for horses and cattle, and the latter tender
grasses and herbs, including clovers, suitable for sheep and cattle.
The so-called "pampas-grass" (_Gynerium argenteum_) is not found at
all on the dry lands, but in the wet grounds of the south and
south-west. The _pasto duro_ is largely composed of the genera _Stipa_
and _Melica_. In the dry, saline regions of the west and north-west,
where the rainfall is slight, there are large thickets of low-growing,
thorny bushes, poor in foliage. The predominating species is the
chañar (_Gurliaca decorticans_), which produces an edible berry, and
occurs from the Rio Negro to the northern limits of the republic. Huge
cacti are also characteristic of this region. On the lower slopes of
the Andes are found oak, beech, cedar, Winter's bark, pine (_Araucaria
imbricata_), laurel and calden (_Prosopis algarobilla_). The provinces
of Santa Fé, Córdoba and Santiago del Estero are only partially
wooded; large areas of plains are intermingled with scrubby forests of
algarrobo (_Prosopis_), quebracho-blanco (_Aspido-sperma quebracho_),
tala (_Celtis tola_, _Sellowiana_, _acuminata_), acacias and other
genera. In Tucumán and eastern Salta the same division into forests
and open plains exists, but the former are of denser growth and
contain walnut, cedar, laurel, tipa (_Machaerium fertile_) and
quebracho-colorado (_Loxopterygium Lorentzii_). The territories of the
Gran Chaco, however, are covered with a characteristic tropical
vegetation, in which the palm predominates, but intermingled south of
the Bermejo with heavy growths of algarrobo, quebracho-colorado,
urunday (_Astronium fraxinifolium_), lapacho (_Tecoma curialis_) and
palosanto (_Cuayacum officinalis_), all esteemed for hardness and
fineness of grain. Other palms abound, such as the pindo (_Cocos
australis_), mbocaya (_Cocos sclerocarpa_) and the yatai (_Cocos
yatai_), but the predominating species north of the Bermejo is the
caranday or Brazilian wax-palm (_Copernicia cerifera_), which has
varied uses. The forest habit in this region is close association of
species, and there are "palmares," "algarrobales," "chañarales," &c,,
and among these open pasture lands, giving to a distant landscape a
park-like appearance. In the "mesopotamia" region the flora is similar
to that of the southern Chaco, but in the Misiones it approximates
more to that of the neighbouring Brazilian highlands. Among the
marvellous changes wrought in Argentina by the advent of European
civilization, is the creation of a new flora by the introduction of
useful trees and plants from every part of the world. Indian corn,
quinoa, mandioca, possibly the potato, cotton and various fruits,
including the strawberry, were already known to the aborigines, but
with the conqueror came wheat, barley, oats, flax, many kinds of
vegetables, apples, peaches, apricots, pears, grapes, figs, oranges
and lemons, together with alfalfa and new grasses for the plains. The
Australian eucalyptus is now grown in many places, and there are
groves of the paradise or paraiso tree (_Melia azedarach_) on the
formerly treeless pampa. The cereals of Europe are a source of
increasing wealth to the nation, and alfalfa promises new prosperity
for pastoral industries.
_Fauna._--The Argentine fauna, like its flora, has been greatly
influenced by the character and position of the pampas. Whatever it
may have been in remote geological periods, it is now extremely
limited both in size and numbers. Of the indigenous fauna, the tapir
of the north and the guanaco of the west and south are the largest of
the animals. The pampas were almost destitute of animal life before
the horses and cattle of the Spanish invaders were there turned out to
graze, and the puma and jaguar never came there until the herds of
European cattle attracted them. The timid viscacha (_Lagostomus
trichodactylus_), living in colonies, often with the burrowing owl,
and digging deep under ground like the American prairie dog, was
almost the only quadruped to be seen upon these immense open plains.
The fox, of which several species exist, probably never ventured far
into the plain, for it afforded him no shelter. Immense flocks of
gulls were probably attracted to it then as now by its insect life,
and its lagoons and streams teemed with aquatic birds. The occupation
of this region by Europeans, and the introduction of horses, asses,
cattle, sheep, goats and swine, have completely changed its aspect and
character. On the Patagonian steppes there are comparatively few
species of animals. Among them are the puma (_Felis concolor_), a
smaller variety of the jaguar (_Felis onça_), the wolf, the fox, the
Patagonian hare (_Dolichotis patagonica_) and two species of wild cat.
The huge glyptodon once inhabited this region, which now possesses the
smallest armadillo known, the "quir-quincho" or _Dasypus minutus_. The
guanaco (_Auchenia_), which ranges from Tierra del Fuego to the
Bolivian highlands, finds comparative safety in these uninhabitable
solitudes, and is still numerous. The "ñandú" or American ostrich
(_Rhea americana_), inhabiting the pampas and open plains of the
Chaco, has in Patagonia a smaller counterpart (_Rhea Darwinii_), which
is never seen north of the Rio Negro. On the arid plateaus of the
north-west, the guanaco and vicuña are still to be found, though less
frequently, together with a smaller species of viscacha (_Lagidium
cuvieri_). The greatest development of the Argentine fauna, however,
is in the warm, wooded regions of the north and north-east, where many
animals are of the same species as those in the neighbouring
territories of Brazil. Several species of monkeys inhabit the forests
from the Paraná to the Bolivian frontier. Pumas, jaguars and one or
two species of wild cat are numerous, as also the Argentine wolf and
two of three species of fox. The coatí, marten, skunk and otter
(_Lutra paranensis_) are widely distributed. Three species of deer are
common. In the Chaco the tapir or anta (_Tapir americanus_) still
finds a safe retreat, and the peccary (_Dycotyles torquatus_) ranges
from Córdoba north to the Bolivian frontier. The capybara
(_Hydrochoerus capybara_) is also numerous in this region. Of birds
the number of species greatly exceeds that of the mammals, including
the rhea of the pampas and condor of the Andes, and the tiny,
brilliant-hued humming-birds of the tropical North. Vultures and hawks
are well represented, but perhaps the most numerous of all are the
parrots, of which there are six or seven species. The reptilians are
represented in the Paraná by the jacaré (_Alligator sclerpos_), and on
land by the "iguana" (_Teius teguexim, Podinema teguixin_), and some
species of lizard. Serpents are numerous, but only two are described
as poisonous, the cascavel (rattlesnake) and the "vibora de la cruz"
(_Trigonocephalus alternatus_).[2]
_Population._--In population Argentina ranks second among the republics
of South America, having outstripped, during the last quarter of the
19th century, the once more populous states of Colombia and Peru. During
the first half of the 19th century civil war and despotic government
seriously restricted the natural growth of the country, but since the
definite organization of the republic in 1860 and the settlement of
disturbing political controversies, the population had increased
rapidly. Climate and a fertile soil have been important elements in this
growth. According to the first national census of 1869 the population
was 1,830,214. The census of 1895 increased this total to 3,954,911,
exclusive of wild Indians and a percentage for omissions customarily
used in South American census returns. In 1904 official estimates, based
on immigration and emigration returns and upon registered births and
deaths, both of which are admittedly defective, showed a population
increased to 5,410,028, and a small diminution in the rate of annual
increase from 1895 to 1904 as compared with 1860-1895. The birth-rate is
exceptionally high, largely because of the immigrant population, the
greater part of which is concentrated in or near the large cities. In
the rural districts of the northern provinces, the increase in
population is much less than in the central provinces, the conditions of
life being less favourable. According to the official returns,[3] the
over-sea immigration for the forty-seven years 1857-1903 aggregated
2,872,588, while the departure of emigrants during the same period was
1,066,480, showing a net addition to the population of 1,806,108. A
considerable percentage of these arrivals and departures represents
seasonal labourers, who come out from Europe solely for the Argentine
wheat harvest and should not be classed as immigrants. Unfavourable
political and economic conditions of a temporary character influence the
emigration movement. During the years 1880-1889, when the country
enjoyed exceptional prosperity, the arrivals numbered 1,020,907 and the
departures only 175,038, but in 1890-1899, a period of financial
depression following the extravagant Celman administration, the arrivals
were 928,865 and the departures 532,175. Another disturbing influence
has been the high protective tariffs, adopted during the closing years
of the century, which increased the costs of living more rapidly than
the wages for labour, and compelled thousands of immigrants to seek
employment elsewhere. The influence of such legislation on unsettled
immigrant labourers may be seen in the number of Italians who
periodically migrate from Argentina to Brazil, and _vice versa_, seeking
to better their condition. Of the immigrant arrivals for the forty-seven
years given, 1,331,536 were Italians, 414,973 Spaniards, 170,293 French,
37,953 Austrians, 35,435 British, 30,699 Germans, 25,775 Swiss, 19,521
Belgians, and the others of diverse nationalities, so that Argentina is
in no danger of losing her Latin character through immigration. This
large influx of Europeans, however, is modifying the population by
reducing the Indian and _mestizo_ elements to a minority, although they
are still numerous in the mesopotamian, northern and north-western
provinces. The language is Spanish.
_Science and Literature._--Though the university of Córdoba is the
oldest but one in South America, it has made no conspicuous contribution
to Argentine literature beyond the historical works of its famous
rector, Gregorio Funes (1749-1830). This university was founded in 1621
and the university of Buenos Aires in 1821, but although Bonpland and
some other European scientists were members of the faculty of Buenos
Aires in its early years, neither there nor at Córdoba was any marked
attention given to the natural sciences until President Sarmiento
(official term, 1868-1874) initiated scientific instruction at the
university of Córdoba under the eminent German naturalist, Dr Hermann
Burmeister (1807-1892), and founded the National Observatory at Córdoba
and placed it under the direction of the noted American astronomer,
Benjamin Apthorp Gould (1824-1896). Both of these men made important
contributions to science, and rendered an inestimable service to the
country, not only through their publications but also through the
interest they aroused in scientific research. A bureau of meteorology
was afterwards created at Córdoba which has rendered valuable service.
Dr Burmeister was afterwards placed in charge of the provincial museum
of Buenos Aires, and devoted himself to the acquisition of a collection
of fossil remains, now in the La Plata museum, which ranks among the
best of the world. Not only has scientific study advanced at the
university of Buenos Aires, but scientific research is promoting the
development of the country; examples are the geographical explorations
of the Andean frontier, and especially of the Patagonian Andes, by
Francisco P. Moreno. In literature Argentina is still under the spell of
Bohemianism and dilettanteism. Exceptions are the admirable biographies
of Manuel Belgrano (d. 1820) and San Martin, important contributions to
the history of the country and of the war of independence, by
ex-President Bartolomé Mitre (1821-1906). Buenos Aires has some
excellent daily journals, but the tone of the press in general is
sensational. The number of newspapers published is large, especially in
Buenos Aires, where in 1902 the total, including sundry periodicals, was
183.
_Political Divisions and Towns._--The chief political divisions of the
republic consist of one federal district, 14 provinces and 10
territories, the last in great part dating from the settlement of the
territorial controversies with Chile. For purposes of local
administration the provinces are divided into departments. The names,
area and population of the provinces and territories are as follows:
+---------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| | Area | Pop. | Pop. est.|
| Administrative Divisions. | sq. m. | 1895. | for 1904.|
+---------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
| _Provinces_-- | | | |
| Federal Capital | 72 | 663,854 | 979,235 |
| Buenos Aires | 117,778 | 921,168 |1,312,953 |
| Santa Fé | 50,916 | 397,188 | 640,755 |
| Entre Rios | 28,784 | 292,019 | 367,006 |
| Corrientes | 32,580 | 239,618 | 299,479 |
| Córdoba | 62,160 | 351,223 | 465,464 |
| San Luis | 28,535 | 81,450 | 97,458 |
| Santiago del Estero | 39,764 | 161,502 | 186,206 |
| Mendoza | 56,502 | 116,136 | 159,780 |
| San Juan | 33,715 | 84,251 | 99,933 |
| Rioja | 34,546 | 69,302 | 82,099 |
| Catamarca | 47,531 | 90,161 | 103,082 |
| Tucumán | 8,926 | 215,742 | 263,079 |
| Salta | 62,184 | 118,015 | 136,059 |
| Jujuy | 18,977 | 49,713 | 55,430 |
| | | | |
| _Territories_-- | | | |
| Misiones | 11,282 | 33,163 | 38,755 |
| Formosa | 41,402 | 4,829 | 6,094 |
| Chaco | 32,741 | 10,422 | 13,937 |
| Pampa | 56,320 | 25,914 | 52,150 |
| Neuquen | 42,345 | 14,517 | 18,022 |
| Rio Negro | 75,924 | 9,241 | 18,648 |
| Chobut | 93,427 | 3,748 | 9,000 |
| Santa Cruz | 109,142 | 1,058 | 1,793 |
| Tierra del Fuego | 8,299 | 477 | 1,411 |
| Los Andes | 21,989 | .. | 2,095 |
| +----------+----------+----------+
| Total |1,135,840 |3,954,911 |5,410,028 |
| Gotha computations of 1902| | | |
| with corrections for | | | |
| boundary changes. |1,083,596 | | |
+---------------------------+----------+----------+----------+
The principal towns, with estimated population for 1905, are as follows:
Buenos Aires (1,025,653), Rosario (129,121), La Plata (85,000), Tucumán
(55,000), Córdoba (43.000), Sante Fé (33,200), Mendoza (32,000), Parana
(27,000), Salta (18,000), Corrientes (18,000), Chivilcoy (15,000),
Gualeguaychú (13,300), San Nicolás (13,000), Concordia (11,700), San
Juan (11,500), Río Cuarto (10,800), San Luis (10,500), Barracas al Sud
(10,200).
_Communications._--The development of railways in Argentina, which
dates from 1857 when the construction of the Buenos Aires Western was
begun, was at first slow and hesitating, but after 1880 it went
forward rapidly. Official corruption and speculation have led to some
unsound ventures, but in the great majority of cases the lines
constructed have been beneficial and productive. The principal centres
of the system are Buenos Aires, Rosario and Bahia Blanca, with La
Plata as a secondary centre to the former, and from these the lines
radiate westward and northward. The creation of a commercial port at
Bahia Blanca and the development of the territories of La Pampa, Rio
Negro and Neuquen, have given an impetus to railway construction in
that region, and new lines are being extended toward the promising
districts among the Andean foothills. Beginning with 6 m. in 1857, the
railway mileage of the republic increased to 1563 m. in 1880, 5865 m.
in 1890, 7752 m. in 1891, 10,304 m. in 1901, and 12,274 m. in 1906,
with 1794 m. under construction. The greater development of railway
construction between 1885 and 1891 was due, principally, to the
dubious concessions of interest guarantees by the Celman
administration, and also to the fever of speculation. Some of these
lines resulted disastrously. The Transandine line, designed to open
railway communication between Buenos Aires and Valparaiso, was so far
completed early in 1909 that on the Argentine side only the summit
tunnel, 2 m. 127 yds. long, remained to be finished. The piercing was
completed in Nov. 1909, but in the meantime passengers were conveyed
by road over the pass. The gauge is broken at Mendoza, the Buenos
Aires and Pacific having a gauge of 5 ft. 6 in. and the Transandine of
one metre.
Tramway lines, which date from 1870, are to be found in all important
towns. Those of Buenos Aires, Rosario and La Plata are owned by public
companies. According to the census returns of 1895, the total mileage
was 496 m., representing a capital expenditure of $84,044,581 paper.
Electric traction was first used in Buenos Aires in 1897, since when
nearly all the lines of that city have been reconstructed to meet its
requirements, and subways are contemplated to relieve the congested
street traffic of the central districts; the companies contribute 6%
of their gross receipts to the municipality, besides paying $50 per
annum per square on each single track in paved streets, 5 per thousand
on the value of their property, and 33% of the cost of street repaving
and renewals.
The telegraph lines of Argentina are subject to the national telegraph
law of 1875, the international telegraph conventions, and special
conventions with Brazil and Uruguay. In 1902 the total length of wires
strung was 28,125 m.; in 1906 it had been increased to 34,080 m. The
national lines extend from Buenos Aires north to La Quiaca on the
Bolivian frontier (1180 m.), and south to Cape Virgenes (1926 m.), at
the entrance to the Straits of Magellan. Telegraphic communication
with Europe is effected by cables laid along the Uruguayan and
Brazilian coasts, and by the Brazilian land lines to connect with
transatlantic cables from Pernambuco. Communication with the United
States is effected by land lines to Valparaiso, and thence by a cable
along the west coast. The service is governed by the international
telegraph regulations, but is subject to local inspection and
interruption in times of political disorder.
The postal and telegraph services are administered by the national
government, and are under the immediate supervision of the minister of
the interior. Argentina has been a member of the Postal Union since
1878. Owing to the great distances which must be covered, and also to
the defective means of communication in sparsely settled districts,
the costs of the postal service in Argentina are unavoidably high in
relation to the receipts.
_Shipping._--Although Argentina has an extensive coast-line, and one
of the great fluvial systems of the world, the tonnage of steamers and
sailing vessels flying her flag is comparatively small. In 1898 the
list comprised only 1416 sailing vessels of all classes, from 10 tons
up, with a total tonnage of 118,894 tons, and 222 steamships, of
36,323 tons. There has been but slight improvement since that date.
There are excellent fishing grounds on the coast, but they have had no
appreciable influence in developing a commerical marine. The
steamships under the national flag are almost wholly engaged in the
traffic between Buenos Aires and Montevideo, the river traffic, and
port services.
Live stock, &c.
_Agriculture._--In 1878 the production of wheat was insufficient for
home consumption, the amount of Indian corn grown barely covered local
necessities, and the only market for live stock was in the
slaughtering establishments, where the meat was cut into strips and
cured, making the so-called "jerked beef" for the Brazilian and Cuban
markets. But three years later a new economic development began. In
1881 President Roca offered for public purchase by auction the lands
in the south-west of the province of Buenos Aires, the Pampa Central,
and the Neuquen district, these lands having been rendered habitable
after the campaign of 1878 against the Indians. The upset (reserve)
price was £80 sterling per square league of 6669 acres, and, as the
lands were quickly sold, an expansion of the pastoral industry
immediately ensued. The demand for animals for stock-breeding purposes
sent up prices, and this acted as a stimulus to other branches of
trade, so that, as peace under the Roca regime seemed assured, a
steady flow of immigration from Italy set in. The development of the
pastoral industry of Argentina from that time to the end of the
century was remarkable. In 1878 the number of cattle was 12,000,000;
of sheep, 65,000,000; and of horses, 4,000,000; in 1899 the numbers
were--cattle, 25,000,000; sheep, 89,000,000; and horses, about
4,500,000. Originally the cattle were nearly all of the long-horned
Spanish breed and of little value for their meat, except to the
saladero establishments. Gradually Durham, Shorthorn, Hereford and
other stock were introduced to improve the native breeds, with results
so satisfactory that now herds of three-quarters-bred cattle are to be
found in all parts of the country. Holstein, Jersey and other
well-known dairy breeds were imported for the new industries of
butter- and cheese-making. Not only has the breed of cattle been
improved, but the system of grazing has completely altered. Vast areas
of land have been ploughed and sown with lucerne (alfalfa);
magnificent permanent pasturage has been created where there were
coarse and hard grasses in former days, and Argentina has been able to
add baled hay to her list of exports. In 1889 the first shipment of
Argentine cattle, consisting altogether of 1930 steers, was sent to
England. The results of these first experiments were not encouraging,
owing mainly to the poor class of animals, but the exporters
persevered, and the business steadily grew in value and importance,
until in 1898 the number of live cattle shipped was 359,296, which
then decreased to 119,189 in 1901, because of the foot-and-mouth
disease. In 1906 the export of live stock was prohibited for that
reason. Large quantities of frozen and preserved meat are exported,
profitable prices being realized. Dairy-farming is making rapid
strides, and the development of sheep-farming has been remarkable. In
1878, 65,000,000 sheep yielded 230,000,000 Ib weight of wool, or an
average per sheep of, about 3½ lb. In the season of 1899-1900 the wool
exports weighed 420,000,000 Ib, and averaged more than 5 lb. per
sheep. The extra weight of fleece was owing to the large importation
of better breeds. The export, moreover, of live sheep and of frozen
mutton to Europe has become an important factor in the trade of
Argentina. In 1892 the number of live sheep shipped for foreign ports
was 40,000; in 1898 the export reached a total of 577,813, which in
1901 fell off to 25,746. In 1892 the frozen mutton exported was 25,500
tons, and this had increased in 1901 to 63,013 tons.
Crops.
The advance made in agricultural industry also is of very great
importance. In 1872 the cultivated area was about 1,430,000 acres; in
1895, 12,083,000 acres; in 1901, 17,465,973 acres. In 1899 the wheat
exports exceeded 50,000,000 bushels, and the Indian corn 40,000,000
bushels. The area under wheat in 1901 was 8,351,843 acres; Indian
corn, 3,102,140 acres; linseed, 1,512,340 acres; alfalfa, 3,088,929
acres. The farming industry is not, however, on a satisfactory basis.
No national lands in accessible districts are available for the
application of a homestead law, and the farmer too often has no
interest in the land beyond the growing crops, a percentage of the
harvest being the rent charged by the owner of the property. This
system is mischievous, since, if a few, consecutive bad seasons occur,
the farmer moves to some more favoured spot; while, on the other hand,
a succession of good years tends to increase rents. The principal
wheat and Indian corn producing districts lie in the provinces of
Santa Fé, Buenos Aires, Córdoba and Entre Rios, and the average yield
of wheat throughout the country is about 12 bushels to the acre.
Little attention is paid to methods of cultivation, and the farmer has
no resources to help him if the cereal crops fail. In the Andean
provinces of Mendoza, San Juan, Catamarca and Rioja viticulture
attracts much attention, and the area in vineyards in 1901 was 109,546
acres, only 18% of which was outside the four provinces named. Wine is
manufactured in large quantities, but the output is not sufficient to
meet the home demand. In the provinces of Tucumán, Salta and Jujuy the
main industry is sugar growing and manufacture. In 1901 the production
of sugar was 151,639 tons, of which 58,000 tons were exported. The
sugar manufacture, however, is a protected and bounty-fed industry,
and the 51 sugar mills in operation in 1901 are a heavy tax upon
consumers and taxpayers. Other products are tobacco, olives,
castor-oil, peanuts, canary-seed, barley, rye, fruit and vegetables.
The pastoral and agricultural industries have been hampered by
fluctuations in the value of the currency, farm products being sold at
a gold value for the equivalent in paper, while labourers are paid in
currency. The existing system of taxation also presses heavily upon
the provinces, as may be seen from the fact that the national,
provincial and municipal exactions together amount to £7 per head of
population, while the total value of the exports in 1898 was only £6
in round numbers. The _guia_ tax on the transport of stock from one
province to another, which has been declared unconstitutional in the
courts, is still enforced, and is a vexatious tax upon the
stock-raiser, while the consumption, or _octroi_, tax in Buenos Aires
and other cities is a heavy burden upon small producers.
_Manufactures._--Manufacturing enterprise in Argentina, favoured by
the protection of a high tariff, made noticeable progress in the
national capital during the closing years of the last century,
especially in those small industries which commanded a secure market.
The principal classes of products affected are foods, wearing apparel,
building materials, furniture, &c., chemical products, printing and
allied trades, and sundry others, such as cigars, matches, tanning,
paints, &c. In some manufactures the raw material is imported partly
manufactured, such as thread for weaving. The lack of coal in
Argentina greatly increases the difficulty and cost of maintaining
these industries, and high prices of the products result. Electric
power generated by steam is now commonly used in Buenos Aires and
other large cities for driving light machinery.
_Commerce._--The rapid development of the foreign trade of the
republic since 1881 is due to settled internal conditions and to the
prime necessity to the commercial world of many Argentine products,
such as beef, mutton, hides, wool, wheat and Indian corn. Efforts to
hasten this development have created some serious financial and
industrial crises, and have burdened the country with heavy debts and
taxes. During the decade 1881-1890 great sums of European capital were
invested in railways and other undertakings, encouraged by the grant
of interest guarantees and by state mortgage bank loans in the form of
_cedulas_, nominally secured on landed property. In 1890 the crisis
came, the mortgage banks failed, credits were contracted, the value of
property declined, defaults were common, imports decreased, and the
losses to the country were enormous. The constant fluctuations in the
value of the currency, then much depreciated, intensified the distress
and complicated the situation. Recovery required years, although made
easier by the sound and steady development of the pastoral and
agricultural industries, which were slightly affected by the crisis;
and the steadily increasing volume of exports, mainly foodstuffs and
other staples, saved the situation. There have been some changes in
commercial methods since 1890, the retailer, and sometimes the
consumer, importing direct to save intermediate commission charges.
Such transactions are made easy by the foreign banks established in
all the large cities of the republic. The conversion law of 1899,
which gave a fixed gold value to the currency (44 centavos gold for
each 100 centavos paper), has had beneficial influence on commercial
transactions, through the elimination of daily fluctuations in the
value of the currency, and the commercial and financial situation has
been steadily improved, notwithstanding heavy taxation and tariff
restrictions. The import trade shows the largest totals in foodstuffs,
wines and liquors, textiles and raw materials for their manufacture,
wood and its manufactures, iron and its manufactures, paper and
cardboard, glass and ceramic wares. The official valuation of imports,
which is arbitrary and incorrect, was $164,569,884 gold in 1889, fell
off to $67,207,780 in 1891, but gradually increased to $205,154,420 in
1905. The exports, which are almost wholly of agricultural and
pastoral products, increased from $103,219,000 in 1891 to $322,843,841
in 1905.
_Government._--The present constitution of Argentina dates from the 25th
of September 1860. The legislative power is vested in a congress of two
chambers--the senate, composed of 30 members (two from each province and
two from the capital), elected by the provincial legislatures and by a
special body of electors in the capital for a term of nine years; and
the chamber of deputies, of 120 members (1906), elected for four years
by direct vote of the people, one deputy for every 33,000 inhabitants.
To the chamber of deputies exclusively belongs the initiation of all
laws relating to the raising of money and the conscription of troops. It
has also the exclusive right to impeach the president, vice-president,
cabinet ministers, and federal judges before the senate. The executive
power is exercised by the president, elected by presidential electors
from each province chosen by direct vote of the people. The president
and vice-president are voted for by separate tickets. The system closely
resembles that followed in the United States. The president must be a
native citizen of Argentina, a Roman Catholic, not under thirty years of
age, and must have an annual income of at least $2000. His term of
office is six years, and neither he nor the vice-president is eligible
for the next presidential term. All laws are sanctioned and promulgated
by the president, who is invested with the veto power, which can be
overruled only by a two-thirds vote. The president, with the advice and
consent of the senate, appoints judges, diplomatic agents, governors of
territories, and officers of the army and navy above the rank of
colonel. All other officers and officials he appoints and promotes
without the consent of the senate. The cabinet is composed of eight
ministers--the heads of the government departments of the interior,
foreign affairs, finance, war, marine, justice, agriculture, and public
works. They are appointed by and may be removed by the president.
Justice is administered by a supreme federal court of five judges and an
attorney-general, which is also a court of appeal, four courts of
appeal, with three judges each, located in Buenos Aires, La Plata,
Paraná and Córdoba, and by a number of inferior and local courts. Each
province has also its own judicial system. Trial by jury is established
by the constitution, but never practised. Civil and criminal courts are
both corrupt and dilatory. In May 1899 the minister of justice stated in
the chamber of deputies that the machinery of the courts in the country
was antiquated, unwieldy and incapable of performing its duties; that
50,000 cases were then waiting decision in the minor courts, and 10,000
in the federal division; and that a reconstruction of the judiciary and
the judicial system had become necessary. In June 1899 he sent his
project for the reorganization of the legal procedure to congress, but
no action was then taken beyond referring the bill to a committee for
examination and report. The proceedings are, with but few exceptions,
written, and the procedure is a survival of the antiquated Spanish
system.
Under the constitution, the provinces retain all the powers not
delegated to the federal government. Each province has its own
constitution, which must be republican in form and in harmony with that
of the nation. Each elects its governor, legislators and provincial
functionaries of all classes, without the intervention of the federal
government. Each has its own judicial system, and enacts laws relating
to the administration of justice, the distribution and imposition of
taxes, and all matters affecting the province. All the public acts and
judicial decisions of one province have full legal effect and authority
in all the others. In cases of armed resistance to a provincial
government, the national government exercises the right to intervene by
the appointment of an interventor, who becomes the executive head of the
province until order is restored. The territories are under the direct
control of the national government.
_Army._--The military service of the republic was reorganized in 1901,
and is compulsory for all citizens between the ages of 20 and 45. The
army consists of: (1) The Line, comprising the Active and Reserve, in
which all citizens 20 to 28 years of age are obliged to serve; (2) the
National Guard, comprising citizens of 28 to 40 years; (3) the
Territorial Guard, comprising those 40 to 45 years. Conscripts of 20
years of age have to serve two years, three months each year. The active
or standing army comprises 18 battalions of infantry, 12 regiments of
cavalry, 8 regiments of artillery, and 4 battalions of engineers. A
military school, with 125 cadets, is maintained at San Martin, near the
national capital, and a training school for non-commissioned officers in
the capital itself. Compulsory attendance of young men at national guard
drills is enforced for at least two months of the year, under penalty of
enforced service in the Line. In 1906 the president announced that
permission had been given by the German emperor for 30 Argentine
officers to enter the German army each year and to serve eighteen
months, and also for five officers to attend the Berlin Military
Academy. The equipment of the standing army is thoroughly modern, the
infantry being provided with Mauser rifles and the artillery with Krupp
batteries.
_Navy._--The disputes with Chile during the closing years of the 19th
century led to a large increase in the navy, but in 1902 a treaty
between the two countries provided for the restriction of further
armaments for the next four years. The naval vessels then under
construction were accordingly sold, but in 1906 both countries,
influenced apparently by the action of Brazil, gave large orders in
Europe for new vessels. At the time when further armaments were
suspended, the effective strength of the Argentine navy consisted of 3
ironclads, 6 first-class armoured cruisers, 2 monitors (old), 4
second-class cruisers, 2 torpedo cruisers, 3 destroyers, 3 high-sea
torpedo boats, 14 river torpedo boats, 1 training ship, 5 transports,
and various auxiliary vessels. Two of these first-class cruisers were
sold to Japan. The armament included 394 guns of all calibres, 6 of
which were of 250 millimetres, 4 of 240, and 12 of 200. There are about
320 officers in active service, and the total personnel ranges from 5000
to 6000 men. The service is not popular, and it is recruited by means of
conscription from the national guard, the term of service being two
years. These conscripts number about 2000 a year. In addition, there is
a corps of coast artillery numbering 450 men, from which garrisons are
drawn for the military port, Zárate arsenal and naval prison. The
government maintains a naval school at Flores, a school of mechanics in
Buenos Aires, an artillery school on the cruiser "Patagonia," and a
school for torpedo practice at La Plata. The naval arsenal is situated
on the "north basin" of the Buenos Aires port, and the military port at
Bahia Blanca is provided with a dry dock of the largest size, and
extensive repair shops. There is also a dockyard and torpedo arsenal at
La Plata, an artillery depot at Zárate, above Buenos Aires, and naval
depots on the island of Martin Garcia and at Tigre, on the Luján river.
_Education._--Primary education is free and secular, and is compulsory
for children of 6 to 14 years. In the national capital and territories
it is supervised by a national council of education with the assistance
of local school boards; in the 14 provinces it is under provincial
control. Secondary instruction is also free, but is not compulsory. It
is under the control of the national government, which in 1902
maintained 10 colleges. Of these colleges four are in Buenos Aires, one
in each province, and one in Conceptión del Uruguay. For the instruction
of teachers the republic has 28 normal schools, as follows: three in the
national capital; one in Paraná, three (regional) in Corrientes, San
Luis and Catamarca; 14 for female teachers in the provincial capitals;
and seven for either sex in the larger towns of the provinces of Buenos
Aires, Santa Fé, Córdoba and San Luis. The normal schools, maintained by
the state on a secular basis, were founded by President Sarmiento, who
engaged experienced teachers in the United States to direct them; their
work is excellent; notably, their model primary schools. For higher and
professional education there are two national universities at Buenos
Aires and Córdoba, and three provincial universities, at La Plata, Santa
Fé and Paraná, which comprise faculties of law, medicine and
engineering, in addition to the usual courses in arts and science. To
meet the needs of technical and industrial education there are a school
of mines at San Juan, a school of viticulture at Mendoza, an agronomic
and veterinary school at La Plata, several agricultural and pastoral
schools, and commercial schools in Buenos Aires, Rosario, Bahia Blanca
and Concordia. Schools of art and conservatories of music are also
maintained in the large cities, where there are, besides, many private
schools. Secular education has been vigorously opposed by strict
churchmen, and efforts have been made to maintain separate schools under
church control. The national government has founded several scholarships
(some in art) for study abroad. The total school population of Argentina
in 1900 (6 to 14 years) was 994,089, of which 45% attended school, and
13% of those not attending were able to read and write. The illiterate
school population was about 41%, and of those of 15 years and over 54%
were illiterate. Of the whole population over 6 years, 50.5% were
illiterate.
_Religion._--The Argentine constitution recognizes the Roman Catholic
religion as that of the state, but tolerates all others. The state
controls all ecclesiastical appointments, decides on the passing or
rejection of all decrees of the Holy See, and provides an annual subsidy
for maintenance of the churches and clergy. Churches and chapels are
founded and maintained by religious orders and private gift as well. At
the head of the Argentine hierarchy are one archbishop and five
suffragan bishops, who have five seminaries for the education of the
priesthood. From statistics of 1895 it appears that in each 1000 of
population 991 are Roman Catholics, 7 Protestants, and 2 Jews, the Jews
being entirely of Russian origin, sent into the republic since 1891 by
the Jewish Colonization Association under the provisions of the Hirsch
legacy; from 1895 to 1908 the number of Jews in Argentina increased from
6085 to about 30,000.
_Finance._--The revenue of the republic is derived mainly from customs
and excise, and the largest item of expenditure is the service of the
public debt. Since 1891 the national budgets have been calculated in
both gold and currency, and both receipts and expenditures have been
carried out in this dual system. The collection of a part of the
import duties in gold has served to give the government the gold it
requires for certain expenditures, but it has complicated returns and
accounts and increased the burden of taxation. According to a
compilation of statistical returns published by Dr. Francisco Latzina
in 1901, the national revenues and expenditures for the 37 years from
1864 to 1900, inclusive, reduced to a common standard, show a total
deficit for that period of $408,260,795 gold, which has been met by
external and internal loans, and by a continued increase in the scope
and rate of taxation. The growth of the annual budget is shown by a
comparison of the following years:--
Total Revenue. Total Expenditure.
1864 $7,005,328 gold. $7,119,931 gold.
1880 19,594,306 " 26,919,295 "
1890 73,150,856 " 95,363,854 "
1900 / 62,045,458 paper. / 104,501,614 paper.
\ 37,998,704 gold. \ 23,644,543 gold.
1905 / 63,439,000 paper. / 105,581,680 paper.
\ 43,461,324 gold. \ 24,865,016 gold.
The bane of Argentine finance has been the extravagant and
unscrupulous use of national credit for the promotion of schemes
calculated to benefit individuals rather than the public. The large
increase in military expenditures during the disputes with Chile also
proved a heavy burden, and in the continued strife with Brazil for
naval superiority this burden could not fail to be increased greatly.
A very considerable percentage of Argentina's population of five to
six millions is hopelessly poor and unprogressive, and cannot be
expected to bear its share of the burden. To meet these expenditures
there are a high tariff on imported merchandise, and excise and stamp
taxes of a far-reaching and often vexatious character. Nothing is
permitted to escape taxation, and duplicated taxes on the same thing
are frequent. In Argentina these burdens bear heavily upon the
labouring classes, and in years of depression they send away by
thousands immigrants unable to meet the high costs of living. For the
year 1900 the total expenditures of the national government, 14
provincial governments, and 16 principal cities, were estimated to
have been $208,811,925 paper, which is equivalent to $91,877,247 gold,
or (at $5.04 per pound stg.) to £18,229,612, 10s. The population that
year was estimated to be 4,794,149, from which it is seen that the
annual costs of government were no less than £3, 16s. for each man,
woman, and child in the republic. About 71% of this charge was on
account of national expenditures, and 29% provincial and municipal
expenditures. Had the expenses of all the small towns and rural
communities been included, the total would be in excess of $20 gold,
or £4, _per capita_.
In 1889 the public debt of the republic amounted to about £24,000,000,
but the financial difficulties which immediately followed that year,
and the continuance of excessive expenditures, forced the debt up to
approximately £128,000,000 during the next ten years. In the year 1905
the outstanding and authorized debt of the republic was as follows:--
External debt (July 31, 1905):
National loans £42,297,050
Provincial loans and others, assumed 30,395,916
National cedulas 11,763,923
----------
Total £84,456,889
Consolidated Internal debt (Dec. 31, 1904):
Gold $16,544,000
Paper 79,174,400
---------- £10,178,718
Total service on funded debt, 1905,
$24,375,067 gold, and $15,914,335 paper £6,225,669
Floating debt £259,170
Treasury bills (Apr. 30, 1905) 275,220
Unpaid bills, $3,332,594, paper 288,560
--------- £822,950
The paper currency forms an important part of the internal debt, and
has been a fruitful source of trouble to the country. Few countries
have suffered more from a depreciated currency than Argentina. During
the era of so-called "prosperity" between 1881 and 1890 an enormous
amount of bank notes were issued under various authorizations,
especially that of the "free banking law" of 1887. During this period
the bank-note circulation was increased to $161,700,000, and two
mortgage banks--the National Hypothecary Bank and the Provincial
Mortgage Bank (of Buenos Aires)--flooded the country with $509,000,000
of _cedulas_ (hypothecary bonds). When the crash came and the national
treasury was found to be without resources to meet current expenses,
further issues of $110,000,000 in currency were made. The free-banking
law which permitted the issue of notes by provincial banks was
primarily responsible for this situation. Under the provisions of this
law the provinces were authorized to borrow specie abroad and deposit
the same with the national government as security for their issues.
These loans aggregated £27,000,000. The Celman administration, in
violation of the trust, then sold the specie and squandered the
proceeds, leaving the provincial bank notes without guarantee and
value. The national government has since assumed responsibility for
all these provincial loans abroad. As on previous occasions, the great
depreciation in the value of the currency has led to a repudiation of
part of its nominal value. This depreciation reached its maximum in
October 1891 ($460.82 paper for $100 gold), and remained between that
figure and $264 during the next six years. To check these prejudicial
fluctuations and to prevent too great a fall in the price of gold (to
repeat a popular misconception), a conversion law was adopted on the
31st of October 1899, which provided that the outstanding circulation
should be redeemed at the rate of 44 centavos gold for each 100
centavos paper, the official rate for gold being 227.27. Provisions
were also made for the creation of a special conversion fund in specie
to guarantee the circulation, which fund reached a total of
$100,000,000 in March 1906. These measures have served to give greater
stability to the value of the circulating medium, and to prevent the
ruinous losses caused by a constant fluctuation in value, but the rate
established prevents the further appreciation of the currency. On the
18th of January 1906 the currency in circulation amounted to
$502,420,485, which is more than $95 _per capita_. (A. J. L.)
HISTORY
The first Europeans who visited the river Plate were a party of Spanish
explorers in search of a south-west passage to the East Indies. Their
leader, Juan Diaz de Solis, landing incautiously in 1516 on the north
coast with a few attendants to parley with a body of Charrua Indians,
was suddenly attacked by them and was killed, together with a number of
his followers. This untoward disaster led to the abandonment of the
expedition, which forthwith returned to Spain, bringing with them the
news of the discovery of a fresh-water sea. Four years later (1520) the
Portuguese seaman, Ferdinand Magellan, entered the estuary in his
celebrated voyage round the world, undertaken in the service of the king
of Spain (Charles I., better known as the emperor Charles V.). Magellan,
as soon as he had satisfied himself that there was no passage to the
west, left the river without landing.
Cabot.
The first attempt to penetrate by way of the river Plate and its
affluents inland, with a view to effecting settlements in the interior,
was made in 1526 by Sebastian Cabot. This great navigator had already
won renown in the service of Henry VII. of England by his voyage to the
coast of North America in company with his father, Giovanni Caboto or
Cabot (see CABOT, JOHN). Sebastian Cabot had in 1519 deserted England
for Spain, and had received from King Charles the post of pilot-major
formerly held by Juan de Solis. In 1526 he was sent out in command of an
expedition fitted out for the purpose of determining by astronomical
observations the exact line of demarcation, under the treaty of
Tordesillas, between, the colonizing spheres of Spain and Portugal, and
of conveying settlers to the Moluccas. Arrived in the river Plate in
1527, rumours reached Cabot of mineral wealth and a rich and civilized
empire in the far interior, and he resolved to abandon surveying for
exploration. He built a fort a short distance up the river Uruguay, and
despatched one of his lieutenants, Juan Alvarez Ramon, with a separate
party upon an expedition up stream. This expedition was assailed by the
Charruas and forced to return on foot, their leader himself being
killed. Cabot, with a large following, entered the Paraná and
established a settlement just above the mouth of the river Carcarañal,
to which he gave the name of San Espiritù, among the Timbú Indians, with
whom he formed friendly relations. He continued the ascent of the Paraná
as far as the rapids of Apipé, and finding his course barred in this
direction, he afterwards explored the river Paraguay, which he mounted
as far as the mouth of the affluent called by the Indians Lepeti, now
the river Bermejo. His party was here fiercely attacked by the Agaces or
Payaguá Indians, and suffered severely. Cabot in his voyage had seen
many silver ornaments in the possession of the Timbú and Guarani
Indians. Some specimens of these trinkets he sent back to Spain with a
report of his discoveries. The arrival of these first-fruits of the
mineral wealth of the southern continent gained for the estuary of the
Paraná the name which it has since borne, that of Rio de la Plata, the
silver river. As Cabot was descending the stream to his settlement of
San Espiritù, he encountered an expedition which had been despatched
from Spain for the express purpose of exploring the river discovered by
Solis, under the command of Diego Garcia. Finding that he had been
forestalled, Garcia resolved to return home. Cabot himself, after an
absence of more than three years, came back in 1530, and applied to
Charles V. for means to open up communications with Peru by way of the
river Bermejo. The emperor's resources were, however, absorbed by his
struggle for European supremacy with Francis I. of France, and he was
obliged to leave the enterprise of South American discoveries to his
wealthy nobles. Cabot's colony at San Espiritù did not long survive his
departure; an attempt of the chief of the Timbús to gain possession of
one of the Spanish ladies of the settlement led to a treacherous
massacre of the garrison.
Mendoza.
Buenos Aires.
Two years after the return of Cabot, the news of Francisco Pizarro's
marvellous conquest of Peru reached Europe (1532), and stirred many an
adventurous spirit to strive to emulate his good fortune. Among these
was Pedro de Mendoza, a Basque nobleman. He obtained from Charles V. a
grant (_asiento_) of two hundred leagues of the coast from the boundary
of the Portuguese possessions southward towards the Straits of Magellan,
and the inland country which lay behind it. Mendoza undertook to conquer
and settle the territory at his own charges, certain profits being
reserved to the crown. In August 1534 the _adelantado_, or governor,
sailed from San Lucar, at the head of the largest and wealthiest
expedition that had ever left Europe for the New World. In January 1535
he entered the river Plate, where he followed the northern shore to the
island of San Gabriel, and then crossing over he landed by a little
stream, still called Riachuelo. The name of Buenos Aires was given to
the country by Sancho del Campo, brother-in-law of the _adelantado_, who
first stepped ashore. Here, on the 2nd of February, Mendoza laid the
foundations of a settlement which in honour of the day he named Santa
Maria de Buenos Aires. Mendoza, after some fierce encounters with the
Indians, now proceeded up the Paraná, and built a fort, which he called
Corpus Christi, near the site of Cabot's former settlement of San
Espiritù. The expedition, which originally numbered 2500 men, was
reduced by deaths at the hands of the Indians, by disease and privation,
within a year to less than 500 men. From Corpus Christi, Mendoza sent
out various bodies to explore the interior in the direction of Peru, but
without much success, and at length, thoroughly discouraged and broken
in health, he abandoned his enterprise, and returned to Spain in 1537.
Asunción
A portion of one of the expeditions he despatched, under Juan de Ayolas,
pushing up the Paraguay, is said to have reached the south-east
districts of Peru, but while returning laden with booty, was attacked by
the Payaguá Indians, and every man perished. The other portion, which
had stayed behind as a reserve under Domingos Iralá, had better
fortunes. Finding their comrades did not return, Iralá and his
companions determined to descend the river, and on their downward
journey opposite the mouth of the river Pilcomayo, finding a suitable
site for colonizing, they founded (1536) what proved to be the first
permanent Spanish settlement in the interior of South America, the
future city of Asunción (15th August 1536).
Iralá
In the meantime the colony at Buenos Aires had been dragging on a
miserable existence, and after terrible sufferings from famine and from
the ceaseless attacks of the Indians, the remaining settlers abandoned
the place and made their way up the river first to Corpus Christi, then
to Asunción. Here, by the emperor's orders, the assembled Spaniards
proceeded to the election of a captain-general, and their choice fell
almost unanimously on Domingos Martinez de Iralá, who was proclaimed
captain-general of the Rio de la Plata (August 1538). In 1542 the
settlement of Buenos Aires was re-established by an expedition sent for
the purpose from Spain, under a tried _adelantado_, Cabeza de Vaca. This
able leader, eager to reach Asunción as quickly as possible, sent on his
ships to the river Plate, but himself with a small following marched
overland from Santa Catherina on the coast of Brazil to join Iralá. His
doings at Asunción belong, however, not to the history of Argentina, but
of Paraguay. Suffice it to say that differences with Iralá eventually
led to his arrest, and to his being sent back to Spain to answer to the
charges brought against him for maladministration. The second settlement
made by his expedition at Buenos Aires was even less successful and
long-lived than the first. Exposed to the incessant attacks of the
savages, the piace was a second time abandoned, February 1543.
Juan de Garay.
Forty years were now to elapse before any further efforts were made by
the Spaniards to colonize any part of the territory of the river Plate
and lower Paraná. In 1573 Juan de Garay, at the head of an expedition
despatched from Asunción, founded the city of Santa Fé near the
abandoned settlements of San Espiritù and Corpus Christi. Seven years
later (1580), when the new colony had been firmly established, Juan de
Garay proceeded southwards, and made the third attempt to build a city
on the site of Buenos Aires; and despite the determined hostility of the
Querendi Indians he succeeded in finally gaining a complete mastery over
them. In a desperate battle, the natives were defeated with great
slaughter, and the territory surrounding the town was divided into
ranches, in which the conquered natives had to labour. The new town
received from Garay the name of _Ciudad de la Santissima Trinidad_,
while its port retained the old appellation of Santa Maria de Buenos
Aires. It was endowed by its founder with a _cabildo_ (corporation) and
full Spanish municipal privileges. Garay, when on his way to Santa Fé,
was unfortunately murdered by a party of Indians, Minuas (Mimas), three
years later, while incautiously sleeping on the river bank near the
ruins of San Espiritù. The new settlement, however, continued to
prosper, and the cattle and horses brought from Europe multiplied and
spread over the plains of the Pampas.
In the meantime the Spaniards had penetrated into the interior of what
is now the Argentine Republic, and established themselves on the eastern
slopes of the Andes. In 1553 an expedition from Peru made their way
through the mountain region and founded the city of Santiago del Estero,
that of Tucumán in 1565, and that of Córdoba in 1573. Another expedition
from Chile, under Garcia Hurtado de Mendoza, crossed the Cordillera in
1559, and having defeated the Araucanian Indians, made a settlement
which from the name of the leader was called Mendoza. In 1620 Buenos
Aires was separated from the authority of the government established at
Asunción, and was made the seat of a government extending over Mendoza,
Santa Fé, Entre Rios and Corrientes, but at the same time remained like
the government of Paraguay at Asunción, and that of the province of
Tucumán, which had Córdoba as its capital, subject to the authority of
the viceroyalty of Peru.
Evils of Spanish colonial system.
Asiento question.
Thus at the opening of the 17th century, after many adventurous efforts,
and the expenditure of many lives and much treasure, the Spaniards found
themselves securely established on the river Plate, and had planted a
number of centres of trade and colonization in the interior.
Unfortunately, in no part of the Spanish oversea possessions did the
restrictive legislation of the home government operate more harshly or
disadvantageously to the interests of the colony; it was a more
effective hindrance to the development of its resources and the spread
of civilization over the country, than the hostility of the Indians.
Cabot had urged the feasibility of opening an easier channel for trade
with the interior of Peru through the river Plate and its tributaries,
than that by way of the West Indies and Panama; and now that his views
were able to be realized, the interests of the merchants of Seville and
of Lima, who had secured a monopoly of the trade by the route of the
isthmus, were allowed to destroy the threatened rivalry of that by the
river Plate. Never in the history of colonization has a mother country
pursued so relentlessly a policy more selfish and short-sighted. Spanish
legislation was not satisfied with endeavouring to exclude all European
nations except Spain from trading with the West Indies, but it sought to
limit all commerce to one particular route, and it forbade any trade
being transacted by way of the river Plate, thus enacting the most
flagrant injustice towards the people it had encouraged to settle in the
latter country. The strongest protests were raised, but the utmost they
could effect was that, in 1618, permission was granted to export from
Buenos Aires two shiploads of produce a year. But the Spanish government
was not content with the prohibition of sea-borne commerce. To prevent
internal trade with Peru a custom-house was set up at Córdoba to levy a
duty of 50% on everything in transit to and from the river Plate. In
1665 the relaxation of this system was brought about by the continual
remonstrances of the people, but for more than a century afterwards
(until 1776) the policy of exclusion was enforced. This naturally led to
a contraband trade of considerable dimensions. The English, after the
treaty of Utrecht (1715) held the contract (_asiento_) for supplying the
Spanish-American colonies with negro slaves. Among other places the
slave ships regularly visited Buenos Aires, and despite the efforts of
the Spanish authorities, contrived both to smuggle in and carry away a
quantity of goods. This illicit commerce went on steadily till 1739,
when it led to an outbreak of war between England and Spain, which put
an end to the _asiento_. The Portuguese were even worse offenders, for
in 1680 they made a settlement on the north of the river Plate, right
opposite to Buenos Aires, named Colonia, which with one or two short
intervals, remained in their hands till 1777. From this port foreign
merchandise found its way duty free into the Spanish provinces of Buenos
Aires, Tucumán and Paraguay, and even into the interior of Peru. The
continual encroachments of the Portuguese at length led the Spanish
government to take the important step of making Buenos Aires the seat of
a viceroyalty with jurisdiction over the territories of the present
republics of Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay and the Argentine Confederation
(1776). At the same time all this country was opened to Spanish trade
even with Peru, and the development of its resources, so long thwarted,
was allowed comparatively free play. Pedro de Zeballos, the first
viceroy, took with him from Spain a large military force with which he
finally expelled the Portuguese from the banks of the river Plate.
Effects of French war.
The wars of the French Revolution, in which Spain was allied with France
against Great Britain, interrupted the growing prosperity of Buenos
Aires. On the 17th of June 1806 General William Beresford landed with a
body of troops from a British fleet under the command of Sir Home
Popham, and obtained possession of Buenos Aires. But a French officer,
Jacques de Liniers, gathered together a large force with which he
enclosed the British within the walls, and finally, on the 12th of
August, by a successful assault, forced Beresford and his troops to
surrender. In July 1807 another British force of eight thousand men
under General Whitelock endeavoured to regain possession of Buenos
Aires, but strenuous preparations had been made for resistance, and
after fierce street fighting the invading army, after suffering severe
losses, was compelled to capitulate. The colonists, who had achieved
their two great successes without any aid from the home government, were
naturally elated, and began to feel a new sense of self-reliance and
confidence in their own resources. The successful defence of Buenos
Aires accentuated the growing feeling of dissatisfaction with the
Spanish connexion, which was soon to lead to open insurrection. The
establishment of the Napoleonic dynasty at Madrid was the actual cause
which brought about the disturbances which were to end in separation.
Liniers was viceroy on the arrival of the news of the crowning of Joseph
Bonaparte as king of Spain, but as a Frenchman he was distrusted and was
deposed by the adherents of Ferdinand VII. The central junta at Seville,
acting in the name of Ferdinand, appointed Balthasar de Cisneros to be
viceroy in his place. He entered upon the duties of his office on the
19th of July 1809, and at first he gained popularity by acceding to the
urgent appeals of the people and throwing open the trade of the country
to all nations. But his measures speedily gave dissatisfaction to the
Argentine or Creole party, who had long chafed under the disabilities of
Spanish rule, and who now felt themselves no longer bound by ties of
loyalty to a country which was in the possession of the French armies.
Struggle for independence.
On the 25th of May 1810 a great armed assembly met at Buenos Aires and a
provisional junta was formed to supersede the authority of the viceroy
and carry on the government. The acts of the new government ran in the
name of Ferdinand VII., but the step taken was a revolutionary one, and
the 25th of May has ever since been regarded as the birthday of
Argentine independence. The most prominent leader of the junta was its
secretary Mariano Moreno (1778-1811), who with a number of other active
supporters of the patriot cause succeeded in raising a considerable
force of Buenos Aireans to maintain, arms in hand, their nationalist and
anti-Spanish doctrines. An attempt of the Spanish party to make
Balthasar de Cisneros president of the junta failed, and the ex-viceroy
retired to Montevideo. A sanguinary struggle between the party of
independence and the adherents of Spain spread over the whole country,
and was carried on with varying fortune. Foremost among the leaders of
the revolutionary armies were Manuel Belgrano, and after March 1812
General José de San Martin, an officer who had gained experience against
the French in the Peninsular War. A state of disorder, almost of
anarchy, reigned in the provinces, but on the 25th of March 1816 a
congress of deputies was assembled at Tucumán, who named Don Martin
Pueyrredón supreme director, and on the 9th of July the separation of
the united provinces of the Rio de la Plata was formally proclaimed, and
comparative order was re-established in the country; Buenos Aires was
declared the seat of the government. The jealousy of the provinces,
however, against the capital led to a series of disturbances, and for
many years continual civil war devastated every part of the country.
Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay rose in armed revolt, and finally
established themselves as separate republics, whilst the city of Buenos
Aires itself was torn with faction and the scene of many a sanguinary
fight.
Republic established.
From 1816, however, the independence of the Argentine Republic was
assured, and success attended the South Americans in their contest with
the royal armies. The combined forces of Buenos Aires and Chile defeated
the Spaniards at Chacabuco in 1817, and at Maipú in 1818; and from Chile
the victorious general José de San Martin led his troops into Peru,
where on the 9th of July 1821, he made a triumphal entry into Lima,
which had been the chief stronghold of the Spanish power, having from
the time of its foundation by Pizarro been the seat of government of a
viceroyalty which at one time extended to the river Plate. A general
congress was assembled at Buenos Aires on the 1st of March 1822, of
representatives from all the liberated provinces, and a general amnesty
was decreed, though the war was not over until the 9th of December 1824,
when the republican forces gained the final, victory of Ayacucho, in the
Peruvian border-land. The Spanish government did not, however, formally
acknowledge the independence of the country until the year 1842. On the
23rd of January 1825, a national constitution for the federal states,
which formed the Argentine Republic, was decreed; and on the 2nd of
February of the same year Sir Woodbine Parish, acting under the
instructions of George Canning, signed a commercial treaty in Buenos
Aires, by which the British government acknowledged the independence of
the country. It had already been recognized by the United States of
America two years previously.
Unitarians and Federalists.
In 1826 Bernardo Rivadavia was elected president of the confederation.
His policy was to establish a strong central government, and he became
the head of a party known as Unitarians in contradistinction to their
opponents, who were styled Federalists, their aim being to maintain to
the utmost the local autonomy of the various provinces. Under the
government of Rivadavia the people of Buenos Aires became involved,
practically single-handed, in a war with Brazil in defence of the Banda
Oriental, which had been seized by the imperial forces (see URUGUAY).
The Brazilians were defeated, notably at Ituzaingo, and in 1827 the war
issued in the independence of Uruguay. Rivadavia's term of office was
likewise memorable for the constitution of the 24th of December 1826,
passed by the constituent congress of all the provinces, by which the
bonds which united the confederated states of the Argentine Republic
were strengthened. This project of closer union met, however, with much
opposition both at Buenos Aires and the provinces. Rivadavia resigned,
and Vicente Lopez, a Federalist, was elected to succeed him, but was
speedily displaced by Manuel Dorrego (1827), another representative of
the same party. The carrying out of Federalist principles led, however,
to the formation in the republic of a number of quasi-independent
military states, and Dorrego only ruled in Buenos Aires. After the
conclusion of the peace with Brazil, the Unitarians placed themselves
under the leadership of General Juan de Lavalle, the victor of
Ituzaingo. Lavalle, at the head of a division of troops, drove Dorrego
from Buenos Aires, pursued him into the interior, and captured him. He
was shot (December 9, 1828), by the order of Lavalle, and during the
year 1828 the country was given up to the horrors of civil war.
Rosas dictator.
On the death of Dorrego, a remarkable man, Juan Manuel de Rosas, became
the Federalist chief. In 1829 he defeated Lavalle, made himself master
of Buenos Aires, and in the course of the next three years made his
authority recognized after much fighting throughout the provinces. The
Unitarians were relentlessly hunted down and a veritable reign of terror
ensued. Rosas gradually concentrated all power in his own hands, and was
hailed by the populace as a saviour of the state. In 1835, with the
title of governor and captain-general, he acquired dictatorial powers,
and all public authority passed into his hands. This dictatorship of
Rosas continued until 1852. In every department of administration and of
government he was supreme. He was exceedingly jealous of foreign
interference, and quarrelled with France on questions connected with the
rights of foreign residents. Buenos Aires was in 1838 blockaded by a
French fleet; but Rosas stood firm. A formidable revolt took place in
1839 under General Lavalle, who had returned to the country accompanied
by a number of banished Unitarians. In 1840 he invaded Buenos Aires at
the head of troops raised chiefly in the province of Entre Rios; but he
was defeated at Santa Fé, then at Luján, and finally was captured in
Jujuy and shot, 1841. The rule of Rosas was now one of tyranny and
almost incessant bloodshed in Buenos Aires, while his partisans,
foremost amongst whom was General Ignacio Oribe, endeavoured to
exterminate the Unitarians throughout the provinces. The scene of
slaughter was extended to the Banda Oriental by the attempt of Oribe,
with the support of Rosas, and of Justo José de Urquiza, governor of
Entre Rios, to establish himself as president of that republic (see
URUGUAY), where the existing government was hostile to Rosas and
sheltered all political refugees from the country under his despotic
rule. The siege of Montevideo led to a joint intervention of England and
France. Buenos Aires was blockaded by the combined English and French
fleets, September 1845, which landed a force to open the passage up the
Paraná to Paraguay, which had been declared closed to foreigners by
Rosas. A convention was signed in 1849, which secured the free
navigation of the Paraná and the independence of the Banda Oriental. The
downfall of Rosas was at last brought about by the instrumentality of
Justo José de Urquiza, who as governor of Entre Rios, had for many years
been one of his strongest supporters. The breach between the two men
which led to open collision took place in 1846. The first efforts of
Urquiza to rouse the country against the oppressor were unsuccessful,
but in 1851 he concluded an alliance with Brazil, to which Uruguay
afterwards adhered. A large army of twenty-four thousand men was
collected at Montevideo, and on the 8th of January 1852 the allied
forces crossed the Paraná and the road to Buenos Aires lay open before
them. Rosas met the allies at the head of a body of troops fully equal
in numbers to their own, but was crushingly routed, February 3rd, at
Monte Caseros, about 10 m. from the capital. The dictator fled for
refuge to the British legation, from whence he was conveyed on board
H.B.M.S. "Locust," which carried him into exile.
Urquiza president.
Buenos Aires and the provinces.
A provisional government was formed under Urquiza, and the Brazilian and
Uruguayan troops withdrew. He summoned all the provincial governors at
San Nicolás in the province of Buenos Aires, and on the 31st of May they
proclaimed a new constitution, with Urquiza as provisional director of
the Argentine nation. A constituent congress, in which each province had
equal representation, was duly elected, and in order to provide against
the predominance of Buenos Aires, it was determined that Sante Fé should
be the place of session. But this did not suit the _porteños_, as the
people of Buenos Aires were called, and the province refused to take any
part in the congressional proceedings. But Urquiza was a man of
different temperament from Rosas, and when he found that Buenos Aires
refused to submit to his authority, he declined to use force. The
congress had (May 1, 1853) appointed Urquiza president of the
confederation, and he established the seat of government at Paraná. The
province of Buenos Aires was recognized as an independent state, and
under the enlightened administration of Doctor Obligado made rapid
strides in commercial prosperity. The two sections of the Argentine
nation contrived to exist as separate governments without an open breach
of the peace until 1859, when the long-continued tension led to the
outbreak of hostilities. The army of the _porteños_, commanded by
Colonel Bartolomé Mitre, was defeated at Cepeda by the confederate
forces under Urquiza, and Buenos Aires agreed to re-enter the
confederation (November 11, 1859). Urquiza at this juncture resigned the
presidency, and Doctor Santiago Derqui was elected president of the
fourteen provinces with the seat of government at Paraná; while Urquiza
became once more governor of Entre Rios, and Mitre was appointed
governor of Buenos Aires.
Mitre president.
Paraguay war.
The struggle for supremacy between Buenos Aires and the provinces had,
however, to be fought out, and hostilities once more broke out in 1861.
The armies of the opposing parties, under Generals Mitre and Urquiza
respectively, met at Pavón in the province of Santa Fé (September 17).
The battle ended in the disastrous defeat of the provincial forces;
General Mitre used his victory in a spirit of moderation and sincere
patriotism. He was elected president of the Argentine confederation and
did his utmost to settle the questions which had led to so many civil
wars, on a permanent and sound basis. The constitution of 1853 was
maintained, but Buenos Aires became the seat of federal government
without ceasing to be a provincial capital. Causes of friction still
remained, but they did not develop into open quarrels, for Mitre was
content to leave Urquiza in his province of Entre Rios, and the other
administrators (_caudillos_) in their several governments, a large
measure of autonomy, trusting that the position and growing commercial
importance of Buenos Aires would inevitably tend to make the federal
capital the real centre of power of the republic. In 1865 the Argentines
were forced into war with Paraguay through the overbearing attitude of
the president Francisco Solano Lopez. The dictator of Paraguay had
quarrelled with Brazil for its intervention in the internal affairs of
Uruguay, and he demanded free passage for his troops across the
Argentine province of Corrientes. This Mitre refused, and alliance was
formed between Argentina, Brazil and Uruguay, for joint action against
Lopez. General Mitre became commander-in-chief of the combined armies
for the invasion of Paraguay and was absent for several years in the
field. The struggle was severe and attended by heavy losses, and it was
not until 1870 that the Paraguayans were conquered, Lopez killed, and
peace concluded (see PARAGUAY). Meanwhile, disturbances had broken out
in the interior of Argentina (1867), which compelled Mitre to relinquish
his command in Paraguay, and to call back a large part of the Argentine
forces to suppress the insurrection. The rebels had hoped for assistance
from Urquiza, but the powerful governor of Entre Rios maintained the
peace in his province, which under his firm and beneficent rule had
greatly prospered, and the revolutionary movement was quickly subdued.
Sarmiento president.
In 1868 the term of General Mitre came to an end, and Doctor Domingo
Faustino Sarmiento, a native of San Juan, was quietly elected to succeed
him. His conduct of affairs was broad-minded and upright, and was
characterized by earnest efforts to promote education and to develop the
resources of the country. His period of office was marked by the rapid
advance of Buenos Aires in population and prosperity, and by an
expansion of trade that was unfortunately accompanied by financial
extravagance. The war with Paraguay left a legacy of disputes concerning
boundaries which almost led to war between the two victorious allies,
Argentina and Brazil, but by the exertions of Mitre, who was sent at the
close of 1872 as special envoy to Rio, a settlement was arrived at and
friendly relations restored. The month of April 1870 saw an insurrection
in Entre Rios headed by the _caudillo_, Lopez Jordan. Urquiza was
assassinated, and the provincial legislature, through fear, at once
proclaimed Lopez Jordan governor. The federal government refused to
acknowledge the new governor, and troops were despatched by Sarmiento
against Entre Rios. The contest lasted with varying success for more
than a year, but finally Lopez Jordan was completely defeated and driven
into exile.
Avellaneda president.
The Tiro Nacional.
The presidential election of 1874 resolved itself, as so often before,
into a struggle between the provincials and the _porteños_ (Buenos
Aires). The candidate of the former, Dr Nicolas Avellaneda, triumphed
over General Mitre, not without suspicions of tampering with the
returns; and the unsuccessful party appealed to arms. The new president,
however, who was installed in office on the 12th of October, took active
steps to suppress the revolution, which never assumed a really serious
character. The government troops gained two decisive victories over the
insurgents under Generals Mitre and Arredondo, and they were compelled
to surrender at discretion. But though peace was for a time restored,
the old causes of soreness and dissension remained unappeased, and as
the time for the next presidential election began to draw near, it
became more and more evident that a critical struggle was at hand, and
that the people of Buenos Aires, supported by the province of
Corrientes, were determined to bring to an issue the question as to what
position Buenos Aires was to hold for the future with regard to the
remaining provinces of the confederation. It was evident that the
president intended to use all the influence which the party in power
could exercise, to secure the return of General Julio Roca, who had
distinguished himself in 1878 by a successful campaign against the
warlike Indian tribes bordering on the Andes. The _porteños_ on their
part were determined to resist this policy to the utmost. Mass meetings
were held, and a committee was appointed for the purpose of considering
what action should be taken to defeat the ambitious designs of the
provincials. Under the direction of this committee, the association
known as the "Tiro Nacional" was formed, with the avowed object of
training the able-bodied citizens of Buenos Aires in military exercises
and creating a volunteer army, ready for service if called upon, to
withstand by force the pretensions of their opponents. The establishment
of the Tiro Nacional was enthusiastically received by all classes in
Buenos Aires, the men turning out regularly to drill, and the women
aiding the movement by collecting subscriptions for the purpose of
armament and other necessaries. On the 13th of February 1880, the
minister of war, Dr Carlos Pellegrini, summoned the principal officers
connected with the Tiro Nacional, General Bartolomé Mitre, his brother
Emilio, Colonel Julio Campos, Colonel Hilario Lagos and others, and
warned them that as officers of the national army they owed obedience to
the national government, and would be severely punished if concerned in
any revolutionary outbreak against the constituted authorities. The
reply to this threat was the immediate resignation of their commissions
by all the officers connected with the Tiro Nacional. Two days later,
the national government occupied, with a strong force of infantry and
artillery, the parade ground at Palermo used by the Buenos Aires
volunteers for drill purposes. A great meeting of citizens was then
called and marched through the streets. President Avellaneda was
frightened at the results of his action, and to avoid a collision
ordered the troops to be withdrawn. Negotiations were now opened by the
government with the provincial authorities for the disarmament of the
city and province of Buenos Aires, but they led to nothing. Matters
became still further strained on account of the outrages committed by
the national troops, and such was the bitterness of feeling developed
between the two factions, that an appeal to arms became inevitable.
Appeal to Arms.
Fall of Buenos Aires.
In the month of June 1880, President Avellaneda and his ministers left
Buenos Aires, and this act was considered by the _porteño_ leaders
equivalent to a declaration of war. The national government and the
twelve provinces forming the Córdoba League, were ranged on one side;
the city and province of Buenos Aires and the province of Corrientes on
the other. The national troops were well armed with Remington rifles,
provided with abundant ammunition, equipped with artillery and supported
by the fleet. In the city and province of Buenos Aires, plenty of
volunteers offered their services, and an army of some twenty-five
thousand men was quickly raised, but they were armed with old-fashioned
weapons and there was only a limited supply of ammunition. Feverish
attempts were made to remedy the lack of warlike stores, but difficulty
was experienced on account of the fleet blockading the entrance to the
river. After several skirmishes, the national army commanded by General
Roca, containing many troops seasoned in Indian campaigns, assaulted the
_porteños_ posted before Buenos Aires, and after two days' hard fighting
(20th and 21st July) forced its way into the town. On 23rd July the
surrender of the city was demanded and obtained. The terms of the
surrender were that all the leaders of the revolution should be removed
from positions of authority, all government employees implicated in the
movement dismissed, and the force in the province and city of Buenos
Aires at once disarmed and disbanded. The power of Buenos Aires was thus
completely broken and at the mercy of the Córdoba League. The _porteños_
were no longer in a position to nominate a candidate in opposition to
General Julio Roca, who was duly elected. He assumed office in October
1880.
Roca president.
Hitherto General Roca had been regarded only in his capacity as a
soldier, and not from the point of view of an administrator. In the
campaigns against the Indians in the south-west of the province of
Buenos Aires and the valley of the Rio Negro he had gained much
prestige; the victory over Buenos Aires added to his fame, and secured
his authority in the outlying provincial centres. One of the first
notable acts of the Roca administration was to declare the city of
Buenos Aires the property of the national government. This separation of
the city from the province, and its federalization had been one of the
chief aims of the Córdoba League, and was the natural consequence of the
crushing defeat inflicted on the _porteños_. As a sequel to this step,
in 1884 the town of La Plata was declared to be the capital of the
province of Buenos Aires, and the provincial administration was moved to
that place. This federalization of the capital has proved to be a most
important factor in binding together the different parts of the
confederation, and in promoting the evolution of an Argentine nation out
of a loosely cemented union of a number of semi-independent states.
Considering the circumstances in which General Roca assumed office, it
must be admitted that he showed great moderation and used the
practically absolute power that he possessed to establish a strong
central government, and to initiate a national policy, which aimed at
furthering the prosperity and development of the whole country. He was
able by the influence he exerted to keep down the internal dissensions
and insurrectionary outbreaks which had so greatly impeded for many
years the development of the vast natural resources of the republic.
With this object he had promoted the extension of railways so as to link
the provinces with the great port of Buenos Aires, and to provide at the
same time facilities for the rapid despatch of military forces to
disturbed districts. Unfortunately the last two years of Roca's term of
office were marked by two grave errors, which subsequently caused
widespread suffering and distress throughout the country. The first of
these mistakes was a measure making (January 1885) the currency
inconvertible for a period of two years. This act, which was only
decided upon after much hesitation, had a most deleterious effect upon
the national credit. The second was the nomination of Dr Miguel Juarez
Celman for the presidential term commencing in October 1886. The
nomination was brought about by the Córdoba clique, and Roca lacked the
moral courage to oppose the decision of this group, though he was well
aware that Celman, who was his brother-in-law, was neither
intellectually nor morally fitted for the post.
Celman president.
The Union Civica.
No sooner had President Juarez Celman come into power towards the close
of 1886, than the respectable portion of the community began to feel
alarmed at the methods practised by the new president in his conduct of
public affairs. At first it was hoped that the influence of General Roca
would serve to check any serious extravagance on the part of Celman.
This hope, however, was doomed to disappointment, and before many months
had elapsed it was clear that the president would listen to no prudent
counsels from Roca or from any one else. The men of the old Córdoba
League became dominant in all branches of the government, and
carpet-bagging politicians occupied every official post. In their hurry
to obtain wealth, this crowd of office-mongers from the provinces lent
themselves to all kinds of bribery and corruption. The public credit was
pledged at home and abroad to fill the pockets of the adventurers, and
the wildest excesses were committed under the guise of administrative
acts. What followed in the second and third years of the Celman
administration can only adequately be described as a debauchery of the
national honour, of the national resources, of the rights of Argentines
as citizens of the republic. Buenos Aires was still prostrate under the
crushing blow of the misfortunes of 1880, and lacked strength and power
of organization necessary to raise any effective protest against the
proceedings of Celman and his friends when the true character of these
proceedings was first understood. The conduct of public affairs,
however, at length became so scandalous, that action on the part of the
more sober-minded and conservative sections was seen to be absolutely
imperative if the country was to be saved from speedy and certain ruin.
In 1889 the association of the "Union Civica" was founded, and the
organization undertaken by Dr Leandro Alem, Dr Aristobulo del Valle, Dr
Bernardo Irigoyen, Dr Vicente Lopez, Dr Lucio Lopez, Dr Oscar Lilliedale
and other leading citizens. The untiring energy and zeal of Leandro Alem
fitted him for being the chief organizer of a movement into which he
threw himself heart and soul. Mass meetings were held in Buenos Aires,
and it fell specially to the lot of Dr del Valle, who was an able orator
as well as a sincere patriot, to expose the irresponsible and corrupt
character of the administration, and the terrible dangers that
threatened the republic through its reckless extravagance and financial
improvidence. Subsidiary clubs affiliated to the central administration
were formed throughout the length and breadth of the country, and
millions of leaflets and pamphlets were distributed broadcast to explain
the importance of the movement. President Celman underrated the strength
of the new opposition, and relied upon his armed forces promptly to
suppress any signs of open hostility. No change was made in official
methods, and the condition of affairs drifted from bad to worse, until
the temper of the people, so long and so sorely tried, showed plainly
that the situation had become insufferable. The Union Civica then
decided to make a bold bid for freedom by attempting forcibly to eject
Celman and his clique from office.
On the night of the 26th of July 1890 the Union Civica called its
members to arms. It was joined by some regiments of the regular army and
received the support of the fleet. Barricades were thrown up in the
principal streets, and the surrounding houses were occupied by the
insurgents. Two days of desultory street fighting ensued, during which
the fleet began to bombard the city, but was compelled to desist by the
interference of foreign men-of-war, on the ground that the bombardment
was causing unnecessary damage to the life and property of
non-combatants. A suspension of hostilities then took place, and
negotiations were opened between the contending parties. Celman, acting
upon the advice of General Roca, who recognized the strength of public
opinion in the outbreak, placed his resignation in the hands of congress
on the 31st of July. A scene of intense enthusiasm followed, and Buenos
Aires was _en fête_ for the following three days. The vice-president of
the confederation, Carlos Pellegrini, who had been minister of war under
presidents Avellaneda and Roca and had had much administrative
experience, succeeded without opposition to the vacant post.
Pellegrini president.
Much satisfaction was shown in Europe at the fall of President Celman,
for investors had suffered heavily by the way in which the resources of
Argentina had been dissipated by a corrupt government, and hopes were
entertained that the uprising of public opinion against his financial
methods signified a more honest conduct of the national affairs in the
future. Great expectations were entertained of the ability of President
Pellegrini to establish a sound administration, and he succeeded in
forming a ministry which gave general satisfaction throughout the
country. General Roca was induced to undertake the duties of minister of
the interior, and his influence in the provinces was sufficient to check
any attempts to stir up disturbances at Córdoba or elsewhere. The most
onerous post of all, that of minister of finance, was confided to Dr
Vicente Lopez, who, though he was not of marked financial ability, was
at least a man of untiring industry and of a personal integrity that was
above suspicion. But the economic and financial situation was one of
almost hopeless embarrassment and confusion, and Pellegrini proved
himself incapable of grappling with it. Instead of facing the
difficulties, the president preferred to put off the day of reckoning by
flooding the country with inconvertible notes, with the result that the
financial crisis became more and more aggravated. Through the rapid
depreciation of Argentine credit, the great firm of Baring Brothers, the
financial agents of the government in London, became so heavily involved
that they were forced into liquidation, November 1890. The consequences
of this catastrophe were felt far and wide, and in the spring of 1891
both the Banco Nacional and the Banco de la provincia de Buenos Aires
were unable to meet their obligations. Amidst this sea of financial
troubles the government drifted helplessly on, without showing any
inclination or capacity to initiate a strong policy of reform in the
methods of administration which had done so much to ruin the country.
It is little wonder that, in these circumstances, the choice of a
successor to Pellegrini, whose term of office expired in 1892, should
have been felt to possess peculiar importance. General Bartolomé Mitre
was proposed by the _porteños_ as their candidate. He had been absent
from Argentina on a journey to Europe, and on his return in April 1891,
a popular reception was given to him at which 50,000 persons attended. A
petition was presented to him begging him to be a candidate for the
presidency, and with some reluctance the veteran leader gave his
consent. His partisans, however, found themselves confronted by a
compact provincial party, who proposed to put forward the other strong
man of the republic, General Roca, to oppose him. But the two generals
were equally averse to a contest _à outrance_, which could only end in
civil war. They met accordingly at a conference known as _El Acuerdo_,
and it was arranged that both should withdraw, and that a non-party
candidate should be selected who should receive the support of them
both. The choice fell upon Dr Saenz Peña, a judge of the supreme court,
and a man universally respected, who had never taken any part in
political life. This compact aroused the bitter enmity of Dr Leandro
Alem, who did his utmost to stir up the Union Civica to a campaign
against the neutral candidate. Finding that the more conservative
section of the union would not follow him, Alem formed a new association
to which he gave the name of Union Civica Radical. Such was his energy,
that soon a network of branches of the Union Civica Radical was
organized throughout the republic, and Dr Bernardo Irigoyen was put
forward as a rival candidate to Dr Saenz Peña. But Alem was not content
with constitutional opposition to the Acuerdo, and his movement soon
assumed the character of a revolutionary propaganda against the national
government. His violence gave Pellegrini the opportunity of taking
active steps to preserve the peace. In April 1892 Alem and his chief
colleagues were arrested and sent into exile.
In the following month (May), the presidential elections were held; Dr
Saenz Peña was declared duly elected, and Dr José Uriburu, the minister
in Chile, was chosen as vice-president.
Saenz Peña president.
The idea of Dr Saenz Peña was to conduct the government on common sense
and non-partisan lines, in fact to translate into practical politics the
principles which underlay the compromise of the Acuerdo. He was a
straightforward and honourable man, who tried his best to do his duty in
a position that had been forced upon him, and was in no sense of the
word his own seeking. No sooner, however, was he installed in office
than difficulties began to crop up on all sides, and he quickly
discovered that to attempt to govern without the aid of a majority in
congress was practically impossible. He had had no experience of
political life, and he refused to create the support he needed by using
his presidential prerogative to build up a political majority.
Obstruction met his well-meant efforts to promote the general good, and
before twelve months of the presidential term had run public affairs
were at a deadlock. Dr Alem, who had been permitted to return from
exile, was not slow to profit by the occasion. Embittered by his
treatment in 1892, he openly preached the advisability of an armed
rising to overthrow the existing administration. Public opinion had been
outraged by the immunity with which the governors of certain provinces,
and more particularly Dr Julio Costa, the governor of the province of
Buenos Aires, had been allowed to maintain local forces, by the aid of
which they exacted the payment of illegal taxes and exercised other acts
of injustice and oppression. A number of officers of the army and navy
agreed to lend assistance to a revolutionary outbreak, and towards the
end of July 1893 matters came to a head. The population of Buenos Aires
assembled in armed bodies with the avowed intention of ejecting the
governor from office, and electing in his stead a man who would give
them a just administration. The president was for some time in doubt
whether he had any right to intervene in provincial affairs, but
eventually troops were despatched to La Plata. There was no serious
fighting. Negotiations were soon opened which quickly led to the
resignation of Costa, and the return of the insurgents to their homes.
While these disturbances were taking place in the province of Buenos
Aires, another revolutionary rising was in progress in Santa Fé. Here
the efforts of Dr Alem succeeded in supplying a large body of rebels
with arms and ammunition, and he was able, by a bold attack, to seize
the town of Rosario and there establish the revolutionary headquarters.
This capture so alarmed the national government that a force was sent
under the command of Roca to put down the insurrection. The revolt
speedily collapsed before this redoubtable commander, and Alem and the
other leaders surrendered. They were sentenced to banishment in Staten
Island at the pleasure of the federal government.
But the suppression of disorder did not relieve the tension between the
congress and the executive. During the whole of the 1894 session, the
attitude of senators and deputies alike was one of pronounced hostility
to the president. All his acts were opposed, legislation was at a
standstill and every effort was made to force Dr Saenz Peña to resign.
But although he experienced the utmost difficulty in forming a cabinet,
the president was obstinate in his determination to retain office
without identifying himself with any party. A definite issue was
therefore sought by the congress on which to join battle, and it arose
out of the death sentences which had been pronounced on certain naval
and military officers who had been implicated in the Santa Fé outbreak.
The president had made up his mind that the sentence must be carried
out; the congress by a great majority were resolved not to permit the
death penalty to be inflicted. It was a one-sided struggle, for without
the consent of the congress the president could not raise any money for
supplies, and congress refused to vote the budget. But heavy expenses
had been incurred in putting down revolutionary movements in various
parts of the provinces, and war with Chile was threatened upon the
question of a dispute concerning the boundaries between the two
republics. In January 1895 a special session of congress was summoned to
take into consideration the financial proposals of the government, which
included an increase in the naval and military estimates. Congress,
however, had now got their opportunity, and they used the time of
national stress to bring increased pressure to bear upon the president.
On the 21st of January Dr Saenz Peña at last perceived that his position
was untenable, and he handed in his resignation. It was accepted at once
by the chambers, and the vice-president, Dr José Uriburu, became
president of the republic for the three years and nine months of Peña's
term which remained unexpired.
Uriburu President.
Uriburu was neither a politician nor a statesman, but had spent the
greater portion of his life abroad in the diplomatic service. His
knowledge of foreign affairs was, however, peculiarly useful at a
juncture when boundary questions were the subjects that chiefly
attracted public attention. After disputes with Brazil, extending over
fifteen years, about the territory of "Misiones," the matter had been
submitted to the arbitration of the president of the United States. In
March 1895 President Cleveland gave his decision, which was wholly
favourable to the contention of Brazil. The Argentine government, though
disappointed at the result, accepted the award loyally. The boundary
dispute with Chile, to which reference has already been made, was of a
more serious character. The dispute was of old standing. Already in 1884
a protocol had been signed between the contending parties, by which it
was agreed that the frontier should follow the line where "the highest
peaks of the Andine ranges divide the watershed." This definition
unfortunately ignored the fact that the Andes do not run from north to
south in one continuous line, but are separated into cordilleras with
valleys between them, and covering in their total breadth a considerable
extent of country. Difference of opinion, therefore, arose as to the
interpretation of the protocol, the Argentines insisting that the
boundary should run from highest peak to highest peak, the Chileans that
it should follow the highest points of the watershed. The quarrel at
length became acute, and on both sides the populace clamoured from time
to time for an appeal to arms, and the resources of both countries were
squandered in military and naval preparations for a struggle.
Nevertheless despite these obstacles, President Uriburu did something
during his term of office to relieve the nation's financial
difficulties. In 1896 a bill was passed by congress, which authorized
the state by the issue of national bonds to assume the provincial
external indebtedness. This proof of the desire of the Argentine
government to meet honestly all its obligations did much to restore its
credit abroad. Uriburu found in 1897 the financial position so far
improved that he was able to resume cash payments on the entire foreign
debt.
Roca President.
In 1898 there was another presidential election. Public opinion, excited
by the prospect of a war with Chile, naturally supported the candidature
of General Roca, and he was elected without opposition (12th October
1898). The first question which he had to handle was the Chilean
boundary dispute. During the last months of President Uriburu's
administration, matters had reached a climax, especially in connexion
with the delimitation in a district known as the Puña de Atacama. In
August an ultimatum was received from Chile demanding arbitration. After
some hesitation, on the advice of Roca the Argentines agreed to the
demand, and peace was maintained. The principle of arbitration being
accepted, the conditions were quickly arranged. The question of the Puña
de Atacama was referred to a tribunal composed of the United States
minister to Argentina and of one Argentine and one Chilean delegate;
that of the southern frontier in Patagonia to the British crown. One of
the first steps of President Roca, after his accession to office, was to
arrange a meeting with the president of Chile at the Straits of
Magellan. At their conference all difficulties were discussed and
settled, and an undertaking was given on both sides to put a stop to
warlike preparations. The decision of the representative of the United
States was given in April 1899. Although the Chileans professed
dissatisfaction, no active opposition was raised, and the terms were
duly ratified. In his message to congress, on the 1st of May 1899,
General Roca spoke strongly of the immediate necessity of a reform in
the methods of administering justice, the expediency of a revision of
the electoral law, and the imperative need of a reconstruction of the
department of public instruction. The administration of justice, he
declared, had fallen to so low an ebb as to be practically non-existent.
By the powerful influence of the president, government measures were
sanctioned by the legislature dealing with the abuses which had been
condemned. On the 31st of August of the same year a series of proposals
upon the currency question was submitted to congress by the president,
whose real object was to counteract the too rapid appreciation of the
inconvertible paper money. The official value of the dollar was fixed at
44 cents gold for all government purposes. The violent fluctuations in
the value of the paper dollar, which caused so much damage to trade and
industry, were thus checked. In October 1900 Dr Manuel Campos Salles,
president of Brazil, paid a visit to Buenos Aires, and was received with
great demonstrations of friendliness. The aggressive attitude of Chile
towards Bolivia was causing considerable anxiety, and Argentina and
Brazil wished to show that they were united in opposing a policy which
aimed at acquiring an extension of territory by force of arms. The
feeling of enmity between Chile and Argentina was indeed anything but
extinct. The delay of the arbitration tribunal in London in giving its
decision in the matter of the disputed boundary in Patagonia led to a
crop of wild rumours being disseminated, and to a revival of animosity
between the two peoples. In December 1901 warlike preparations were
being carried on in both states, and the outbreak of active hostilities
appeared to be imminent. At the critical moment the British government,
urged to move in the matter by the British residents in both countries,
who feared that war would mean the financial ruin of both Chile and
Argentina, used its utmost influence both at Santiago and Buenos Aires
to allay the misunderstandings; and negotiations were set on foot which
ended in a treaty for the cessation of further armaments being signed,
June 1902. The award of King Edward VII. upon the delimitation of the
boundary was given a few months later, and was received without
controversy and ratified by both governments.
Quintana and Alcorta Presidents.
To the calm resourcefulness and level-headedness of President Roca at a
very difficult and critical juncture must be largely ascribed the
preservation of peace, and the permanent removal of a dispute that had
aroused so much irritation. His term of office came to an end in 1904,
when Dr Manuel Quintana was elected president and Dr José Figueroa
Alcorta vice-president, both having Roca's support. Dr Quintana at the
time of his election was sixty-four years of age. He proved a
hard-working progressive president, who did much for the development of
communications and the opening up of the interior of the country. He
died amidst general regret in March 1906, and was succeeded by Dr
Alcorta for the remaining years of his term. (G. E.)
AUTHORITIES.--C.E. Akers, _Argentine, Patagonian and Chilian
Sketches_ (London, 1893), and _A History of South America 1854-1904_
(New York, 1905); Theodore Child, _The Spanish-American Republics_
(London, 1891); Sir T.H. Holdich, _The Countries of the King's Award_
(London, 1904); W.H. Hudson, _The Naturalist in La Plata_ (London,
1892), and _Idle Days in Patagonia_ (London, 1893); A.H. Keane and C.
R. Markham, _Central and South America_, in Stanford's "Compendium of
Geography and Travel" (London, 1901); G.E. Church, "Argentine
Geography and the Ancient Pampean Sea" (_Geogr. Journal_, xii. p.
386); "South America: an Outline of its Physical Geography" (_Geogr.
Journal_, xvii. p. 333); Dr Karl Kärger, _Landwirtschaft und
Kolonisation im spanischen Amerika_ (2 vols., Leipzig, 1901); F.P.
Moreno, "Explorations in Patagonia" (_Geogr. Journal_, xiv. pp. 241,
354); Carlos Lix Klett, _Estudios sobre producción, comercio, finanzas
e interesses generales de la Republica Argentina_ (2 vols., Buenos
Aires, 1900); G. Carrasco, _El crecimiento de la población de la
Republica Argentina comparado con el de las principales naciones
1890-1903_ (Buenos Aires, 1904); C.M. Urien and C. Colombo,
_Geografia Argentina_ (Buenos Aires, 1905); E. von Rosen,
_Archaeological Researches on the Frontier of Argentina and Bolivia
1901-1902_ (Stockholm, 1904); Arturo B. Carranza, _Constitución
Nacional y Constituciones Provinciales Vigentes_ (Buenos Aires, 1898);
Angelo de Gubernatis, _L'Argentina_ (Firenze, 1898); Meliton Gonzales,
_El Gran Chaco Argentino_ (Buenos Aires, 1890); John Grant & Sons,
_The Argentine Year Book_ (Buenos Aires, 1902 et seq.); Francis
Latzina, _Diccionario Geografico Argentino_ (Buenos Aires, 1891);
_Géographie de la République Argentine_ (Buenos Aires, 1890);
_L'Agriculture et l'Elevage dans la République Argentine_ (Paris,
1889); Bartolomé Mitre, _Historia de San Martin y de la Emancipatión
Sud-Americana, según nuevos documentos_ (3 vols., Buenos Aires, 1887);
_Historia de Belgrano y de la Independencia Argentina_ (3 vols.,
Buenos Aires, 1883); Felipe Soldan, _Diccionario Geografico
Estadistico Nacional Argentino_ (Buenos Aires, 1885); Thomas A.
Turner, _Argentina and the Argentines_ (New York and London, 1892);
Estanislao S. Zeballos, _Descripción Amena de la Republica Argentina_
(3 vols., Buenos Aires, 1881); _Anuario de la Direción General de
Estadistica 1898_ (Buenos Aires, 1899); Charles Wiener, _La République
Argentine_ (Paris, 1899); _Segundo Censo República Argentina_ (3
vols., Buenos Aires, 1898); _Handbook of the Argentine Republic_
(Bureau of the American Republics, Washington, 1892-1903).
(A. J. L.)
FOOTNOTES:
[1] For the geology of Argentina, see Stelzner, _Beiträge zur
geologie der argentinischen Republik_ (Cassel and Berlin, 1885);
Brackebusch, _Mapa geológico del Interiore de la República Argentina_
(Gotha, 1892); Valentin, _Bosquejo geólogico de la Argentina_ (Buenos
Aires, 1897); Hauthal, "Beiträge zur Geologie der argentinischen
Provinz Buenos Aires," _Peterm. Mitt._ vol. 1., 1904, pp. 83-92,
112-117, pi. vi.
[2] Interesting details of the Argentine fauna may be found in
Darwin's _Voyage of the Beagle_; W.H. Hudson's _Idle Days in
Patagonia_, and _Naturalist in the La Plata_; G. Pelleschi's _Eight
Months on the Gran Chaco_; R. Napp's _Argentine Republic_; and de
Moussy's _Confédération argentine_.
[3] There are two distinct statistical offices compiling immigration
returns and their totals do not agree, owing in part to the traffic
between Buenos Aires and Montevideo. Another report gives the
arrivals in 1904 as 125,567 and the departures 38,923. Of the
arrivals 67,598 were Italians and 39,851 Spaniards. The total for the
years 1859-1904 was 3,166,073 and the departures 1,239,064, showing a
net gain of 1,927,009.
ARGENTINE, a former city of Wyandotte county, Kansas, U.S.A., since
1910 a part of Kansas City, on the S. bank of the Kansas river, just
above its mouth. Pop. (1890) 4732; (1900) 5878, of whom 623 were
foreign-born and 603 of negro descent; (1905, state census) 6053. It is
served by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fé railway, which maintains here
yards and machine shops. The streets of the city run irregularly up the
steep face of the river bluffs. Its chief industrial establishment is
that of the United Zinc and Chemical Company, which has here one of the
largest plants of its kind in the country. There are large grain
interests. The site was platted in 1880, and the city was first
incorporated in 1882 and again, as a city of the second class, in 1889.
ARGENTITE, a mineral which belongs to the galena group, and is cubic
silver sulphide (Ag2S). It is occasionally found as uneven cubes and
octahedra, but more often as dendritic or earthy masses, with a blackish
lead-grey colour and metallic lustre. The cubic cleavage, which is so
prominent a feature in galena, is here present only in traces. The
mineral is perfectly sectile and has a shining streak; hardness 2.5,
specific gravity 7.3. It occurs in mineral veins, and when found in
large masses, as in Mexico and in the Comstock lode in Nevada, it forms
an important ore of silver. The mineral was mentioned so long ago as
1529 by G. Agricola, but the name argentite (from the Lat. _argentum_,
"silver") was not used till 1845 and is due to W. von Haidinger. Old
names for the species are Glaserz, silver-glance and vitreous silver. A
cupriferous variety, from Jalpa in Tabasco, Mexico, is known as
jalpaite. Acanthite is a supposed dimorphous form, crystallizing in the
orthorhombic system, but it is probable that the crystals are really
distorted crystals of argentite. (L. J. S.)
ARGENTON, a town of western France, in the department of Indre, on the
Creuse, 19 m. S.S.W. of Châteauroux on the Orléans railway. Pop. (1906)
5638. The river is crossed by two bridges, and its banks are bordered by
picturesque old houses. There are numerous tanneries, and the
manufacture of boots and shoes and linen goods is carried on. The site
of the ancient _Argentomagus_ lies a little to the north.
ARGHANDAB, a river of Afghanistan, about 250 m. in length. It rises in
the Hazara country north-west of Ghazni, and flowing south-west falls
into the Helmund 20 m. below Girishk. Very little is known about its
upper course. It is said to be shallow, and to run nearly dry in height
of summer; but when its depth exceeds 3 ft. its great rapidity makes it
a serious obstacle to travellers. In its lower course it is much used
for irrigation, and the valley is cultivated and populous; yet the water
is said to be somewhat brackish. It is doubtful whether the ancient
Arachotus is to be identified with the Arghandab or with its chief
confluent the Tarnak, which joins it on the left about 30 m. S. W. of
Kandahar. The two rivers run nearly parallel, inclosing the backbone of
the Ghilzai plateau. The Tarnak is much the shorter (length about 200
m.) and less copious. The ruins at Ulân Robât, supposed to represent the
city Arachosia, are in its basin; and the lake known as Ab-i-Istâda, the
most probable representative of Lake Arachotus, is near the head of the
Tarnak, though not communicating with it. The Tarnak is dammed for
irrigation at intervals, and in the hot season almost exhausted. There
is a good deal of cultivation along the river, but few villages. The
high road from Kabul to Kandahar passes this way (another reason for
supposing the Tarnak to be Arachotus), and the people live off the road
to avoid the onerous duties of hospitality.
ARGHOUL, ARGHOOL, or ARGHUL (in the Egyptian hieroglyphs, AS or
AS-IT),[1] an ancient and modern Egyptian and Arab wood-wind instrument,
with cylindrical bore and single reed mouthpiece of the clarinet type.
The arghoul consists of two reed pipes of unequal lengths bound together
by means of waxed thread, so that the two mouthpieces lie side by side,
and can be taken by the performer into his mouth at the same time. The
mouthpiece consists of a reed having a small tongue detached by means of
a longitudinal slit which forms the beating reed, as in the clarinet
mouthpiece. The shorter pipe has six holes on which the melody is
played; the three upper holes being covered by the fingers of the right
hand, and the lower by those of the left hand. The longer pipe has no
lateral holes; it is a drone pipe with one note only, which, however,
can be varied by the addition of extra lengths of reed. In the
illustration all three lengths are shown in use. An arghoul belonging to
the collection of the Conservatoire Royal at Brussels, described by
Victor Mahillon in his catalogue[2] (No. 113), gives the following
scale:--
[Illustration: SHORT PIPE.
Holes uncovered.]
[Illustration: DRONE PIPE.
Without additional joint.
With shortest additional joint.
With shortest and medium additional joints.
With longest additional joint.]
[Illustration: (From Edward William Lane's _An Account of the Manners
and Customs of the Modern Egyptians_.)
Modern Arghoul, 3 ft. 2½ in. long.]
The total length of the shorter pipe, including the mouthpiece, is 0.435
m.; of the longer pipe, without additional joints, 0.555 m. An Egyptian
arghoul,[3] presented by the khedive to the Victoria and Albert Museum,
measures 4 ft. 8½ in.
For further information see Victor Loret, _L'Egypte au temps des
Pharaons_ (Paris, 1889), 8vo, pp. 139, 143, 144; G.A. Villoteau,
_Description historique technique et littéraire des instruments de
musique des orientaux_ (_Description de l'Egypte_, Paris, 1823, tome
xiii, pp. 456-473). (K. S.)
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See Victor Loret. "Les Flûtes égyptiennes antiques," _Journal
Asiatique_, 8ème série, tome xiv., Paris, 1889, pp. 129, 130 and 132.
[2] _Catalogue descriptif et analytique du musée du Conservatoire
Royal de Bruxelles_ (Ghent, 1880), p. 141.
[3] _A Descriptive Catalogue of the Musical Instruments in the South
Kensington Museum_, by Carl Engel (London, 1874), p. 143.
ARGOL, the commercial name of crude tartar (q.v.). It is a
semi-crystalline deposit which forms on wine vats, and is generally grey
or red in colour.
ARGON (from the Gr. [Greek: a-], privative, and [Greek: ergon], work;
hence meaning "inert"), a gaseous constituent of atmospheric air. For
more than a hundred years before 1894 it had been supposed that the
composition of the atmosphere was thoroughly known. Beyond variable
quantities of moisture and traces of carbonic acid, hydrogen, ammonia,
&c., the only constituents recognized were nitrogen and oxygen. The
analysis of air was conducted by determining the amount of oxygen
present and assuming the remainder to be nitrogen. Since the time of
Henry Cavendish no one seemed even to have asked the question whether
the residue was, in truth, all capable of conversion into nitric acid.
The manner in which this condition of complacent ignorance came to be
disturbed is instructive. Observations undertaken mainly in the interest
of Prout's law, and extending over many years, had been conducted to
determine afresh the densities of the principal gases--hydrogen, oxygen
and nitrogen. In the latter case, the first preparations were according
to the convenient method devised by Vernon Harcourt, in which air
charged with ammonia is passed over red-hot copper. Under the influence
of the heat the atmospheric oxygen, unites with the hydrogen of the
ammonia, and when the excess of the latter is removed with sulphuric
acid, the gas properly desiccated should be pure nitrogen, derived in
part from the ammonia, but principally from the air. A few concordant
determinations of density having been effected, the question was at
first regarded as disposed of, until the thought occurred that it might
be desirable to try also the more usual method of preparation in which
the oxygen is removed by actual oxidation of copper without the aid of
ammonia. Determinations made thus were equally concordant among
themselves, but the resulting density was about 1/1000 part greater than
that found by Harcourt's method (Rayleigh, _Nature_, vol. xlvi. p. 512,
1892). Subsequently when _oxygen_ was substituted for air in the first
method, so that all (instead of about one-seventh part) of the nitrogen
was derived from ammonia, the difference rose to ½%. Further experiment
only brought out more clearly the diversity of the gases hitherto
assumed to be identical. Whatever were the means employed to rid air of
accompanying oxygen, a uniform value of the density was arrived at, and
this value was ½% greater than that appertaining to nitrogen extracted
from compounds such as nitrous oxide, ammonia and ammonium nitrite. No
impurity, consisting of any known substance, could be discovered capable
of explaining an excessive weight in the one case, or a deficiency in
the other. Storage for eight months did not disturb the density of the
chemically extracted gas, nor had the silent electric discharge any
influence upon either quality. ("On an Anomaly encountered in
determining the Density of Nitrogen Gas," _Proc. Roy. Soc._, April
1894.)
At this stage it became clear that the complication depended upon some
hitherto unknown body, and probability inclined to the existence of a
gas in the atmosphere heavier than nitrogen, and remaining unacted upon
during the removal of the oxygen --a conclusion afterwards fully
established by Lord Rayleigh and Sir William Ramsay. The question which
now pressed was as to the character of the evidence for the universally
accepted view that the so-called nitrogen of the atmosphere was all of
one kind, that the nitrogen of the air was the same as the nitrogen of
nitre. Reference to Cavendish showed that he had already raised this
question in the most distinct manner, and indeed, to a certain extent,
resolved it. In his memoir of 1785 he writes:--
"As far as the experiments hitherto published extend, we scarcely know
more of the phlogisticated part of our atmosphere than that it is not
diminished by lime-water, caustic alkalies, or nitrous air; that it is
unfit to support fire or maintain life in animals; and that its
specific gravity is not much less than that of common air; so that,
though the nitrous acid, by being united to phlogiston, is converted
into air possessed of these properties, and consequently, though it
was reasonable to suppose, that part at least of the phlogisticated
air of the atmosphere consists of this acid united to phlogiston, yet
it may fairly be doubted whether the whole is of this kind, or whether
there are not in reality many different substances confounded together
by us under the name of phlogisticated air. I therefore made an
experiment to determine whether the whole of a given portion of the
phlogisticated air of the atmosphere could be reduced to nitrous acid,
or whether there was not a part of a different nature to the rest
which would refuse to undergo that change. The foregoing experiments
indeed, in some measure, decided this point, as much the greatest part
of air let up into the tube lost its elasticity; yet, as some remained
unabsorbed, it did not appear for certain whether that was of the same
nature as the rest or not. For this purpose I diminished a similar
mixture of dephlogisticated [oxygen] and common air, in the same
manner as before [by sparks over alkali], till it was reduced to a
small part of its original bulk. I then, in order to decompound as
much as I could of the phlogisticated air [nitrogen] which remained in
the tube, added some dephlogisticated air to it and continued the
spark until no further diminution took place. Having by these means
condensed as much as I could of the phlogisticated air, I let up some
solution of liver of sulphur to absorb the dephlogisticated air; after
which only a small bubble of air remained unabsorbed, which certainly
was not more than 1/120 of the bulk of the dephlogisticated air let up
into the tube; so that, if there be any part of the dephlogisticated
air of our atmosphere which differs from the rest, and cannot be
reduced to nitrous acid, we may safely conclude that it is not more
than 1/120 part of the whole."
Although, as was natural, Cavendish was satisfied with his result, and
does not decide whether the small residue was genuine, it is probable
that his residue was really of a different kind from the main bulk of
the "phlogisticated air," and contained the gas afterwards named argon.
[Illustration: FIG. 1.]
The announcement to the British Association in 1894 by Rayleigh and
Ramsay of a new gas in the atmosphere was received with a good deal of
scepticism. Some doubted the discovery of a new gas altogether, while
others denied that it was present in the atmosphere. Yet there was
nothing inconsistent with any previously ascertained fact in the
asserted presence of 1% of a non-oxidizable gas about half as heavy
again as nitrogen. The nearest approach to a difficulty lay in the
behaviour of liquid air, from which it was supposed, as the event proved
erroneously, that such a constituent would separate itself in the solid
form. The evidence of the existence of a new gas (named Argon on account
of its chemical inertness), and a statement of many of its properties,
were communicated to the Royal Society (see _Phil. Trans._ clxxxvi. p.
187) by the discoverers in January 1895. The isolation of the new
substance by removal of nitrogen from air was effected by two distinct
methods. Of these the first is merely a development of that of
Cavendish. The gases were contained in a test-tube A (fig. 1) standing
over a large quantity of weak alkali B, and the current was conveyed in
wires insulated by U-shaped glass tubes CC passing through the liquid
and round the mouth of the test-tube. The inner platinum ends DD of the
wire may be sealed into the glass insulating tubes, but reliance should
not be placed upon these sealings. In order to secure tightness in spite
of cracks, mercury was placed in the bends. With a battery of five Grove
cells and a Ruhmkorff coil of medium size, a somewhat short spark, or
arc, of about 5 mm. was found to be more favourable than a longer one.
When the mixed gases were in the right proportion, the rate of
absorption was about 30 c.c. per hour, about thirty times as fast as
Cavendish could work with the electrical machine of his day. Where it is
available, an alternating electric current is much superior to a battery
and break. This combination, introduced by W. Spottiswoode, allows the
absorption in the apparatus of fig. 1 to be raised to about 80 c.c. per
hour, and the method is very convenient for the purification of small
quantities of argon and for determinations of the amount present in
various samples of gas, e.g. in the gases expelled from solution in
water. A convenient adjunct to this apparatus is a small voltameter,
with the aid of which oxygen or hydrogen can be introduced at pleasure.
The gradual elimination of the nitrogen is tested at a moment's notice
with a miniature spectroscope. For this purpose a small Leyden jar is
connected as usual to the secondary terminals, and if necessary the
force of the discharge is moderated by the insertion of resistance in
the primary circuit. When with a fairly wide slit the yellow line is no
longer visible, the residual nitrogen may be considered to have fallen
below 2 or 3%. During this stage the oxygen should be in considerable
excess. When the yellow line of nitrogen has disappeared, and no further
contraction seems to be in progress, the oxygen maybe removed by
cautious introduction of hydrogen. The spectrum may now be further
examined with a more powerful instrument. The most conspicuous group in
the argon spectrum at atmospheric pressure is that first recorded by A.
Schuster (fig. 2). Water vapour and excess of oxygen in moderation do
not interfere seriously with its visibility. It is of interest to note
that the argon spectrum may be fully developed by operating upon a
miniature scale, starting with only 5 c.c. of air (_Phil. Mag._ vol. i.
p. 103, 1901).
The development of Cavendish's method upon a large scale involves
arrangements different from what would at first be expected. The
transformer working from a public supply should give about 6000 volts on
open circuit, although when the electric flame is established the
voltage on the platinums is only from 1600 to 2000. No sufficient
advantage is attained by raising the pressure of the gases above
atmosphere, but a capacious vessel is necessary. This may consist of a
glass sphere of 50 litres' capacity, into the neck of which, presented
downwards, the necessary tubes are fitted. The whole of the interior
surface is washed with a fountain of alkali, kept in circulation by
means of a small centrifugal pump. In this apparatus, and with about one
horse-power utilized at the transformer, the absorption of gas is 21
litres per hour ("The Oxidation of Nitrogen Gas," _Trans. Chem. Soc._,
1897).
In one experiment, specially undertaken for the sake of measurement, the
total air employed was 9250 c.c., and the oxygen consumed, manipulated
with the aid of partially de-aërated water, amounted to 10,820 c.c. The
oxygen contained in the air would be 1942 c.c.; so that the quantities
of atmospheric nitrogen and of total oxygen which enter into combination
would be 7308 c.c. and 12,762 c.c. respectively. This corresponds to N +
1.75 O, the oxygen being decidedly in excess of the proportion required
to form nitrous acid. The argon ultimately found was 75.0 c.c., or a
little more than 1% of the atmospheric nitrogen used. A subsequent
determination over mercury by A.M. Kellas (_Proc. Roy. Soc._ lix. p.
66, 1895) gave 1.186 c.c. as the amount of argon present in 100 c.c. of
mixed atmospheric nitrogen and argon. In the earlier stages of the
inquiry, when it was important to meet the doubts which had been
expressed as to the presence of the new gas in the atmosphere, blank
experiments were executed in which air was replaced by nitrogen from
ammonium nitrite. The residual argon, derived doubtless from the water
used to manipulate the gases, was but a small fraction of what would
have been obtained from a corresponding quantity of air.
[Illustration: FIG. 2.]
The other method by which nitrogen may be absorbed on a considerable
scale is by the aid of magnesium. The metal in the form of thin turnings
is charged into hard glass or iron tubes heated to a full red in a
combustion furnace. Into this air, previously deprived of oxygen by
red-hot copper and thoroughly dried, is led in a continuous stream. At
this temperature the nitrogen combines with the magnesium, and thus the
argon is concentrated. A still more potent absorption is afforded by
calcium prepared _in situ_ by heating a mixture of magnesium dust with
thoroughly dehydrated quick-lime. The density of argon, prepared and
purified by magnesium, was found by Sir William Ramsay to be 19.941 on
the O = 16 scale. The volume actually weighed was 163 c.c. Subsequently
large-scale operations with the same apparatus as had been used for the
principal gases gave an almost identical result (19.940) for argon
prepared with oxygen.
Argon is soluble in water at 12° C. to about 4.0%, that is, it is about
2½ times more soluble than nitrogen. We should thus expect to find it in
increased proportion in the dissolved gases of rain-water. Experiment
has confirmed this anticipation. The weight of a mixture of argon and
nitrogen prepared from the dissolved gases showed an excess of 24 mg.
over the weight of true nitrogen, the corresponding excess for the
atmospheric mixture being only 11 mg. Argon is contained in the gases
liberated by many thermal springs, but not in special quantity. The gas
collected from the King's Spring at Bath gave only ½%, i.e. half the
atmospheric proportion.
The most remarkable physical property of argon relates to the constant
known as the ratio of specific heats. When a gas is warmed one degree,
the heat which must be supplied depends upon whether the operation is
conducted at a constant volume or at a constant pressure, being greater
in the latter case. The ratio of specific heats of the principal gases
is 1.4, which, according to the kinetic theory, is an indication that an
important fraction of the energy absorbed is devoted to rotation or
vibration. If, as for Boscovitch points, the whole energy is
translatory, the ratio of specific heats must be 1.67. This is precisely
the number found from the velocity of sound in argon as determined by
Kundt's method, and it leaves no room for any sensible energy of
rotatory or vibrational motion. The same value had previously been found
for mercury vapour by Kundt and Warburg, and had been regarded as
confirmatory of the monatomic character attributed on chemical grounds
to the mercury molecule. It may be added that helium has the same
character as argon in respect of specific heats (Ramsay, _Proc. Roy.
Soc._ l. p. 86, 1895).
The refractivity of argon is .961 of that of air. This low refractivity
is noteworthy as strongly antagonistic to the view at one time favoured
by eminent chemists that argon was a condensed form of nitrogen
represented by N3. The viscosity of argon is 1.21, referred to air,
somewhat higher than for oxygen, which stands at the head of the list of
the principal gases ("On some Physical Properties of Argon and Helium,"
_Proc. Roy. Soc._ vol. lix. p. 198, 1896).
The spectrum shows remarkable peculiarities. According to circumstances,
the colour of the light obtained from a Plücker vacuum tube changes
"from red to a rich steel blue," to use the words of Crookes, who first
described the phenomenon. A third spectrum is distinguished by J.M.
Eder and Edward Valenta. The red spectrum is obtained at moderately low
pressures (5 mm.) by the use of a Ruhmkorff coil without a jar or
air-gap. The red lines at 7056 and 6965 (Crookes) are characteristic.
The blue spectrum is best seen at a somewhat lower pressure (1 mm. to
2.5 mm.), and usually requires a Leyden jar to be connected to the
secondary terminals. In some conditions very small causes effect a
transition from the one spectrum to the other. The course of electrical
events attending the operation of a Ruhmkorff coil being extremely
complicated, special interest attaches to some experiments conducted by
John Trowbridge and T.W. Richards, in which the source of power was a
secondary battery of 5000 cells. At a pressure of 1 mm. the red glow of
argon was readily obtained with a voltage of 2000, but not with much
less. After the discharge was once started, the difference of potentials
at the terminals of the tube varied from 630 volts upwards.
The introduction of a capacity between the terminals of the Geissler
tube, for example two plates of metal 1600 sq. cm. in area separated
by a glass plate 1 cm. thick, made no difference in the red glow so
long as the connexions were good and the condenser was quiet. As soon
as a spark-gap was introduced, or the condenser began to emit the
humming sound peculiar to it, the beautiful blue glow so
characteristic of argon immediately appeared. (_Phil. Mag._ xliii. p.
77, 1897.)
The behaviour of argon at low temperatures was investigated by K.S.
Olszewski (_Phil. Trans._, 1895, p. 253). The following results are
extracted from the table given by him:--
+----------+--------------+-----------+----------+----------+
| | Critical | Critical | Boiling | Freezing |
| Name. | Temperature, | Pressure, | Point, | Point, |
| | Cent. | Atmos. | Cent. | Cent. |
+----------+--------------+-----------+----------+----------+
| Nitrogen | -146.0 | 35.0 | -194.4 | -214.0 |
| Argon | -121.0 | 50.6 | -187.0 | -189.6 |
| Oxygen | -118.8 | 50.8 | -182.7 | ? |
+----------+--------------+-----------+----------+----------+
The smallness of the interval between the boiling and freezing points is
noteworthy.
From the manner of its preparation it was clear at an early stage that
argon would not combine with magnesium or calcium at a red heat, nor
under the influence of the electric discharge with oxygen, hydrogen or
nitrogen. Numerous other, attempts to induce combination also failed.
Nor does it appear that any well-defined compound of argon has yet been
prepared. It was found, however, by M.P.E. Berthelot that under the
influence of the silent electric discharge, a mixture of benzene vapour
and argon underwent contraction, with formation of a gummy product from
which the argon could be recovered.
The facts detailed in the original memoir led to the conclusion that
argon was an element or a mixture of elements, but the question between
these alternatives was left open. The behaviour on liquefaction,
however, seemed to prove that in the latter case either the proportion
of the subordinate constituents was small, or else that the various
constituents were but little contrasted. An attempt, somewhat later, by
Ramsay and J. Norman Collie to separate argon by diffusion into two
parts, which should have different densities or refractivities, led to
no distinct effect. More recently Ramsay and M.W. Travers have obtained
evidence of the existence in the atmosphere of three new gases, besides
helium, to which have been assigned the names of neon, krypton and
xenon. These gases agree with argon in respect of the ratio of the
specific heats and in being non-oxidizable under the electric spark. As
originally defined, argon included small proportions of these gases, but
it is now preferable to limit the name to the principal constituent and
to regard the newer gases as "companions of argon." The physical
constants associated with the name will scarcely be changed, since the
proportion of the "companions" is so small. Sir William Ramsay considers
that probably the volume of all of them taken together does not exceed
1/400th part of that of the argon. The physical properties of these
gases are given in the following table (_Proc. Roy. Soc._ lxvii. p. 331,
1900):--
+----------------+---------+--------+--------+----------+--------+
| | Helium. | Neon. | Argon. | Krypton. | Xenon. |
+----------------+---------+--------+--------+----------+--------+
| Refractivities | .1238 | .2345 | .968 | 1.449 | 2.364|
| (air = 1) | | | | | |
| Densities | 1.98 | 9.97 | 19.96 | 40.88 | 64 |
| (O = 16) | | | | | |
| Boiling points | c. 6°[1]| ? | 86.9° | 121.33° | 163.9° |
| at 760 mm. | abs. | | abs. | abs. | abs. |
| Critical | ? | below |155.6° | 210.5° | 287.7° |
| temperatures | |68° abs.| abs. | abs. | abs. |
| Critical | ? | ? | 40.2 | 41.24 | 43.5 |
| pressures | | | metres.| metres. | metres.|
| Weight of 1 | ? | ? | 1.212 | 2.155 | 3.52 |
| c.c. of liquid| | | gm. | gm. | gm. |
+----------------+---------+--------+--------+----------+--------+
The glow obtained in vacuum tubes is highly characteristic, whether as
seen directly or as analysed by the spectroscope.
Now that liquid air is available in many laboratories, it forms an
advantageous starting-point in the preparation of argon. Being less
volatile than nitrogen, argon accumulates relatively as liquid air
evaporates. That the proportion of oxygen increases at the same time is
little or no drawback. The following analyses (Rayleigh, _Phil. Mag._,
June 1903) of the _vapour_ arising from liquid air at various stages of
the evaporation will give an idea of the course of events:--
+---------------+---------------+--------------------------+
| Percentage of | Percentage of | Argon as a Percentage of |
| Oxygen. | Argon. | the Nitrogen and Argon. |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------------+
| 30 | 1.3 | 1.9 |
| 43 | 2.0 | 3.5 |
| 64 | 2.0 | 5.6 |
| 75 | 2.1 | 8.4 |
| 90 | 2.0 | 20.0 |
+---------------+---------------+--------------------------+
(R.)
FOOTNOTE:
[1] Sir James Dewar, _Compt. Rend._ (1904), 139, 261 and 241.
ARGONAUTS ([Greek: Argonautai], the sailors of the "Argo"), in Greek
legend a band of heroes who took part in the Argonautic expedition under
the command of Jason, to fetch the golden fleece. This task had been
imposed on Jason by his uncle Pelias (q.v.), who had usurped the throne
of Iolcus in Thessaly, which rightfully belonged to Jason's father
Aeson. The story of the fleece was as follows. Jason's uncle Athamas had
two children, Phrixus and Helle, by his wife Nephele, the cloud goddess.
But after a time he became enamoured of Ino, the daughter of Cadmus, and
neglected Nephele, who disappeared in anger. Ino, who hated the children
of Nephele, persuaded Athamas, by means of a false oracle, to offer
Phrixus as a sacrifice, as the only means of alleviating a famine which
she herself had caused by ordering the grain to be secretly roasted
before it was sown. But before the sacrifice the shade of Nephele
appeared to Phrixus, bringing a ram with a golden fleece on which he and
his sister Helle endeavoured to escape over the sea. Helle fell off and
was drowned in the strait, which after her was called the Hellespont.
Phrixus, however, reached the other side in safety, and proceeding by
land to Aea in Colchis on the farther shore of the Euxine Sea,
sacrificed the ram, and hung up its fleece in the grove of Ares, where
it was guarded by a sleepless dragon.
Jason, having undertaken the quest of the fleece, called upon the
noblest heroes of Greece to take part in the expedition. According to
the original story, the crew consisted of the chief members of Jason's
own race, the Minyae. But when the legend became common property, other
and better-known heroes were added to their number--Orpheus, Castor and
Polydeuces (Pollux), Zetes and Calais, the winged sons of Boreas,
Meleager, Theseus, Heracles. The crew was supposed to consist of fifty,
agreeing in number with the fifty oars of the "Argo," so called from its
builder Argos, the son of Phrixus, or from [Greek: argos] (swift). It
was a larger vessel than had ever been seen before, built of pine-wood
that never rotted from Mount Pelion. The goddess Athena herself
superintended its construction, and inserted in the prow a piece of oak
from Dodona, which was endowed with the power of speaking and delivering
oracles. The outward course of the "Argo" was the same as that of the
Greek traders, whose settlements as early as the 6th century B.C. dotted
the southern shores of the Euxine. The first landing-place was the
island of Lemnos, which was occupied only by women, who had put to death
their fathers, husbands and brothers. Here the Argonauts remained some
months, until they were persuaded by Heracles to leave. It is known from
Herodotus (iv. 145) that the Minyae had formed settlements at Lemnos at
a very early date. Proceeding up the Hellespont, they sailed to the
country of the Doliones, by whose king, Cyzicus, they were hospitably
received. After their departure, being driven back to the same place by
a storm, they were attacked by the Doliones, who did not recognize them,
and in a battle which took place Cyzicus was killed by Jason. After
Cyzicus had been duly mourned and buried, the Argonauts proceeded along
the coast of Mysia, where occurred the incident of Heracles and Hylas
(q.v.). On reaching the country of the Bebryces, they again landed to
get water, and were challenged by the king, Amycus, to match him with a
boxer. Polydeuces came forward, and in the end overpowered his
adversary, and bound him to a tree, or according to others, slew him. At
the entrance to the Euxine, at Salmydessus on the coast of Thrace, they
met Phineus, the blind and aged king whose food was being constantly
polluted by the Harpies. He knew the course to Colchis, and offered to
tell it, if the Argonauts would free him from the Harpies. This was done
by the winged sons of Boreas, and Phineus now told them their course,
and that the way to pass through the Symplegades or Cyanean rocks--two
cliffs which moved on their bases and crushed whatever sought to
pass--was first to fly a pigeon through, and when the cliffs, having
closed on the pigeon, began to retire to each side, to row the "Argo"
swiftly through. His advice was successfully followed, and the "Argo"
made the passage unscathed, except for trifling damage to the stern.
From that time the rocks became fixed and never closed again. The next
halting-places were the country of the Maryandini, where the helmsman
Tiphys died, and the land of the Amazons on the banks of the Thermodon.
At the island of Aretias they drove away the Stymphalian birds, who used
their feathers of brass as arrows. Here they found and took on board the
four sons of Phrixus who, after their father's death, had been sent by
Aeetes, king of Colchis, to fetch the treasures of Orchomenus, but had
been driven by a storm upon the island. Passing near Mount Caucasus,
they heard the groans of Prometheus and the flapping of the wings of the
eagle which gnawed his liver. They now reached their goal, the river
Phasis, and the following morning Jason repaired to the palace of
Aeetes, and demanded the golden fleece. Aeetes required of Jason that
he should first yoke to a plough his bulls, given him by Hephaestus,
which snorted fire and had hoofs of brass, and with them plough the
field of Ares. That done, the field was to be sown with the dragons'
teeth brought by Phrixus, from which armed men were to spring.
Successful so far by means of the mixture which Medea, daughter of
Aeetes, had given him as proof against fire and sword, Jason was next
allowed to approach the dragon which watched the fleece; Medea soothed
the monster with another mixture, and Jason became master of the fleece.
Then the voyage homeward began, Medea accompanying Jason, and Aeetes
pursuing them. To delay him and obtain escape, Medea dismembered her
young brother Absyrtus, whom she had taken with her, and cast his limbs
about in the sea for his father to pick up. Her plan succeeded, and
while Aeetes was burying the remains of his son at Tomi, Jason and Medea
escaped. In another account Absyrtus had grown to manhood then, and met
his death in an encounter with Jason, in pursuit of whom he had been
sent. Of the homeward course various accounts are given. In the oldest
(Pindar) the "Argo" sailed along the river Phasis into the eastern
Oceanus, round Asia to the south coast of Libya, thence to the mythical
lake Tritonis, after being carried twelve days over land through Libya,
and thence again to Iolcus. Hecataeus of Miletus (Schol. Apollon. Rhod.
iv. 259) suggested that from the Oceanus it may have sailed into the
Nile, and so to the Mediterranean. Others, like Sophocles, described the
return voyage as differing from the outward course only in taking the
northern instead of the southern shore of the Euxine. Some
(pseudo-Orpheus) supposed that the Argonauts had sailed up the river
Tanaïs, passed into another river, and by it reached the North Sea,
returning to the Mediterranean by the Pillars of Hercules. Again, others
(Apollonius Rhodius) laid down the course as up the Danube (Ister), from
it into the Adriatic by a supposed mouth of that river, and on to
Corcyra, where a storm overtook them. Next they sailed up the Eridanus
into the Rhodanus, passing through the country of the Celts and
Ligurians to the Stoechades, then to the island of Aethalia (Elba),
finally reaching the Tyrrhenian Sea and the island of Circe, who
absolved them from the murder of Absyrtus. Then they passed safely
through Scylla and Charybdis, past the Sirens, through the Planctae,
over the island of the Sun, Trinacria and on to Corcyra again, the land
of the Phaeacians, where Jason and Medea held their nuptials. They had
sighted the coast of Peloponnesus when a storm overtook them and drove
them to the coast of Libya, where they were saved from a quicksand by
the local nymphs. The "Argo" was now carried twelve days and twelve
nights to the Hesperides, and thence to lake Tritonis (where the seer
Mopsus died), whence Triton conducted them to the Mediterranean. At
Crete the brazen Talos, who would not permit them to land, was killed by
the Dioscuri. At Anaphe, one of the Sporades, they were saved from a
storm by Apollo. Finally, they reached Iolcus, and the "Argo" was placed
in a groove sacred to Poseidon on the isthmus of Corinth. Jason's death,
it is said, was afterwards caused by part of the stern giving way and
falling upon him.
The story of the expedition of the Argonauts is very old. Homer was
acquainted with it and speaks of the "Argo" as well known to all men;
the wanderings of Odysseus may have been partly founded on its voyage.
Pindar, in the fourth Pythian ode. gives the oldest detailed account of
it. In Greek, there are also extant the _Argonautica_ of Apollonius
Rhodius and the pseudo-Orpheus (4th century A.D.), and the account in
Apollodorus (i. 9), based on the best extant authorities; in Latin, the
imitation of Apollonius (a free translation or adaptation of whose
_Argonautica_ was made by Terentius Varro Atacinus in the time of
Cicero) by Valerius Flaccus. In ancient times the expedition was
regarded as a historical fact, an incident in the opening up of the
Euxine to Greek commerce and colonization. Its object was the
acquisition of gold, which was caught by the inhabitants of Colchis in
fleeces as it was washed down the rivers. Suidas says that the fleece
was a book written on parchment, which taught how to make gold by
chemical processes. The rationalists explained the ram on which Phrixus
crossed the sea as the name or ornament of the ship on which he escaped.
Several interpretations of the legend have been put forward by modern
scholars. According to C.O. Müller, it had its origin in the worship of
Zeus Laphystius; the fleece is the pledge of reconciliation; Jason is a
propitiating god of health, Medea a goddess akin to Hera; Aeetes is
connected with the Colchian sun-worship. Forchhammer saw in it an old
nature symbolism; Jason, the god of healing and fruitfulness, brought
the fleece--the fertilizing rain-cloud--to the western land that was
parched by the heat of the sun. Others treat it as a solar myth; the ram
is the light of the sun, the flight of Phrixus and the death of Helle
signify its setting, the recovery of the fleece its rising again.
There are numerous treatises on the subject: F. Vater, _Der
Argonautenzug_ (1845); J. Stender, _De Argonautarum Expeditione_
(1874); D. Kennerknecht, _De Argonautarum Fabula_ (1886); M. Groeger,
_De Argonautarum Fabularum Historia_ (1889); see also Grote, _History
of Greece_, part i. ch. 13; Preller, _Griechische Mythologie_;
articles in Pauly-Wissowa's _Realencyclopädie_, Roscher's _Lexikon der
Mythologie_, and Daremberg and Saglio's _Dictionnaire des Antiquités_.
ARGONNE, a rocky forest-clad plateau in the north-east of France,
extending along the borders of Lorraine and Champagne, and forming part
of the departments of Ardennes, Meuse and Marne. The Argonne stretches
from S.S.E. to N.N.W., a distance of 63 m. with an average breadth of 19
m., and an average height of 1150 ft. It forms the connecting-link
between the plateaus of Haute Marne and the Ardennes, and is bounded E.
by the Meuse and W. by the Ante and the Aisne, which rises in its
southern plateau. The valleys of the Aire and other rivers traverse it
longitudinally, a fact to which its importance as a bulwark of
north-eastern France is largely due. Of the numerous forests which
clothe both slopes of the plateau, the chief is that of Argonne, which
extends for 25 m. between the Aire and the Aisne.
For Dumouriez's Argonne campaign in 1792, see FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY
WARS.
ARGOS, the name of several ancient Greek cities or districts, but
specially appropriated in historic times to the chief town in eastern
Peloponnese, whence the peninsula of Argolis derives its name. The
Argeia, or territory of Argos proper, consisted of a shelving plain at
the head of the Gulf of Argolis, enclosed between the eastern wall of
the Arcadian plateau and the central highlands of Argolis. The waters of
this valley (Inachus, Charadrus, Erasinus), when properly regulated,
favoured the growth of excellent crops, and the capital standing only 3
m. from the sea was well placed for Levantine trade. Hence Argos was
perhaps the earliest town of importance in Greece; the legends indicate
its high antiquity and its early intercourse with foreign countries
(Egypt, Lycia, &c.). Though eclipsed in the Homeric age, when it appears
as the seat of Diomedes, by the later foundation of Mycenae, it regained
its predominance after the invasion of the Dorians (q.v.), who seem to
have occupied this site in considerable force. In accordance with the
tradition which assigned the portion to the eldest-born of the Heracleid
conquerors, Argos was for some centuries the leading power in
Peloponnesus. There is good evidence that its sway extended originally
over the entire Argolis peninsula, the land east of Parnon, Cythera,
Aegina and Sicyon. Under King Pheidon the Argive empire embraced all
eastern Peloponnesus, and its influence spread even to the western
districts.
This supremacy was first challenged about the 8th century by Sparta.
Though organized on similar lines, with a citizen population divided
into three Dorian tribes (and one containing other elements), with a
class of Perioeci (neighbouring dependents) and of serfs, the Argives
had no more constant foe than their Lacedaemonian kinsmen. In a
protracted struggle for the possession of the eastern seaboard of
Laconia in spite of the victory at Hysiae (apparently in 669), they were
gradually driven back, until by 550 they had lost the whole coast strip
of Cynuria. A later attempt to retrieve this loss resulted in a crushing
defeat near Tiryns at the hands of King Cleomenes I. (probably in 495),
which so weakened the Argives that they had to open the franchise to
their Perioeci. By this time they had also lost control over the other
cities of Argolis, which they never succeeded in recovering. Partly in
consequence of its defeat, partly out of jealousy against Sparta, Argos
took no part in the war against Xerxes. Indeed on this, as on later
occasions, its relations with Persia seem to have been friendly. About
470 the conflict with Sparta was renewed in concert with the Arcadians,
but all that the Argives could achieve was to destroy their revolted
dependencies of Mycenae and Tiryns (468 or 464). In 461 they contracted
an alliance with Athens, thus renewing a connexion established by
Peisistratus (q.v.). In spite of this league Argos made no headway
against Sparta, and in 451 consented to a truce. A more important result
of Athenian intervention was the substitution of the democratic
government for the oligarchy which had succeeded the early monarchy; at
any rate forty years later we find that Argos possessed complete
democratic institutions.
During the early Peloponnesian War Argos remained neutral; after the
break-up of the Spartan confederacy consequent upon the peace of Nicias
the alliance of this state, with its unimpaired resources and
flourishing commerce, was courted on all sides. By throwing in her lot
with the Peloponnesian democracies and Athens, Argos seriously
endangered Sparta's supremacy, but the defeat of Mantineia (418) and a
successful rising of the Argive oligarchs spoilt this chance. The
speedily restored democracy put little heart into the conflict, and
beyond sending mercenary detachments, lent Athens no further help in the
war (see PELOPONNESIAN WAR).
At the outset of the 4th century, Argos, with a population and resources
equalling those of Athens, took a prominent part in the Corinthian
League against Sparta. In 394 the Argives helped to garrison Corinth,
and the latter state seems for a while to have been annexed by them. But
the peace of Antalcidas (q.v.) dissolved this connexion, and barred
Argive pretensions to control all Argolis. After the battle of Leuctra
Argos experienced a political crisis; the oligarchs attempted a
revolution, but were put down by their opponents with such
vindictiveness that 1200 of them are said to have been executed (370).
The democracy consistently supported the victorious Thebans against
Sparta, figuring with a large contingent on the decisive field of
Mantineia (362). When pressed in turn by their old foes the Argives were
among the first to call in Philip of Macedon, who reinstated them in
Cynuria after becoming master of Greece. In the Lamian War Argos was
induced to side with the patriots against Macedonia; after its capture
by Cassander from Polyperchon (317) it fell in 303 into the hands of
Demetrius Poliorcetes. In 272 the Argives joined Sparta in resisting the
ambition of King Pyrrhus of Epirus, whose death ensued in an
unsuccessful night attack upon the city. They passed instead into the
power of Antigonus Gonatas of Macedonia, who maintained his control by
means of tyrants. After several unavailing attempts Aratus (q.v.)
contrived to win Argos for the Achaean League (229), in which it
remained save during a brief occupation by the Spartans Cleomenes III.
(q.v.) and Nabis (224 and 196).
The Roman conquest of Achaea enhanced the prosperity of Argos by
removing the trade competition of Corinth. Under the Empire, Argos was
the headquarters of the Achaean synod, and continued to be a resort of
Roman merchants. Though plundered by the Goths in A.D. 267 and 395 it
retained some of its commerce and culture in Byzantine days. The town
was captured by the Franks in 1210; after 1246 it was held in fief by
the rulers of Athens. In later centuries it became the scene of frequent
conflicts between the Venetians and the Turks, and on two occasions
(1397 and 1500) its population was massacred by the latter. Repeopled
with Albanian settlers, Argos was chosen as seat of the Greek national
assembly in the wars of independence. Its citadel was courageously
defended by the patriots (1822); in 1825 the city was burnt to the
ground by Ibrahim Pasha. The present town of 10,000 inhabitants is a
purely agricultural settlement. The Argive plain, though not yet
sufficiently reclaimed, yields good crops of corn, rice and tobacco.
In the early days of Greece the Argives enjoyed high repute for their
musical talent. Their school of bronze sculpture, whose first famous
exponent was Ageladas (Hagelaidas), the reputed master of Pheidias,
reached its climax towards the end of the 5th century in the atelier of
Polyclitus (q.v.) and his pupils. To this period also belongs the new
Heraeum (see below), one of the most splendid temples of Greece.
Remains of the early city are still visible on the Larissa acropolis,
which towers 900 ft. high to the north-west of the town. A few courses
of the ancient ramparts appear under the double enceinte of the
surviving medieval fortress. An aqueduct of Greek times is represented
by some fragments on the south-western edge. In the slope above the town
was hewn a theatre equalling that of Athens in size. The Aspis or
smaller citadel to the north-east has revealed traces of an early
Mycenaean settlement; the Deiras or ridge connecting the two heights
contains a prehistoric cemetery.
AUTHORITIES.--Herodotus, Thucydides, Xenophon; Plutarch, _Pyrrhus_,
30-34; Strabo pp. 373-374; Pausanias ii. 15-24; W.M. Leake, _Travels
in the Morea_ (London, 1835), ii. chs. 19-22; E. Curtius,
_Peloponnesos_ (Gotha, 1851), ii. 350-364; H.F. Tozer, _Geography of
Greece_ (London, 1873), pp. 292-294; J.K. Kophiniotis, [Greek:
Historia ton Argous] (Athens, 1892-1893); W. Vollgraff in _Bulletin de
Correspondance Hellénique_ (1904, pp. 364-399; 1906, pp. 1-45; 1907,
pp. 139-184). (M. O. B. C.)
_The Argive Heraeum._--Since 1892 investigation has added considerably
to our knowledge concerning the Argive Heraeum or Heraion, the temple of
Hera, which stood, according to Pausanias, "on one of the lower slopes
of Euboea." The term Euboea did not designate the eminence upon which
the Heraeum is placed, or the mountain-top behind the Heraeum only, but,
as Pausanias distinctly indicates, the group of foothills of the hilly
district adjoining the mountain. When once we admit that this designated
not only the mountain, which is 1730 ft. high, but also the hilly
district adjoining it, the general scale of distance for this site grows
larger. The territory of the Heraeum was divided into three parts,
namely Euboea, Acraea and Prosymna. Pausanias tells us that the Heraeum
is 15 stadia from Mycenae. Strabo, on the other hand, says that the
Heraeum was 40 stadia from Argos and 10 from Mycenae. Both authors
underestimate the distance from Mycenae, which is about 25 stadia, or a
little more than 3 m., while the distance from Argos is 45 stadia, or a
little more than 5 m. The distance from the Heraeum to the ancient Midea
is slightly greater than to Mycenae, while that from the Heraeum to
Tiryns is about 6 m. The Argive Heraeum was the most important centre of
Hera and Juno worship in the ancient world; it always remained the chief
sanctuary of the Argive district, and was in all probability the
earliest site of civilized life in the country inhabited by the Argive
people. In fact, whereas the site of Hissarlik, the ancient Troy, is not
in Greece proper, but in Asia Minor, and can thus not furnish the most
direct evidence for the earliest Hellenic civilization as such; and
whereas Tiryns, Mycenae, and the city of Argos, each represent only one
definite period in the successive stages of civilization, the Argive
Heraeum, holding the central site of early civilization in Greece
proper, not only retained its importance during the three periods marked
by the supremacy of Tiryns, Mycenae and the city of Argos, but in all
probability antedated them as a centre of civilized Argive life. These
conditions alone account for the extreme archaeological importance of
this ancient sanctuary.
According to tradition the Heraeum was founded by Phoroneus at least
thirteen generations before Agamemnon and the Achaeans ruled. It is
highly probable that before it became important merely as a temple, it
was the fortified centre uniting the Argive people dwelling in the
plain, the citadel which was superseded in this function by Tiryns.
There is ample evidence to show that it was the chief sanctuary during
the Tirynthian period. When Mycenae was built under the Perseïds it was
still the chief sanctuary for that centre, which superseded Tiryns in
its dominance over the district, and which this temple clearly antedated
in construction. According to the _Dictys Cretensis_, it was at this
Heraeum that Agamemnon assembled the leaders before setting out for
Troy. In the period of Dorian supremacy, in spite of the new cults which
were introduced by these people, the Heraeum maintained its supreme
importance: it was here that the tablets recording the succession of
priestesses were kept which served as a chronological standard for the
Argive people, and even far beyond their borders; and it was here that
Pheidon deposited the [Greek: obeliskoi] when he introduced coinage into
Greece.
We learn from Strabo that the Heraeum was the joint sanctuary for
Mycenae and Argos. But in the 5th century the city of Argos vanquished
the Mycenaeans, and from that time onwards the city of Argos becomes the
political centre of the district, while the Heraeum remains the
religious centre. And when in the year 423 B.C., through the negligence
of the priestess Chryseis, the old temple was burnt down, the Argives
erected a splendid new temple, built by Eupolemos, in which was placed
the great gold and ivory statue of Hera, by the sculptor Polyclitus, the
contemporary and rival of Pheidias, which was one of the most perfect
works of sculpture in antiquity. Pausanias describes the temple and its
contents (ii. 17), and in his time he still saw the ruins of the older
burnt temple above the temple of Eupolemos.
[Illustration: PLAN OF THE HERAEUM (_surveyed and drawn by Edward L.
Tilton_).
I. Old Temple.
II. Stoa.
III. Stoa.
IV. East Building.
V. 5th-Century Temple.
VI. South Stoa.
VII. West Building.
VIII. North-West Building.
IX. Roman Building.
X. Lower Stoa.
XI. Phylakeion.
A, B, C, D, E, F, Cisterns.]
All these facts have been verified and illustrated by the excavations of
the American Archaeological Institute and School of Athens, which were
carried on from 1892 to 1895. In 1854 A.R. Rhangabé made tentative
excavations on this site, digging a trench along the north and east
sides of the second temple. Of these excavations no trace was to be seen
when those of 1892 were begun. The excavations have shown that the
sanctuary, instead of consisting of but one temple with the ruins of the
older one above it, contained at least eleven separate buildings,
occupying an area of about 975 ft. by 325.
On the uppermost terrace, defined by the great Cyclopean supporting
wall, exactly as described by Pausanias, the excavations revealed a
layer of ashes and charred wood, below which were found numerous objects
of earliest date, together with some remains of the walls resting on a
polygonal platform--all forming part of the earliest temple. Immediately
adjoining the Cyclopean wall and below it were found traces of small
houses of the rudest, earliest masonry which are pre-Mycenaean, if not
pre-Cyclopean.
We then descend to the second terrace, in the centre of which the
substructure of the great second temple was revealed, together with so
much of the walls, as well as the several architectural members forming
the superstructure, that it has been possible for E.L. Tilton to design
a complete restoration of the temple. On the northern side of this
terrace, between the second temple and the Cyclopean supporting wall, a
long stoa or colonnade runs from east to west abutting at the west end
in structures which evidently contained a well-house and waterworks;
while at the eastern end of this stoa a number of chambers were erected
against the hill, in front of which were placed statues and
inscriptions, the bases for which are still extant. At the eastern-most
end of this second terrace a large hall with three rows of columns in
the interior, with a porch and entrance at the west end facing the
temple, is built upon elaborate supporting walls of good masonry.
Below the second terrace at the south-west end a large and complicated
building, with an open courtyard surrounded on three sides by a
colonnade and with chambers opening out towards the north, may have
served as a gymnasium or a sanatorium. It is of good early Greek
architecture, earlier than the second temple. A curious, ruder building
to the north of this and to the west of the second terrace is probably
of much earlier date, perhaps of the Mycenaean period, and may have
served as propylaea.
Immediately below the second temple at the foot of the elevation on
which this temple stands, towards the south, and thus facing the city of
Argos, a splendid stoa or colonnade, to which large flights of steps
lead, was erected about the time of the building of the second temple.
It is a part of the great plan to give worthy access to the temple from
the city of Argos. To the east of this large flights of steps lead up to
the temple proper.
At the western extremity of the whole site, immediately beside the
river-bed, we again have a huge stoa running round two sides of a
square, which was no doubt connected with the functions of this
sanctuary as a health resort, especially for women, the goddess Hera
presiding over and protecting married life and child-birth. Finally,
immediately to the north of this western stoa there is an extensive
house of Roman times also connected with baths.
While the buildings give archaeological evidence for every period of
Greek life and history from the pre-Mycenaean period down to Roman
times, the topography itself shows that the Heraeum must have been
constructed before Mycenae and without any regard to it. The foothills
which it occupies form the western boundary to the Argive plain as it
stretches down towards the sea in the Gulf of Nauplia. While it was thus
probably chosen as the earliest site for a citadel facing the sea, its
second period points towards Tiryns and Midea. It could not have been
built as the sanctuary of Mycenae, which was placed farther up towards
the north-west in the hills, and could not be seen from the Heraeum, its
inhabitants again not being able to see their sanctuary. The west
building, the traces of bridges and roads, show that at one time it did
hold some relation to Mycenae; but this was long after its foundation or
the building of the huge Cyclopean supporting wall which is coeval with
the walls of Tiryns, these again being earlier than those of Mycenae.
There are, moreover, traces of still more primitive walls, built of rude
small stones placed one upon the other without mortar, which are in
character earlier than those of Tiryns, and have their parallel in the
lowest layers of Hissarlik.
Bearing out the evidence of tradition as well as architecture, the
numerous finds of individual objects in terra-cotta figurines, vases,
bronzes, engraved stones, &c., point to organized civilized life on this
site many generations before Mycenae was built, _a fortiori_ before the
life as depicted by Homer flourished--nay, before, as tradition has it,
under Proetus the walls of Tiryns were erected. We are aided in forming
some estimate of the chronological sequence preceding the Mycenaean age,
as suggested by the finds of the Heraeum, in the new distribution which
Dörpfeld has been led to make of the chronological stratification of
Hissarlik. For the layer, which he now assigns to the Mycenaean period,
is the sixth stratum from below. Now, as some of the remains at the
Heraeum correspond to the two lowest layers of Hissarlik, the evidence
of the Argive temple leads us far beyond the date assigned to the
Mycenaean age, and at least into the second millennium B.C. (see also
AEGEAN CIVILIZATION). As to its chronological relation to the Cretan
sites--Cnossus, Phaestus, &c., and the "Minoan" civilization as
determined by Dr A. Evans, see the discussion under CRETE.
This sanctuary still holds a position of central importance as
illustrating the art of the highest period in Greek history, namely, the
art of the 5th century B.C. under the great sculptor Polyclitus. Though
the excavations in the second temple have clearly revealed the outlines
of the base upon which the great gold and ivory statue of Hera stood, it
is needless to say that no trace of the statue itself has been found.
From Pausanias we learn that "the image of Hera is seated and is of
colossal size: it is made of gold and ivory, and is the work of
Polyclitus." Based on the computations made by the architect of the
American excavations, E.L. Tilton, on the ground of the height of the
nave, the total height of the image, including the base and the top of
the throne, would be about 26 ft., the seated figure of the goddess
herself about 18 ft. It is probable that the face, neck, arms and feet
were of ivory, while the rest of the figure was draped in gold. Like the
Olympian Zeus of Pheidias, Hera was seated on an elaborately decorated
throne, holding in her left hand the sceptre, surmounted in her case by
the cuckoo (as that of Zeus had an eagle), and in her right, instead of
an elaborate figure of Victory (such as the Athena Parthenos and the
Olympian Zeus held), simply a pomegranate. The crown was adorned with
figures of Graces and the Seasons. A Roman imperial coin of Antoninus
Pius shows us on a reduced scale the general composition of the figure;
while contemporary Argive coins of the 5th century give a fairly
adequate rendering of the head. A further attempt has been made to
identify the head in a beautiful marble bust in the British Museum
hitherto known as Bacchus (Waldstein, _Journal of Hellenic Studies_,
vol. xxi., 1901, pp. 30 seq.)
We also learn from Pausanias that the temple was decorated with
"sculptures over the columns, representing some the birth of Zeus and
the battle of the gods and giants, others the Trojan War and the taking
of Ilium." It was formerly supposed that the phrase "over the columns"
pointed to the existence of sculptured metopes, but no pedimental
groups. Finds made in the excavations, however, have shown that the
temple also had pedimental groups. Besides numerous fragments of nude
and draped figures belonging to pedimental statues, a well-preserved and
very beautiful head of a female divinity, probably Hera, as well as a
draped female torso of excellent workmanship, both belonging to the
pediments, have been discovered. Of the metopes also a great number of
fragments have been found, together with two almost complete metopes,
the one containing the torso of a nude warrior in perfect preservation,
as well as ten well-preserved heads. These statues bear the same
relation to the sculptor Polyclitus which the Parthenon marbles hold to
Pheidias; and the excavations have thus yielded most important material
for the illustration of the Argive art of Polyclitus in the 5th century
B.C.
See Waldstein, _The Argive Heraeum_ (vol. i., Boston and New York,
1902; vol. ii., the Vases by J.C. Hoppin, the Bronzes by H.F. de
Cosa, 1905); _Excavations of the American School of Athens at the
Heraion of Argos_ (1892); and numerous reports and articles in the
_American Archaeological Journal_ since 1892. (C. W.*)
ARGOSTOLI (anc. _Cephallenia_), the capital of Cephalonia (one of the
Ionian islands), and the seat of a bishop of the Greek church. Pop.
about 10,000. It possesses an excellent harbour, a quay a mile in
length, and a fine bridge. Shipbuilding and silk-spinning are carried
on. Near at hand are the ruins of Cranii, which afford fine examples of
Greek military architecture; and at the west side of the harbour there
is a curious stream, flowing _from_ the sea, and employed to drive mills
before losing itself in caverns inland.
See Sir C. Fellows's _Journal of an Excursion in Asia Minor_ in 1838,
and Wiebel's _Die Insel Kephalonia und die Meermuhlen von Argostoli_
(Hamburg, 1873).
ARGOSY (a corruption, by transposition of letters, of the name of the
seaport Ragusa), the term originally for a carrack or merchant ship from
Ragusa and other Adriatic ports, now used poetically of any vessel
carrying rich merchandise. In English writings of the 16th century the
seaport named is variously spelt Ragusa, Aragouse or Aragosa, and ships
coming thence were named Ragusyes, Arguzes and Argosies; the last form
surviving and passing into literature. The incorrect derivation from
Jason's ship, the "Argo," is of modern origin.
ARGUIN, an island (identified by some writers with Hanno's Cerne), off
the west coast of Africa, a little south of Cape Blanco, in 20° 25' N.,
16° 37' W. It is some 4 m. long by 2½ broad, produces gum-arabic, and is
the seat of a lucrative turtle-fishery. Off the island, which was
discovered by the Portuguese in the 15th century, are extensive and very
dangerous reefs. Arguin was occupied in turn by Portuguese, Dutch,
English and French; and to France it now belongs. The aridity of the
soil and the bad anchorage prevent a permanent settlement. The fishery
is mostly carried on by inhabitants of the Canary Isles. In July 1816
the French frigate "Medusa," which carried officers on their way to
Senegal to take possession of that country for France, was wrecked off
Arguin, 350 lives being lost.
ARGUMENT, a word meaning "proof," "evidence," corresponding in English
to the Latin word _argumentum_, from which it is derived; the
originating Latin verb _arguere_, to make clear, from which comes the
English "argue," is from a root meaning bright, appearing in Greek
[Greek: argaes], white. From its primary sense are derived such
applications of the word as a chain of reasoning, a fact or reason given
to support a proposition, a discussion of the evidence or reasons for or
against some theory or proposition and the like. More particularly
"argument" means a synopsis of the contents of a book, the outline of a
novel, play, &c. In logic it is used for the middle term in a syllogism,
and for many species of fallacies, such as the _argumentum ad hominem,
ad baculum_, &c. (see FALLACY). In mathematics the term has received
special meanings; in mathematical tables the "argument" is the quantity
upon which the other quantities in the table are made to depend; in the
theory of complex variables, e.g. such as a + ib where i = [root](-1),
the "argument" (or "amplitude") is the angle [theta] given by tan
[theta] = b/a. In astronomy, the term is used in connexion with the
Ptolemaic theory to denote the angular distance on the epicycle of a
planet from the true apogee of the epicycle; and the "equation to the
argument" is the angle subtended at the earth by the distance of a
planet from the centre of the epicycle.
ARGUS, in ancient Greek mythology, the son of Inachus, Agenor or
Arestor, or, according to others, an earth-born hero (autochthon). He
was called Panoptes (all-seeing), from having eyes all over his body.
After performing several feats of valour, he was appointed by Hera to
watch the cow into which Io had been transformed. While doing this he
was slain by Hermes, who stoned him to death, or put him to sleep by
playing on the flute and then cut off his head. His eyes were
transferred by Hera to the tail of the peacock. Argus with his countless
eyes originally denoted the starry heavens (Apollodorus ii. 1;
Aeschylus, _P. V._ 569; Ovid, _Metam._ i. 264).
Another ARGUS, the old dog of Odysseus, who recognized his master on his
return to Ithaca, figures in one of the best-known incidents in Homer's
_Odyssey_ (xvii. 291-326).
ARGYLL, EARLS AND DUKES OF. The rise of this family of Scottish peers,
originally the Campbells of Lochow, and first ennobled as Barons
Campbell, is referred to in the article ARGYLLSHIRE.
ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL, 5th earl of Argyll (1530-1573), was the elder son of
Archibald, 4th earl of Argyll (d. 1558), and a grandson of Colin, the
3rd earl (d. 1530). His great-grandfather was the 2nd earl, Archibald,
who was killed at Flodden in 1513, and this nobleman's father was Colin,
Lord Campbell (d. 1493), the founder of the greatness of the Campbell
family, who was created earl of Argyll in 1457. With Lord James Stuart,
afterwards the regent Murray, the 5th earl of Argyll became an adherent
of John Knox about 1556, and like his father was one of the most
influential members of the party of religious reform, signing what was
probably the first "godly band" in December 1557. As one of the "lords
of the congregation" he was one of James Stuart's principal lieutenants
during the warfare between the reformers and the regent, Mary of
Lorraine; and later with Murray he advised and supported Mary queen of
Scots, who regarded him with great favour. It was about this time that
William Cecil, afterwards Lord Burghley, referred to Argyll as "a goodly
gentleman universally honoured of all Scotland." Owing to his friendship
with Mary, Argyll was separated from the party of Knox, but he forsook
the queen when she determined to marry Lord Darnley; he was, however,
again on Mary's side after Queen Elizabeth's refusal to aid Murray in
1565. Argyll was probably an accomplice in the murder of Rizzio; he was
certainly a consenting party to that of Darnley, and then separating
himself from Murray he commanded Mary's soldiers after her escape from
Lochleven, and by his want of courage and resolution was partly
responsible for her defeat at Langside in May 1568. Soon afterwards he
made his peace with Murray, but it is possible that he was accessory to
the regent's murder in 1570. After this event Argyll became lord high
chancellor of Scotland, and he died on the 12th of September 1573. His
first wife was an illegitimate daughter of James V., and he was thus
half-brother-in-law to Mary and to Murray. His relations with her were
not harmonious; he was accused of adultery, and in 1568 he performed a
public penance at Stirling.
He left no children, and on his death his half-brother Colin (d. 1584)
became 6th earl of Argyll. This nobleman, whose life was partly spent in
feuds with the regent Morton, died in October 1584. He was succeeded as
7th earl by his young son Archibald (1576-1638), who became a Roman
Catholic, fought for Philip III. of Spain in Flanders, whither he had
gone to avoid his creditors, and, having entrusted the care of his
estates to his son, died in London.
ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL, 1st marquess and 8th earl of Argyll (1607-1661),
eldest son of Archibald, 7th earl, by his first wife, Lady Anne Douglas,
daughter of William, 1st earl of Morton, was born in 1607[1] and
educated at St Andrews University, where he matriculated on the 15th of
January 1622. He had early in life, as Lord Lorne, been entrusted with
the possession of the Argyll estates when his father renounced
Protestantism and took service with Philip of Spain; and he exercised
over his clan an authority almost absolute, disposing of a force of
20,000 retainers, and being, according to Baillie, "by far the most
powerful subject in the kingdom." On the outbreak of the religious
dispute between the king and Scotland in 1637 his support was eagerly
desired by Charles I. He had been made a privy councillor in 1628, and
in 1638 the king summoned him, together with Traquair and Roxburgh, to
London; but he refused to be won over, openly and courageously warned
Charles against his despotic ecclesiastical policy, and showed great
hostility towards Laud. In consequence a secret commission was given to
the earl of Antrim to invade Argyllshire and stir up the Macdonalds
against the Campbells, a wild and foolish project which completely
miscarried. Argyll, who inherited the title by the death of his father
in 1638, had originally no preference for Presbyterianism, but now
definitely took the side of the Covenanters in defence of the national
religion and liberties. He continued to attend the meetings of the
Assembly after its dissolution by the marquess of Hamilton, when
Episcopacy was abolished. In 1639 he sent a statement to Laud, and
subsequently to the king, defending the Assembly's action; and raising a
body of troops he seized Hamilton's castle of Brodick in Arran. After
the pacification of Berwick he carried a motion, in opposition to
Montrose, by which the estates secured to themselves the election of the
lords of the articles, who had formerly been nominated by the king, a
fundamental change in the Scottish constitution, whereby the management
of public affairs was entrusted to a representative body and withdrawn
from the control of the crown. An attempt by the king to deprive him of
his office as justiciary of Argyll and Tarbet failed, and on the
prorogation of the parliament by Charles, in May 1640, Argyll moved that
it should continue its sittings and that the government and safety of
the kingdom should be secured by a committee of the estates, of which,
though not a member, he was himself the guiding spirit. In June he was
entrusted with a "commission of fire and sword" against the royalists in
Atholl and Angus, which, after succeeding in entrapping the earl of
Atholl, he carried out with completeness and some cruelty. It was on
this occasion that took place the burning of "the bonnie house of
Airlie." By this time the personal rivalry and difference in opinion
between Montrose and Argyll had led to an open breach. The former
arranged that on the occasion of Charles's approaching visit to
Scotland, Argyll should be accused of high treason in the parliament.
The plot, however, was disclosed, and Montrose with others was
imprisoned. Accordingly when the king arrived he found himself deprived
of every remnant of influence and authority. It only remained for
Charles to make a series of concessions. He transferred the control over
judicial and political appointments to the parliament, created Argyll a
marquess (1641) with a pension of £1000 a year, and returned home,
having in Clarendon's words "made a perfect deed of gift of that
kingdom." Meanwhile the king's policy of peace and concession had, as
usual, been rudely and treacherously interrupted by a resort to force,
an unsuccessful attempt, known as the "incident," being made to kidnap
Argyll, Hamilton and Lanark. Argyll was mainly instrumental at this
crisis in keeping the national party faithful to what was to him
evidently the common cause, and in accomplishing the alliance with the
Long Parliament in 1643. In January 1644 he accompanied the Scottish
army into England as a member of the committee of both kingdoms and in
command of a troop of horse, but was soon in March compelled to return
to suppress royalist movements in the north and to defend his own
territories. He compelled Huntly to retreat in April, and in July
advanced to meet the Irish troops now landed in Argyllshire, which were
acting in conjunction with Montrose, who had put himself at the head of
the royalist forces in Scotland. A campaign followed in the north in
which neither general succeeded in obtaining any advantage over the
other, or even in engaging battle. Argyll then returned to Edinburgh,
threw up his commission, and retired to Inveraray Castle. Thither
Montrose unexpectedly followed him in December, compelled him to flee to
Roseneath, and devastated his territories. On the 2nd of February 1645,
when following Montrose northwards, Argyll was surprised by him at
Inverlochy and witnessed from his barge on the lake, to which he had
retired owing to a dislocated arm, a fearful slaughter of his troops,
which included 1500 of the Campbells. He arrived at Edinburgh on the
12th of February and was again present at Montrose's further great
victory on the 15th of August at Kilsyth, whence he escaped to
Newcastle. Argyll was at last delivered from his formidable antagonist
by Montrose's final defeat at Philiphaugh on the 12th of September. In
1646 he was sent to negotiate with the king at Newcastle after his
surrender to the Scottish army, when he endeavoured to moderate the
demands of the parliament and at the same time to persuaade the king to
accept them. On the 7th of July 1646 he was appointed a member of the
Assembly of Divines.
Up to this point the statesmanship of Argyll had been highly successful.
The national liberties and religion of Scotland had been defended and
guaranteed, and the power of the king in Scotland reduced to a mere
shadow. In addition, these privileges had been still further secured by
the alliance with the English opposition, and by the subsequent triumph
of the parliament and Presbyterianism in the neighbouring kingdom. The
sovereign himself, after vainly contending in arms, was a prisoner in
their midst. But Argyll's influence could not survive the rupture of the
alliance between the two nations on which his whole policy was
constructed. He opposed in vain the secret treaty now concluded between
the king and the Scots against the parliament, and while Hamilton
marched into England and was defeated by Cromwell at Preston, Argyll,
after a narrow escape from a surprise at Stirling, joined the
Whiggamores, a body of Covenanters at Edinburgh; and, supported by
London, Leven and Leslie, he established a new government, which
welcomed Cromwell on his arrival there on the 4th of October. This
alliance, however, was at once destroyed by the execution of Charles I.,
which excited universal horror in Scotland. In the series of tangled
incidents which followed, Argyll lost control of the national policy. He
describes himself at this period as "a distracted man ... in a
distracted time" whose "remedies ... had the quite contrary operation."
He supported the invitation from the Covenanters to Charles II. to land
in Scotland, gazed upon the captured Montrose, bound on a cart on his
way to execution at Edinburgh, and subsequently, when Charles II. came
to Scotland, having signed the Covenant and repudiated Montrose, Argyll
remained at the head of the administration. After the defeat of Dunbar,
Charles retained his support by the promise of a dukedom and the Garter,
and an attempt was made by Argyll to marry the king to his daughter. On
the 1st of January 1651 he placed the crown on Charles's head at Scone.
But his power had now passed to the Hamilton party. He strongly opposed,
but was unable to prevent, the expedition into England, and in the
subsequent reduction of Scotland, after having held out in Inveraray
Castle for nearly a year, was at last surprised in August 1652 and
submitted to the Commonwealth. His ruin was then complete. His policy
had failed, his power had vanished. In his estate he was hopelessly in
debt, and on terms of such violent hostility with his eldest son as to
be obliged to demand a garrison in his house for his protection. During
his visit to Monk at Dalkeith in 1654 to complain of this, he was
subjected to much personal insult from his creditors, and on visiting
London in September 1655 to obtain money due to him from the Scottish
parliament, he was arrested for debt, though soon liberated. In Richard
Cromwell's parliament of 1659 Argyll sat as member for Aberdeenshire. At
the Restoration he presented himself at Whitehall, but was at once
arrested by order of Charles and placed in the Tower (1660), being sent
to Edinburgh to stand his trial for high treason. He was acquitted of
complicity in the death of Charles I., and his escape from the whole
charge seemed imminent, but the arrival of a packet of letters written
by Argyll to Monk showed conclusively his collaboration with Cromwell's
government, particularly in the suppression of Glencairn's royalist
rising in 1652. He was immediately sentenced to death, his execution by
beheading taking place on the 27th of May 1661, before even the death
warrant had been signed by the king. His head was placed on the same
spike upon the west end of the Tolbooth on which that of Montrose had
previously been exposed, and his body was buried at the Holy Loch, where
the head was also deposited in 1664. A monument was erected to his
memory in St Giles's church in Edinburgh in 1895.
While imprisoned in the Tower he wrote _Instructions to a Son_ (1661;
reprinted in 1689 and 1743). Some of his speeches, including the one
delivered on the scaffold, were published and are printed in the
_Harleian Miscellany_. He married Lady Margaret Douglas, daughter of
William, 2nd earl of Morton, and had two sons and four daughters.
See also the _Life and Times of Archibald Marquis of Argyll_ (1903),
by John Willcock, who prints for the first time the six incriminating
letters to Monk; _Eng. Hist. Review_, xviii. 369 and 624; _Scottish
History Society_, vol. xvii. (1894); _Charles II. and Scotland in
1650_, ed. by S.R. Gardiner, and vol. xviii. (1895); _History of
Scotland_, by A. Lang, vol. iii. (1904).
ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL, 9th earl of Argyll (1629-1685), eldest son of the
8th earl, studied abroad, and at the age of thirteen was appointed
captain in the Scottish regiment serving in France under his uncle the
earl of Irvine. He returned home at the close of 1649, and was made
captain of Charles II.'s life guards on the king's arrival in Scotland
in 1650. He declared himself a royalist in opposition to his father,
with the view, as some said, of securing the family estates in any
event. He fought at Dunbar on the 3rd of September 1650, and after the
battle of Worcester joined Glencairn in the Highlands. Bitter disputes
arose, and on the 2nd of January 1654 Lorne, quitting his troops, fled
to avoid arrest. In 1653 he submitted to Monk. He appears, however, to
have maintained communications with Charles, and on his refusal to take
the oath renouncing allegiance to the Stuarts in 1657 he was imprisoned,
remaining in confinement probably till a short time before the
Restoration. He was then well received at court by Charles II. After the
execution of his father, he endeavoured to obtain the restitution of his
forfeited estates and title, but having incautiously attacked certain
members of the government in letters which were made public, he was
indicted at Edinburgh on the capital charge of "leasing-making" and was
sentenced to death on the 26th of August. He remained a prisoner in
Edinburgh Castle till the 4th of June 1663, when the sentence was
cancelled and he was re-created earl and restored to his estates. He
disapproved of the severities practised upon the Covenanters in the
west, and in 1671 pleaded for milder methods. His staunch Protestantism
rendered him exceedingly obnoxious to James, duke of York, who in 1680
arrived as high commissioner in Scotland and at once expressed his
jealousy of Argyll's immense territorial influence. Argyll moved the
re-enactment of "all the acts against popery" omitted on James's
account, and opposed the exemption of the royal family from the test,
though allowing it in the case of James. In signing the test himself, in
its final form both ambiguous and self-contradictory, he made the
reservation "so far as consistent with itself and the Protestant faith,"
and declined to engage himself not to promote any alteration of
advantage in church or state. On his refusal to record his oath in
writing and to sign it, he was dismissed from the Scottish privy
council, and on the 9th of November 1681 was accused of treason, a
charge which Halifax declared openly in England "they would not hang a
dog upon." A trial followed, a scandalous exhibition of illegality and
injustice, at the close of which Argyll was sentenced to death and to
the forfeiture of his estates. Shortly afterwards, through the
instrumentality of his step-daughter, Sophia Lindsay, he succeeded in
making his escape, and after some adventures retired to Holland. His
subsequent movements are uncertain, but he appears to have again
visited London, and was in correspondence with the Rye House plotters
and proposing to head a rebellion in Scotland in 1683. In 1685 he joined
the conspiracy in Holland to set Monmouth on the throne instead of James
II., arriving in Orkney on the 6th of May and making his way to his own
country. But his clansmen refused to join him, and whatever small
chances of success remained were destroyed by constant and paralysing
disputes. His ships and ammunition were captured, and after some aimless
wanderings he found himself deserted, with but one companion, Major
Fullerton. On the 18th of June he was taken prisoner at Inchinnan and
arrived at Edinburgh on the 20th, where he was paraded through the
streets and put in irons in the castle. James ordered his summary
execution on the 29th, and it was carried out by beheading on the
following day, on the old charge of 1681. His head was exposed on the
west side of the Tollbooth, where his father's and Montrose's had also
been exhibited, his body finding its final place of burial at Inveraray.
By his first wife, Lady Mary Stewart, daughter of the 4th earl of Moray
(Murray), he had four sons and three daughters.
See _Argyll Papers_ (1834); _Letters from Archibald, 9th Earl of
Argyle, to the Duke of Lauderdale_ (1829); _Hist. MSS. Comm_. vi. Rep.
606; _Life of Mr Donald Cargile_, by P. Walker, pp. 45 et seq.; _The
3rd Part of the Protestant Plot ... and a Brief Account of the Case of
the Earl of Argyle_ (1682); Sir George MacKenzie's _Hist. of
Scotland_, p. 70; and J. Willcock, _A Scots Earl in Covenanting Times_
(1908).
ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL, 1st duke of Argyll (?1651-1703), was the eldest son
of the 9th earl. He tried to get his father's attainder reversed by
seeking the king's favour, but being unsuccessful he went over to the
Hague and joined William of Orange as an active promoter of the
revolution of 1688. In spite of the attainder, he was admitted in 1689
to the convention of the Scottish estates as earl of Argyll, and he was
deputed, with Sir James Montgomery and Sir John Dalrymple, to present
the crown to William III. in its name, and to tender him the coronation
oath. In 1690 an act was passed restoring his title and estates, and it
was in connexion with the refusal of the Macdonalds of Glencoe to join
in the submission to him that he organized the terrible massacre which
has made his name notorious. In 1696 he was made a lord of the treasury,
and his political services were rewarded in 1701 by his being created
duke of Argyll. He had two sons by his wife Elizabeth, daughter of Sir
Lionel Talmash, John (the 2nd duke) and Archibald (the 3rd duke.)
JOHN CAMPBELL, 2nd duke of Argyll and duke of Greenwich (1678-1743), was
born on the 10th of October 1678. He entered the army in 1694, and in
1701 was promoted to the command of a regiment. On the death of his
father in 1703, he was appointed a member of the privy council, and at
the same time colonel of the Scotch horse guards, and one of the
extraordinary lords of session. In return for his services in promoting
the Union, he was created (1705) a peer of England, by the titles of
baron of Chatham and earl of Greenwich, and in 1710 was made a knight of
the Garter. He first distinguished himself in a military capacity at the
battle of Oudenarde (1708), where he served as a brigadier-general; and
was afterwards present under the duke of Marlborough at the sieges of
Lille, Ghent, Bruges and Tournay, and did remarkable service at the
battle of Malplaquet in 1709. He was very popular with the troops, and
his rivalry with Marlborough on this account is thought to have been the
cause of the enmity shown by Argyll afterwards to his old commander. In
1711 he was sent to take command in Spain; but being seized with a
violent fever at Barcelona, and disappointed of supplies from home, he
returned to England. Having a seat in the House of Lords, and being
gifted with an extraordinary power of oratory, he censured the measures
of the ministry with such freedom that all his places were disposed of
to other noblemen; but at the accession of George I. he recovered his
influence. On the breaking out of the rebellion in 1715 he was appointed
commander-in-chief of the forces in North Britain, and was principally
instrumental in effecting the total extinction of the rebellion in
Scotland without much bloodshed. He arrived in London early in March
1716, and at first stood high in the favour of the king, but in a few
months was strippee of his offices. This disgrace, however, did not
deter him from the discharge of his parliamentary duties; he supported
the bill for the impeachment of Bishop Atterbury, and lent his aid to
his countrymen by opposing the bill for punishing the city of Edinburgh
for the Porteous riot. In the beginning of the year 1719 he was again
admitted into favour, appointed lord steward of the household, and, in
April following, created duke of Greenwich; he held various offices in
succession, and in 1735 was made a field marshall. He continued in the
administration till after the accession of George II., when, in April
1740, a violent speech against the government led again to his dismissal
from office. He was soon restored on a change of the ministry, but
disapproving the measures of the new administration, and apparently
disappointed at not being given the command of the army, he shortly
resigned all his posts, and spent the rest of his life in privacy and
retirement. He died on the 4th of October 1743. A monument by Roubillac
was erected to his memory in Westminster Abbey. He was twice married,
and by his second wife, Jane Warburton, had five daughters; his Scottish
titles passed to his brother, but his English titles became extinct, and
though his eldest daughter was created baroness of Greenwich in 1767
this title also became extinct on her death in 1794.
ARCHIBALD CAMPBELL, 3rd duke of Argyll (1682-1761), was born at Ham
House in Surrey, in June 1682. On his father being created a duke, he
joined the army, and served for a short time under the duke of
Marlborough. In 1705 he was appointed treasurer of Scotland, and in the
following year was one of the commissioners for treating of the Union;
on the consummation of which, having been raised to the peerage of
Scotland as earl of Islay, he was chosen one of the sixteen peers for
Scotland in the first parliament of Great Britain. In 1711 he was called
to the privy council, and commanded the royal army at the battle of
Sheriffmuir in 1715. he was appointed keeper of the privy seal in 1721,
and was afterwards entrusted with the principal management of Scottish
affairs to an extent which caused him to be called "king of Scotland."
In 1733 he was made keeper of the great seal, an office which he held
till his death. He succeeded to the dukedom in 1743. Both as earl of
Islay and as duke of Argyll he was prominently connected (with Duncan
Forbes of Culloden) with the movement for consolidating Scottish loyalty
by the formation of locally recruited highland regiments. The duke was
eminent not only for his political abilities, but also for his literary
accomplishments, and he collected one of the most valuable private
libraries in Great Britain. He died suddenly on the 15th of April 1761.
He was married but had no legitimate issue, and his English property was
left to a Mrs Williams, by whom he had a son, William Campbell.
The succession now passed to the descendants of the younger son of the
9th earl, the Campbells of Mamore; the 4th duke died in 1770, and was
succeeded by his son JOHN, the 5th duke (1723-1806) He was a soldier who
had fought at Dettingen and Culloden, and became colonel of the 42nd
regiment (Black Watch), and eventually a field marshall. He sat in the
House of Commons for Glasgow from 1744 to 1761, when on his father's
succession to the dukedom he became legally disqualified, as courtesy
marquess of Lorne, for a Scottish constituency; he could sit, however,
for an English one, and was returned for Dover, which he represented
till 1766, when he was created an English peer as Baron Sundridge, the
title by which till 1892 the dukes of Argyll sat in the House of Lords.
The 5th duke was an active landlord, and was the first president of the
Highland and Agricultural Society. In 1759 he had married the widowed
duchess of Hamilton (the beautiful Elizabeth Gunning), by whom he had
two sons and two daughters. The eldest of his sons, GEORGE (d. 1841),
became 6th duke, and on his death was succeeded as 7th duke by his
brother JOHN (1777-1847), who from 1799-1822 sat in parliament as member
for Argyllshire. He was thrice married, and by his second wife, Joan
Glassell (d. 1828), had two sons, the eldest of whom (b. 1821) died in
1837, and two daughters, the second of whom died in infancy.
GEORGE JOHN DOUGLAS CAMPBELL, 8th duke (1823-1900), the second son of
the 7th duke, was born on the 30th of April 1823, and succeeded his
father in April 1847. He had already obtained notice as a writer of
pamphlets on the disruption of the Church of Scotland, which he strove
to avert, and he rapidly became prominent on the Liberal side in
parliamentary politics. He was a frequent and eloquent speaker in the
House of Lords, and sat as lord privy seal (1852) and postmaster-general
(1855) in the cabinets of Lord Aberdeen and Lord Palmerston. In Mr
Gladstone's cabinet of 1868 he was secretary of state for India, and
somewhat infelicitously signalized his term of office by his refusal,
against the advice of the Indian government, to promise the amir of
Afghanistan support against Russian aggression, a course which threw
that ruler into the arms of Russia and was followed by the second Afghan
War. His eminence alike as a great Scottish noble, and as a British
statesman, was accentuated in 1871 when his son, the marquess of Lorne,
married Princess Louise, the fourth daughter of Queen Victoria; but in
the political world few memorable acts on his part call for record
except his resignation of the office of lord privy seal, which he held
in Mr Gladstone's administration of 1880, from his inability to assent
to the Irish land legislation of 1881. He opposed the Home Rule Bill
with equal vigour, though Mr Gladstone subsequently stated that, among
all the old colleagues who dissented from his course, the duke was the
only one whose personal relations with him remained entirely unchanged.
Detached from party, the duke took an independent position, and for many
years spoke his mind with great freedom in letters to _The Times_ on
public questions, especially such as concerned the rights or interests
of landowners. He was no less active on scientific questions in their
relation to religion, which he earnestly strove to reconcile with the
progress of discovery. With this aim he published _The Reign of Law_
(1866), _Primeval Man_ (1869), _The Unity of Nature_ (1884), _The Unseen
Foundations of Society_ (1893), and other essays. He also wrote on the
Eastern question, with especial reference to India, the history and
antiquities of Iona, patronage in the Church of Scotland, and many other
subjects. The duke (to whose Scottish title was added a dukedom of the
United Kingdom in 1892) died on the 24th of April 1900. He was thrice
married: first (1844) to a daughter of the second duke of Sutherland (d.
1878); secondly (1881) to a daughter of Bishop Claughton of St Albans
(d. 1894); and thirdly (1895) to Ina Erskine M'Neill. Few men of the
duke's era displayed more versatility of intellect, and he was
remarkable among the men of his time for his lofty eloquence.
He was succeeded as 9th duke by his eldest son JOHN DOUGLAS SUTHERLAND
CAMPBELL (1845- ), whose marriage in 1871 to H.R.H. Princess Louise gave
him a special prominence in English public life. He was governor-general
of Canada from 1878 to 1883; member of parliament for South Manchester,
in the Unionist interest, 1895 to 1900; and he also became known as a
writer both in prose and verse. In 1907 he published his reminiscences,
_Pages from the Past_.
See the _Autobiography and Memoirs_ of the 8th duke, edited by his
widow (1906), which is full of interesting historical and personal
detail. (P. C. Y.; H. Ch.)
FOOTNOTE:
[1] The date of 1598, previously accepted, is shown by Willcock to be
incorrect.
ARGYLLSHIRE, a county on the west coast of Scotland, the second largest
in the country, embracing a large tract of country on the mainland and a
number of the Hebrides or Western Isles. The mainland portion is bounded
N. by Inverness-shire; E. by Perth and Dumbarton, Loch Long and the
Firth of Clyde; S. by the North Channel (Irish Sea); and W. by the
Atlantic. Its area is 1,990,471 acres or 3110 sq. m. The principal
districts are Ardnamurchan on the Atlantic, Ardnamurchan Point being the
most westerly headland of Scotland; Morven or Morvern, bounded by Loch
Sunart, the Sound of Mull and Loch Linnhe; Appin, on Loch Linnhe, with
piers at Ballachulish and Port Appin; Benderloch, lying between Loch
Creran and Loch Etive; Lorne, surrounding Loch Etive and giving the
title of marquess to the Campbells; Argyll, in the middle of the shire,
containing Inveraray Castle and furnishing the titles of earl and duke
to the Campbells; Cowall, between Loch Fyne and the Firth of Clyde, in
which lie Dunoon and other favourite holiday resorts; Knapdale between
the Sound of Jura and Loch Fyne; and Kintyre or Cantyre, a long narrow
peninsula (which, at the isthmus of Tarbert, is little more than 1 m.
wide), the southernmost point of which is known as the Mull, the nearest
part of Scotland to the coast of Ireland, only 13 m. distant.
There are no navigable rivers. The two principal mountain streams are
the Orchy and Awe. The Orchy flows from Loch Tulla through Glen Orchy,
and falls into the north-eastern end of Loch Awe; and the Awe drains the
loch at its north-western extremity, discharging into Loch Etive. Among
other streams are the Add, Aray, Coe or Cona, Creran, Douglas, Eachaig,
Etive, Euchar, Feochan, Finart, Fyne, Kinglass, Nell, Ruel, Shiel,
Shira, Strae and Uisge-Dhu. The county is remarkable for the numerous
sea-lochs which deeply indent the coast, the principal being Loch Long
(with its branches Loch Goil and the Holy Loch), Loch Striven
(Rothesay's "weather glass"), Loch Riddon, Loch Fyne (with Loch Gilp and
Loch Gair), Lochs Tarbert, Killisport, Swin, Crinan, Craignish, Melfort,
Feochan, Etive, Linnhe (with its branches Loch Creran, Loch Leven and
Loch Eil) and Sunart. There are also a large number of inland lakes, the
total area of which is about 25,000 acres. Of these the principal are
Lochs Awe, Avich, Eck, Lydoch and Shiel. The principal islands are Mull,
Islay, Jura, Colonsay, Lismore, Tyree, Coll, Gigha, Luing and Kerrera.
Besides these there are the two small but interesting islands of Staffa
and Iona. The mountains are so many as to give the shire a markedly
rugged character. Some of them are among the loftiest in the kingdom, as
Ben Cruachan with its summit of twin pyramids (3689 ft.), Ben More, in
Mull (3172), Ben Ima (3318), Buachaille Etive (3345), Ben Bui (3106),
Ben Lui (or Loy), on the confines of the shires of Perth and Argyll
(3708), Ben Starav near the head of Loch Etive (3541), and Ben Arthur,
called from its shape "The Cobbler" (2891), on the borders of
Dumbartonshire. There are many picturesque glens, of which the
best-known are Glen Aray, Glen Croe, Glen Etive, Glendaruel, Glen Lochy
("the wearisome glen"--some 10 m. of bare hills and boulders--between
Tyndrum and Dalmally), Glen Strae, Hell's Glen (off Lech Goil) and
Glencoe, the scene of the massacre in 1692. The waterfalls of Cruachan
are beautiful; and those of Connel, which are more in the nature of
rapids, caused by the rush of the ebbing tide over the rocky bar at the
narrowing mouth of Loch Etive, have been made celebrated by Ossian, who
called them "the Falls of Lora." In several of the glens, as Glen Aray,
small falls may be seen, enhanced in beauty when the rivers are in
flood. Pre-eminently Argyll is the shire of the sportsman. The lovely
Western Isles provide endless enjoyment for the yachtsman; the lochs and
rivers abound with salmon and trout; the deer forests and grouse moors
are second to none in Scotland.
_Geology._--The mainland portion of the county consists chiefly of the
metamorphic rocks of the Eastern Highlands, nearly all the
subdivisions of that series (see SCOTLAND: _Geology_) being
represented. They form parallel belts of varying width trending
north-east and south-west. The slates and phyllites referred to the
lowest group occur along the shore at Dunoon, and are followed by the
Beinn Bheula grits and albite schists, forming nearly all the highest
ground in Cowall between Loch Fyne and the Firth of Clyde and the
greater part of Kintyre. The green beds, Glensluan mica-schists and
Loch Tay limestones are developed in Glendaruel, and have been traced
north-east to Glen Fyne and at intervals south-west to Campbeltown.
The next prominent zone is that of the Ardrishaig phyllites, with
quartzites in the lower portion and soft phyllites in the upper part,
which cover a belt from 3 to 6 m. across, stretching from Glen Shira
by Inveraray and Ardrishaig to south Knapdale.
Next in order come the Easdale slates, phyllites with thin dark
limestone, the main limestone of Loch Awe and the pebbly quartzite
(Schiehallion), which are repeated by innumerable folds and spread
northwards to Loch Linnhe and westwards to Jura and Islay. The slates
of this horizon have been largely quarried at Easdale and
Ballachulish, and this main limestone is typically developed near Loch
Awe, near Kilmartin, on the islands of Lismore and Shuna, and in Islay
between Bridgend and Portaskaig. The quartzites of this series form
the highest hills in the south of Islay, occupy nearly the whole of
Jura, and are continued in the mainland, where, by means of the rapid
isoclinal folding, they form lenticular masses. In Islay and at
various localities on the mainland a conglomerate occurs at or near
the base of the quartzites, which contains fragments of the underlying
rocks and boulders of granite not now found in place in that region.
On the mainland, on the north side of the compound synclinal folding
of Loch Awe, the Ardrishaig phyllites reappear at Craignish near
Kilmartin, and the quartzites of this group are supposed to come to
the surface again in Glencoe, not far from the outcrop of the
Schiehallion quartzite.
The metamorphic rocks are associated with bands of epidiorite which
have shared in the folding and metamorphism of the region. These are
largely developed near Loch Awe, in Knapdale, and on the south-east
coast of Islay. They have been usually regarded as intrusive, but
south of Tayvallich on the mainland, lavas and tuffs, which have
escaped deformation, occur in the Easdale slates and the pebbly
limestone.
The Lower Old Red Sandstone, chiefly composed of volcanic rocks--lavas
and tuffs--rests unconformably on the metamorphic series. These rocks
cover a wide area in Lorne between Loch Melfort, Oban and the Pass of
Brander, and they reappear in the lofty mountains on both sides of
Glencoe. Representatives of this formation are found in Kintyre, south
of Campbeltown, where the sediments prevail. The intrusive igneous
rocks belonging to this period are widely distributed and form
conspicuous features. The plutonic masses are represented by the
granite of Ben Cruachan, by the diorite of Gleann Domhainn, and by the
kentallenite (a basic rock related to the monxonites), near
Ballachulish. Throughout the Lorne volcanic plateau there are numerous
dykes of porphyrite which likewise traverse the schists and part of
the Ben Cruachan granite. Sheets of quartz-porphyry, lamprophyre and
diorite are also represented, the first of these types being quarried
at Crarae on the north shore of Loch Fyne.
The Upper Old Red Sandstone forms isolated patches resting
unconformably on all older rocks, on the west coast of Kintyre, and
between Campbeltown and Southend. In the district of Campbeltown these
red sandstones and cornstones are followed by the volcanic rocks of
the Calciferous Sandstone series, which lie to the south of the
depression at Machrihanish, and are succeeded by the lower limestones
and coals of the Carboniferous Limestone series.
On the north and south shores of the promontory of Ardnamurchan there
are small patches of Jurassic strata ranging from the Lower Lias to
the Oxford Clay, and in Morvern on the shores of Loch Aline
representatives of the Upper Greensand are covered by the basaltic
lavas of Tertiary age. The acid and basic plutonic rocks (gabbros and
granophyres) of Tertiary time occur in Ardnamurchan. A striking
geological feature of the county is the number of dolerite and basalt
dykes trending in a north-west direction, which are referred to the
same period of intrusion. There is, however, another group of dolerite
dykes running east and west near Dunoon and elsewhere, which are cut
by the former and are probably of older date.
Lead veins occur at Strontian which have yielded a number of minerals,
including sphalerite, fluorite, strontianite, harmotone, brewsterite
and pilolite. Near Inveraray, nickeliferous ore has been obtained at
two localities.
_Climate._--The rainfall is very abundant. At Oban, the average annual
amount is 64.18 in.; in Glen Fyne, 104.11 in.; at the bridge of Orchy,
113.62 in., and at Upper Glencoe 127.65. The prevailing winds, as
observed near Crinan, are south-west and south-east, and next in
frequency are the north-west and north-east. The average yearly
temperature is 48° F.
_Agriculture._--Argyllshire was formerly partly covered with natural
forests, remains of which, consisting chiefly of oak, ash, pine and
birch, are still visible in the mosses; but, owing to the clearance of
the ground for the introduction of sheep, and to past neglect of
planting, the county is now remarkable for its lack of wood, except in
the neighbourhood of Inveraray, where there are extensive and
flourishing plantations, and a few other places. Replanting, however,
has been carried on. Most of the county is unfitted for agriculture; but
many districts afford fine pasturage for mountain sheep; and some of the
valleys, such as Glendaruel, are very fertile. The chief crop is oats;
there is a little barley, but no wheat. The shire is one of those where
the crofting system exists, but it is by no means universal. It is
predominant in Tyree and the western district of the mainland, but
elsewhere farms of moderate size are the rule. The cattle, though small,
are equal to any other breed in the kingdom, and are marketed in large
numbers in the south. Dairy farming is carried on to some extent in the
southern parts of Kintyre, where there is a large proportion of arable
land. In the higher tracts sheep have taken the place of cattle with
excellent results. The black-faced is the species most generally reared.
_Industries._--Whisky is manufactured at Campbeltown, in Islay, at Oban,
Ardrishaig and elsewhere. Gunpowder is made at Kames (Kyles of Bute),
Melfort and Furnace. Coarse woollens are made for home use; but fishing
is the most important industry, Loch Fyne being famous for its herrings.
The season lasts from June to January, but white fishing is carried on
at one or other of the ports all the year round. Slate and granite
quarrying and some coal-mining are the only other industries of any
consequence.
_Communications._--Owing partly to the paucity of trading industries and
partly to the fact that, owing to its greatly indented coast-line, no
place in the shire is more than 12 m. from the sea, the railway mileage
in the county is very small. The Tyndrum to Oban section of the
Caledonian railway company's system is within the county limits; a small
portion of the track of the North British railway company's line to
Mallaig skirts the extreme west of the shire, and the Caledonian line
from Oban to Ballachulish serves the northern coast districts of the
Argyllshire mainland. In connexion with this last route mention should
be made of the cantilever bridge crossing the Falls of Lora with a span
of 500 ft. at a height of 125 ft. above the water-way. The chief means
of communication is by steamers, which maintain regular intercourse
between Glasgow and various parts of the coast. In order to avoid the
circuitous passage round the Mull of Kintyre the Crinan Canal, across
the isthmus from Ardrishaig to Loch Crinan, a distance of 9 m., was
constructed in 1793-1801, at a cost of £142,000. It has 15 locks, an
average depth of 10 ft., a surface width of 66 ft., and bottom width of
30 ft., is navigable by vessels of 200 tons, and runs through a district
of remarkable beauty. Another canal unites Campbeltown with Dalavaddy.
In summer the mails for the islands and the great bulk of the tourist
traffic by the MacBrayne fleet is conveyed through the Crinan Canal,
transhipment being effected at Ardrishaig and Crinan. Throughout the
year goods traffic between the Clyde and elsewhere and the West Highland
ports is conveyed by deep-sea steamers round the Mull. Before the advent
of railways the shire contained many famous coaching routes, but now
coaches only run during the tourist season, either in connexion with
train and steamer, or in districts still not served by either.
_Population and Government._--Owing to emigration, chiefly to Canada,
the population has declined, almost without a break, since 1831, when it
was 100,973, to 74,085 in 1891 and 73,642 in 1901, in which year there
were 24 persons to the sq. m. In 1901 the number of Gaelic-speaking
persons was 34,224, of whom 3313 spoke Gaelic only. The chief towns are
Campbeltown (population in 1901, 8286), Dunoon (6779) and Oban (5427),
with Ardrishaig (1285), Ballachulish (1143), Lochgilphead (1313) and
Tarbert (1697). The county returns a member to parliament. Inveraray,
Campbeltown and Oban belong to the Ayr district group of parliamentary
burghs. Argyllshire is a sheriffdom, and there are resident
sheriffs-substitute at Inveraray, Campbeltown and Oban; courts are held
also at Tobermory, Lochgilphead, Bowmore in Islay, and Dunoon. Both
Presbyterian bodies are strongly represented; there are Roman Catholic
and (Anglican) Episcopal bishops of Argyll and the Isles, and there is a
Roman Catholic pro-cathedral at Oban. Campbeltown, Dunoon and Oban have
secondary schools, Tarbert public school has a secondary department, and
several other schools earn grants for giving higher education. Part of
the "residue" grant is spent by the county council on classes of
navigation and other subjects in various schools, short courses in
agriculture for farmers, and in providing bursaries.
_History._--The early history of Argyll (Airergaidheal) is very obscure.
At the close of the 5th century Fergus, son of Erc, a descendant of
Conor II., _airdrigh_ or high king of Ireland, came over with a band of
Irish Scots and established himself in Argyll and Kintyre. Nothing more
is known till, in the days of Conall I., the descendant of Fergus in the
fourth generation, St Columba appears. Conall died in 574, and Columba
was mainly instrumental in establishing his first cousin, Aidan, founder
of the Dalriad kingdom and ancestor of the royal house of Scotland, in
power. In the 8th century Argyll, with the Western Islands and Man, fell
under the power of the Norsemen until, in the 12th century, Somerled (or
Somhairle), a descendant of Colla-Uais, _airdrigh_ of Ireland (327-331),
succeeded in ousting them and established his authority, not only as
thane of Argyll, but also in Kintyre and the Western Islands. Somerled
died in 1164 and his descendants maintained themselves in Argyll and the
islands, between the conflicting claims of the kings of Scotland, Norway
and Man, until the end of the 15th century.
Up to 1222 Argyll had formed an independent Celtic princedom; but in
that year it was reduced by Alexander II., the Scottish king, to a
sheriffdom, and was henceforth regarded as an integral part of Scotland.
Among the various clans in Argyll, the Campbells of Loch Awe, a branch
of the clan McArthur, now began to come to the fore, though the mainland
was still chiefly in the possession of the MacDougals. The position of
the lords of the house of Somerled was now curious, since they were
feudatories of the king of Norway for the isles and of the king of
Scotland for Argyll. Their policy in the wars between the two powers was
a masterly neutrality. Thus, during the expedition of Alexander II. to
the Western Isles in 1249, Ewan (Eoghan), lord of Argyll, refused to
fight against the Norwegians; in 1263 the same Ewan refused to join
Haakon of Norway in attacking Alexander III. Forty years later the
clansmen of Argyll, mainly MacDougals, were warring on the side of
Edward of England against Robert Bruce, by whom they were badly beaten
on Loch Awe in 1309. The clansmen of the house of Somerled in the isles,
on the other hand, the MacDonalds, remained loyal to Scotland in spite
of the persuasions of John of Argyll, appointed admiral of Edward II.'s
western fleet; and, under their chief Angus Og, they contributed much to
the victory of Bannockburn. The alliance of John, earl of Ross and lord
of the Isles, with Edward IV. of England in 1461 led to the breaking of
the power of the house of Somerled, and in 1478 John was forced to
resign Ross to the crown and, two years later, his lordships of Knapdale
and Kintyre as well. In Argyll itself the Campbells had already made the
first step to supremacy through the marriage of Colin, grandson of Sir
Duncan Campbell of Lochow, first Lord Campbell, with Isabel Stewart,
eldest of the three co-heiresses of John, third lord of Lorne. He
acquired the greater part of the lands of the other sisters by purchase,
and the lordship of Lorne from Walter their uncle, the heir in tail
male, by an exchange for lands in Perthshire. In 1457 he was created, by
James II., earl of Argyll. He died on the 10th of May 1493. From him
dates the greatness of the house of the earls and dukes of Argyll
(q.v.), whose history belongs to that of Scotland. The house of Somerled
survives in two main branches--that of Macdonald of the Isles, Alexander
Macdonald (d. 1795) having been raised to the peerage in 1776, and that
of the Macdonnells, earls of Antrim in Ireland. The principal clans in
Argyll, besides those already mentioned, were the Macleans, the Stewarts
of Appin, the Macquarries and the Macdonalds of Glencoe, and the
Macfarlanes of Glencroe. The Campbells are still very numerous in the
county.
Argyllshire men have made few contributions to English literature. For
long the natives spoke Gaelic only and their bards sang in Gaelic (see
CELT: _Literature:_ Scottish). Near Inistrynich on the north-eastern
shore of Loch Awe stands the monumental cairn erected in honour of
Duncan Ban McIntyre (1724-1812), the most popular of modern Gaelic
bards. But the romantic beauty of the country has made it a favourite
setting for the themes of many poets and story-tellers, from "Ossian"
and Sir Walter Scott to Robert Louis Stevenson, while not a few men
distinguished in affairs or in learning have been natives of the county.
The antiquities comprise monoliths, circles of standing stones, crannogs
and cairns. In almost all the burying-grounds--as at Campbeltown, Keil,
Soroby, Kilchousland, Kilmun--there are specimens of sculptured crosses
and slabs. Besides the famous ecclesiastical remains at Iona (q.v.),
there are ruins of a Cistercian priory in Oronsay, and of a church
founded in the 12th century by Somerled, thane of Argyll, at Saddell.
Among castles may be mentioned Dunstaffnage, Ardtornish, Skipness,
Kilchurn (beloved of painters), Ardchonnel, Dunolly, Stalker, Dunderaw
and Carrick.
AUTHORITIES.--The (Eighth) Duke of Argyll, _Commercial Principles
Applied to the Hire of Land_ (London, 1877); _Crofts and Farms in the
Hebrides_ (Edinburgh, 1883); _Iona_ (Edinburgh, 1889); _Scotland as it
Was and Is_ (Edinburgh, 1887), _House of Argyll_ (Glasgow, 1871); A.
Brown, _Memorials of Argyllshire_ (Greenock, 1889); Harvie-Brown and
Buckley, _Vertebrate Fauna of Argyll and the Inner Hebrides_
(Edinburgh, 1892); D. Clerk, "On the Agriculture of the County of
Argyll" (_Trans. of H. and A. Soc._, 1878); T. Gray, _Week at Oban_
(Edinburgh, 1881); Stewart, _Collection of Views of Campbeltown_. For
antiquities see _The Sculptured Stones of Scotland_, vol. ii.,
published by the Spalding Club, and Capt. T.P. White's
_Archaeological Sketches in Kintyre_ and _Proc. Antiq. Soc. of
Scotland_, vols. iv., v., viii.
ARGYRODITE, a mineral which is of interest as being that in which the
element germanium was discovered by C. Winkler in 1886. It is a silver
sulpho-germanate, Ag8GeS6, and crystallizes in the cubic system. The
crystals have the form of the octahedron or rhombic dodecahedron, and
are frequently twinned. The botryoidal crusts of small indistinct
crystals first found in a silver mine at Freiberg in Saxony were
originally thought to be monoclinic, but were afterwards proved to be
identical with the more distinctly developed crystals recently found in
Bolivia. The colour is iron-black with a purplish tinge, and the lustre
metallic. There is no cleavage; hardness 2½, specific gravity 6.2. It is
of interest to note that the Freiberg mineral was long ago imperfectly
described by A. Breithaupt under the name _Plusinglanz_, and that the
Bolivian crystals were incorrectly described in 1849 as crystallized
brongniardite. The name argyrodite is from the Greek [Greek:
argurodaes], rich in silver.
Isomorphous with argyrodite is the corresponding tin compound Ag8SnS6,
also found in Bolivia as cubic crystals, and known by the name
canfieldite. Other Bolivian crystals are intermediate in composition
between argyrodite and canfieldite. (L. J. S.)
ARGYROKASTRO, or ARGYROCASTRON (Turkish, _Ergeri_; Albanian _Ergir
Castri_), a town of southern Albania, Turkey, in the vilayet of Iannina.
Pop. (1900) about 11,000. Argyrokastro is finely situated 1060 ft. above
sea-level, on the eastern slopes of the Acroceraunian mountains, and
near the left bank of the river Dhrynos, a left-hand tributary of the
Viossa. It is the capital of a sanjak bearing the same name, and was
formerly important as the headquarters of the local Moslem aristocracy,
partly owing to the mountainous and easily defensible nature of the
district. It contains the ruins of an imposing castellated fort. A fine
kind of snuff, known as _fuli_, is manufactured here. Argyrokastro has
been variously identified with the ancient Hadrianopolis and Antigonea.
In the 18th century it is said to have contained 20,000 inhabitants, but
it was almost depopulated by plague in 1814. Albanian Moslems constitute
the greater part of the population.
ARGYROPULUS, or ARGYROPULO, JOHN (c. 1416-1486), Greek humanist, one of
the earliest promoters of the revival of learning in the West, was born
in Constantinople, and became a teacher there, Constantine Lascaris
being his pupil. He then appears to have crossed over to Italy, and
taught in Padua in 1434, being subsequently made rector of the
university. About 1441 he returned to Constantinople, but after its
capture by the Turks, again took refuge in Italy. About 1456 he was
invited to Florence by Cosimo de' Medici, and was there appointed
professor of Greek in the university. In 1471, on the outbreak of the
plague, he removed to Rome, where he continued to act as a teacher of
Greek till his death. Among his scholars were Angelus Politianus and
Johann Reuchlin. His principal works were translations of the following
portions of Aristotle,--_Categoriae, De Interpretatione, Analytica
Posteriora, Physica, De Caelo, De Anima, Metaphysica, Ethica Nicomachea,
Politica_; and an _Expositio Ethicorum Aristotelis_. Several of his
writings exist still in manuscript.
See Humphrey Hody, _De Graecis Illustribus_, 1742, and Smith's
_Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography, s.v._ Joannes.
ARIA (Ital. for "air"), a musical term, equivalent to the English "air,"
signifying a melody apart from the harmony, but especially a musical
composition for a single voice or instrument, with an accompaniment of
other voices or instruments.
The aria originally developed from the expansion of a single vocal
melody, generally on the lines of what is known as binary form (see
SONATA and SONATA FORMS). Accordingly, while the germs of aria form may
be traceable in the highest developments of folk-song, the aria as a
definite art-form could not exist before the middle of the 17th century;
because up to that time the whole organization of music was based upon
polyphonic principles which left no room for the development of melody
for melody's sake. When at the beginning of the 17th century the
Monodists (see HARMONY and MONTEVERDE) inaugurated a new era and showed
in their first experiments the enormous possibilities latent in their
new art of accompanying single voices by instruments, it was natural
that for many years the mere suggestiveness and variety of their
experiments should suffice to retain the attention of contemporary
listeners, without any real artistic coherence in the works as wholes.
But, even at the outset, mere novelty of harmony, however poignant its
emotional expression, was felt by the profounder spirits of the new art
to be an untrustworthy guide to progress. And Monteverde's famous lament
of the deserted Ariadne is one of many early examples that appeal to an
elementary sense of form by making the last phrase identical with the
first. As instrumental music grew, and the modern sense of key became
strong and consistent, composers felt themselves more and more able to
appeal to that sense of harmonically consistent melody which has
asserted itself in folk-music before the history of harmonic music may
be said to have begun. The technique of solo singers grew as rapidly as
that of solo players, and composers soon found their chief musical
interest in doing justice to both. In Sir Hubert Parry's work, _The
Music of the 17th Century (Oxford History of Music_, vol. iii.), will be
found numerous illustrations of the early development of aria forms,
from their first indications in Monteverde's instinctive struggles after
coherence, to their complete maturity in the works of Alessandro
Scarlatti.
By Scarlatti's time it was thoroughly established that the binary form
of melody was that which could best be expanded into a form which should
do justice both to singers and to the players who accompanied them. Thus
the aria became on a small scale the prototype of the Concerto; and
under that heading will accordingly be found all that need be said as to
the relation between the instrumental _ritornello_ and the material of
the voice part in an aria.
So far we have spoken only of the main body of the aria; but the
addition of a middle section with a _da Capo_, which constitutes the
universal 18th-century _da Capo_ form of aria, adds a very simple new
principle to the essential scheme without really modifying it. A typical
aria of the Scarlatti or Handelian type is a very large melody in binary
form, delivered by the voice, which expands it with florid perorations
before each cadence (and sometimes also with florid preludes); while
relief is given to the voice, further spaciousness to the form, and
justice done to the accompaniment, by the addition of an instrumental
ritornello containing the gist of the melody not only at the beginning
and end, but also in suitable shorter forms at the principal
intermediate cadences in foreign keys. A smaller scheme of the same kind
in a new group of related keys, but generally without much new material,
is then appended as a middle section after which follows the main
section _da Capo_. The result is generally a piece of music of
considerable length, in a form which cannot fail to be effective and
coherent; and there is little cause for wonder in the extent to which it
dominated 18th-century music. It was not, however, invariable. In the
_Cavatina_ we find a form too small for the _da Capo_; and in the
oratorios of Handel and the choral works of Bach we find a majority of
arias in a larger form which evades the possibility of exact repetition.
The aria forms are profoundly influenced by the difference between the
Sonata style and the style of Bach and Handel. But the scale of the form
is inevitably small, and in any opera an aria is hardly possible except
in a situation which is a tableau rather than an action. Consequently
there is no such difference between the form of the classical operatic
aria of Mozart and that of the Handelian type as there is between sonata
music and suite music. The scale, however, has become too large for the
_da Capo_, which was in any case too rigid to survive in music designed
to intensify a dramatic situation instead of to distract attention from
it. The necessary change of style was so successfully achieved that,
until Wagner succeeded in devising music that moved absolutely _pari
passu_ with his drama, the aria remained as the central formal principle
in dramatic music; and few things in artistic evolution are more
interesting than the extent to which Mozart's predecessor, the great
dramatic reformer Gluck, profited by the essential resources of his pet
aversion, the aria style, when he had not only purged it of what had
become the stereotyped ideas of ritornellos and vocal flourishes, but
animated it by the new sense of dramatic climax to which the sonata
style appealed.
In modern opera the aria is almost always out of place, and the forms in
which definite melodies nowadays appear are rather those of the song in
its limited sense as that of a poem in formal stanzas all set to the
same music. In other words, a song in a modern opera tends to be
something which would be sung even if the drama had to be performed as a
play without music; whereas a classical aria would in non-musical drama
be a soliloquy. This can be shown by works at such opposite poles of
musical and dramatic technique as Bizet's _Carmen_ and the later works
of Wagner. In _Carmen_ the librettist has so managed that, if his work
were performed as a play, almost the whole of it would have to be sung;
and the one exception of musical importance is the developed soliloquy
of Micaëla in the third act, which, although treated in no old-fashioned
or commonplace spirit by the composer, is the one thing in the opera
which sounds "operatic."
In the later works of Wagner those passages in which we can successfully
detach complete melodies from their context have, one and all,
dramatically the aspect of songs and not of soliloquies. Siegmund sings
the song of Spring to his sister-bride; Mime teaches Siegfried lessons
of gratitude in nursery rhymes; and the whole story of the
_Meistersinger_ is a series of opportunities for song-singing.
The distinctions and gradations between aria and song are of great
aesthetic importance, but their history would carry us too far. The
distinction is obviously of the same importance as that between dramatic
and lyric poetry. Beethoven's _Adelaïde_ is a famous example of what is
called a song when it is really entirely in aria style; while the operas
of Mozart and Weber naturally contain in appropriate situations many
numbers which really are songs. The composers themselves generally give
appropriate names. Thus Mozart, in _Figaro_, calls "Non so piu cosa son"
an aria, because of its free style, though Cherubino actually sings it
as a song he has just invented; while "Voi che sapete," being more
purely lyric, is called _Canzona_.
The term _aria form_ is applied, generally most inaccurately, to all
kinds of slow cantabile instrumental music of which the general design
can be traced to the operatic aria. Mozart, for example, is very fond of
slow movements in large binary form without development, and this is
constantly called aria-form, though the term ought certainly to be
restricted to such examples as have some traits of the aria style, such
as the first slow movement in the great serenade in B flat. At all
events, until writers on music have agreed to give the term some more
accurate use, it is as well to avoid it and its cognate version,
_Lied-form_, altogether in speaking of instrumental music.
The _air_ or _aria_ in a suite is a short binary movement in a flowing
rhythm in common or duple time and by no means of the broadly tunelike
quality which its name would seem to imply. (D. F. T.)
ARIADNE (in Greek mythology), was the daughter of Minos, king of Crete,
and Pasiphae, the daughter of Helios the Sun-god. When Theseus landed on
the island to slay the Minotaur (q.v.), Ariadne fell in love with him,
and gave him a clue of thread to guide him through the mazes of the
labyrinth. After he had slain the monster, Theseus carried her off, but,
according to Homer (_Odyssey_, xi. 322) she was slain by Artemis at the
request of Dionysus in the island of Dia near Cnossus, before she could
reach Athens with Theseus. In the later legend, she was abandoned, while
asleep on the island of Naxos, by Theseus, who had fallen a victim to
the charms of Aegle (Plutarch, _Theseus_, 20; Diodorus, iv. 60, 61). Her
abandonment and awakening are celebrated in the beautiful _Epithalamium_
of Catullus. On Naxos she is discovered by Dionysus on his return from
India, who is enchanted with her beauty, and marries her when she
awakes. She receives a crown as a bridal gift, which is placed amongst
the stars, while she herself is honoured as a goddess (Ovid, _Metam._
viii. 152, _Fasti_, iii. 459).
The name probably means "very holy" = [Greek: ári-agné]; another
(Cretan) form [Greek: Aridéla] (= [Greek: phanerá])indicates the return
to a "bright" season of nature. Ariadne is the personification of
spring. In keeping with this, her festivals at Naxos present a double
character; the one, full of mourning and sadness, represents her death
or abandonment by Theseus, the other, full of joy and revelry,
celebrates her awakening from sleep and marriage with Dionysus. Thus
nature sleeps and dies during winter, to awake in springtime to a life
of renewed luxuriance. With this may be compared the festivals of Adonis
and Osiris and the myth of Persephone. Theseus himself was said to have
founded a festival at Athens in honour of Ariadne and Dionysus after his
return from Crete. The story of Dionysus and Ariadne was a favourite
subject for reliefs and wall-paintings. Most commonly Ariadne is
represented asleep on the shore at Naxos, while Dionysus, attended by
satyrs and bacchanals, gazes admiringly upon her; sometimes they are
seated side by side under a spreading vine. The scene where she is
holding the clue to Theseus occurs on a very early vase in the British
Museum. There is a statue of the sleeping Ariadne in the Vatican Museum.
Kanter, _De Ariadne_ (1879); Pallat, _De Fabula Ariadnea_ (1891).
ARIANO DI PUGLIA, a town and episcopal see, which, despite its name, now
belongs to Campania, Italy, in the province of Avellino, 1509 ft. above
sea-level, on the railway between Benevento and Foggia, 24 m. E. of the
former by rail. Pop. (1901) town, 8384; commune, 17,653. It lies in the
centre of a fertile district, but has no buildings of importance, as it
has often been devastated by earthquakes. A considerable part of the
population still dwells in caves. It has been supposed to occupy the
site of Aequum Tuticum, an ancient Samnite town, which became a
post-station on the Via Traiana[1] in Roman times; but this should
probably be sought at S. Eleuterio 5½ m. north. It was a military
position of some importance in the middle ages. Thirteen miles
south-south-east is the Sorgente Mefita, identical with the pools of
Ampsanctus (q.v.). (T. As.)
FOOTNOTE:
[1] This has generally been supposed to be the place referred to by
Horace (_Sat_. i. 5. 87), as one which the metre would not allow him
to mention by name; but H.-Nissen (_Halische Landeskunde_, Berlin,
1902, ii. 845) proposes Ausculum instead.
ARIAS MONTANO, BENITO (1527-1598), Spanish Orientalist and editor of the
Antwerp Polyglot, was born at Fregenal de la Sierra, in Estremadura, in
1527. After studying at the universities of Seville and Alcala, he took
orders about the year 1559 and in 1562 he was appointed consulting
theologian to the council of Trent. He retired to Peña de Aracena in
1564, wrote his commentary on the minor prophets (1571), and was sent to
Antwerp by Philip II. to edit the polyglot Bible projected by
Christopher Plantin. The work appeared in 8 volumes folio, between 1568
and 1573. León de Castro, a professor at Salamanca, thereon brought
charges of heresy against Arias Montano, who was finally acquitted after
a visit to Rome in 1575-1576. He was appointed royal chaplain, but
withdrew to Peña de Aracena from 1579 to 1583; he resigned the
chaplaincy in 1584, and went into complete seclusion at Santiago de la
Espada in Seville, where he died in 1598.
He is the subject of an _Elogio histórico_ by Tomás Gonzalez Carvajal
in the _Memorias de la Real Academia de la Historia_ (Madrid, 1832),
vol. vii.
ARICA (SAN MARCOS DE ARICA), a town and port of the Chilean-governed
province of Tacna, situated in 18° 28' 08" S. lat. and 70° 20' 46" W.
long. It is the port for Tacna, the capital of the province, 38 m.
distant, with which it is connected by rail, and is the outlet for a
large and productive mining district. Arica at one time had a population
of 30,000 and enjoyed much prosperity, but through civil war,
earthquakes and conquest, its population had dwindled to 2853 in 1895
and 2824 in 1902. The great earthquake of 1868, followed by a tidal
wave, nearly destroyed the town and shipping. Arica was captured, looted
and burned by the Chileans in 1880, and in accordance with the terms of
the treaty of Ancon (1883) should have been returned to Peru in 1894,
but this was not done. Late in 1906 the town again suffered severely
from an earthquake.
ARICIA (mod. _Ariccia_), an ancient city of Latium, on the Via Appia, 16
m. S.E. of Rome. The old town, or at any rate its acropolis, now
occupied by the modern town, lay high (1350 ft. above sea-level) above
the circular Valle Aricciana, which is probably an extinct volcanic
crater; some remains of its fortifications, consisting of a mound of
earth supported on each side by a wall of rectangular blocks of peperino
stone, have been discovered (D. Marchetti, in _Notizie degli scavi_,
1892, 52). The lower town was situated on the north edge of the valley,
close to the Via Appia, which descended into the valley from the modern
Albano, and re-ascended partly upon very fine substructions of _opus
quadratum_, some 200 yds. in length, to the modern Genzano. Remains of
the walls of the lower town, of the _cella_ of a temple built of blocks
of peperino, and also of later buildings in brickwork and _opus
reticulatum_, connected with the post-station (Aricia being the first
important station out of Rome, cf. Horace, _Sat._ i. 5. 1, _Egressum
magna me excepit Aricia Roma hospitio modico_) on the highroad, may
still be seen (cf. T. Ashby in _Mélanges de l'école française de Rome_,
1903, 399). Aricia was one of the oldest cities of Latium, and appears
as a serious opponent of Rome at the end of the period of the kings and
beginning of the republic. In 338 B.C. it was conquered by C. Maenius
and became a _civitas sine suffragio_, but was soon given full rights.
Even in the imperial period its chief magistrate was styled _dictator_,
and its council _senatus_, and it preserved its own calendar of
festivals. Its vegetables and wine were famous, and the district is
still fertile. (T. As.)
ARICINI, the ancient inhabitants of Aricia (q.v.), the form of the name
ranking them with the Sidicini, Marrucini (q.v.), &c., as one of the
communities belonging probably to the earlier or Volscian stratum of
population on the west side of Italy, who were absorbed by the Sabine or
Latin immigrants. Special interest attaches to this trace of their
earlier origin, because of the famous cult of Diana Nemorensis, whose
temple in the forest close by Aricia, beside the _lacus Nemorensis_, was
served by "the priest who slew the slayer, and shall himself be slain";
that is to say, the priest, who was called _rex Nemorensis_, held office
only so long as he could defend himself from any stronger rival. This
cult, which is unique in Italy, is picturesquely described in the
opening chapter of J.G. Frazer's _Golden Bough_ (2nd ed., 1900) where
full references will be found. Of these references the most important
are, perhaps, Strabo v. 3. 12; Ovid, _Fasti_, iii. 263-272; and
Suetonius, _Calig_. 35, whose wording indicates that the old-world
custom was dying out in the 1st century A.D. It is a reasonable
conjecture that this extraordinary relic of barbarism was characteristic
of the earlier stratum of the population who presumably called
themselves _Arici_.
On the anthropological aspect of the cult, see also A.B. Cook,
_Class. Rev_. xvi., 1902, p. 365, where the whole evidence is very
fully collected; and Frazer's _Studies in the Early History of
Kingship_ (1907), where he accepts Cook's criticism of his own earlier
theory. (R. S. C.)
ARIÈGE, an inland department of southern France, bounded S. by Spain, W.
and N. by the department of Haute-Garonne, N.E. and E. by Aude, and S.E.
by Pyrénées-Orientales. It embraces the old countship of Foix, and a
portion of Languedoc and Gascony. Area, 1893 sq. m. Pop. (1906) 205,684.
Ariège is for the most part mountainous. Its southern border is occupied
by the snow-clad peaks of the eastern Pyrenees, the highest of which
within the department is the Pic de Montcalm (10,512 ft.). Communication
with Spain is afforded by a large number of _ports_ or _cols_, which
are, however, for the most part difficult paths, and only practicable
for a few months in the year. Farther to the north two lesser ranges
running parallel to the main chain traverse the centre of the department
from south-east to north-west. The more southerly, the Montagne de Tabe,
contains, at its south-eastern end, several heights between 7200 and
9200 ft., while the Montagues de Plantaurel to the north of Foix are of
lesser altitude. These latter divide the fertile alluvial plains of the
north from the mountains of the centre and south. The department is
intersected by torrents belonging to the Garonne basin--the Salat, the
Arize, which, near Mas d'Azil, flows through a subterranean gallery, the
Ariège and the Hers. The climate is mild in the south, but naturally
very severe among the mountains. Generally speaking, the arable land,
which is chiefly occupied by small holdings, is confined to the
lowlands. Wheat, maize and potatoes are the chief crops. Good vineyards
and market gardens are found in the neighbourhood of Pamiers in the
north. Flax and hemp are also cultivated. The mountains afford excellent
pasture, and a considerable number of cattle, sheep and swine are
reared. Poultry- and bee-farming flourish. Forests cover more than
one-third of the department and harbour wild boars and even bears. Game,
birds of prey and fish are plentiful. There is abundance of minerals,
including lead, copper, manganese and especially iron. Grindstones,
building-stone, talc, gypsum, marble and phosphates are also produced.
Warm mineral springs of note are found at Ax, Aulus and Ussat. Pamiers
and St Girons are the most important industrial towns. Iron founding and
forging, which have their chief centre at Pamiers are principal
industries. Flour-milling, paper-making and cloth-weaving may also be
mentioned. Ariège is served by the Southern railway. It forms the
diocese of Pamiers and belongs to the ecclesiastical province of
Toulouse. It is within the circumscriptions of the académie (educational
division) and of the court of appeal of Toulouse and of the XVII. army
corps. Its capital is Foix; it comprises the arrondissements of Foix, St
Girons and Pamiers, with 20 cantons and 338 communes. Foix, Pamiers, St
Girons and St Lizier-de-Cousérans are the more noteworthy towns. Mention
may also be made of Mirepoix, once the seat of a bishopric, and
possessing a cathedral (15th and 16th centuries) with a remarkable
Gothic spire.
ARIES ("The Ram"), in astronomy, the first sign of the zodiac (q.v.),
denoted by the sign [symbol], in imitation of a ram's head. The name is
probably to be associated with the fact that when the sun is in this
part of the heavens (in spring) sheep bring forth their young; this
finds a parallel in _Aquarius_, when there is much rain. It is also a
constellation, mentioned by Eudoxus (4th century B.C.) and Aratus (3rd
century B.C.); Ptolemy catalogued eighteen stars, Tycho Brahe
twenty-one, and Hevelius twenty-seven. According to a Greek myth,
Nephele, mother of Phrixus and Helle, gave her son a ram with a golden
fleece. To avoid the evil designs of Hera, their stepmother, Phrixus and
Helle fled on the back of the ram, and reaching the sea, attempted to
cross. Helle fell from the ram and was drowned (hence the _Hellespont_);
Phrixus, having arrived in Colchis and been kindly received by the king,
Aeetes, sacrificed the ram to Zeus, to whom he also dedicated the
fleece, which was afterwards carried away by Jason. Zeus placed the ram
in the heavens as the constellation.
ARIKARA, or ARICARA (from _ariki_, horn), a tribe of North American
Indians of Caddoan stock. They are now settled with the Hidatsas and the
Mandans on the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota. They originally
lived in the Platte Valley, Nebraska, with the Pawnees, to whom they are
related. They number about 400.
See _Handbook of American Indians_, ed. F.W. Hodge (Washington 1907)
ARIMASPI, an ancient people in the extreme N.E. of Scythia (q.v.),
probably the eastern Altai. All accounts of them go back to a poem by
Aristeas of Proconnesus, from whom Herodotus (iii. 116, iv. 27) drew his
information. They were supposed to be one-eyed (hence their Scythian
name), and to steal gold from the griffins that guarded it. In art they
are usually represented as richly dressed Asiatics, picturesquely
grouped with their griffin foes; the subject is often described by poets
from Aeschylus to Milton. They are so nearly mythical that it is
impossible to insist on the usual identification with the ancestors of
the Huns. Their gold was probably real, as gold still comes from the
Altai.
ARIMINUM (mod. _Rimini_), a city of Aemilia, on the N.E. coast of Italy,
69 m. S.E. of Bononia. It was founded by the Umbrians, but in 268 B.C.
became a Roman colony with Latin rights. It was reached from Rome by the
Via Flaminia, constructed in 220 B.C., and from that time onwards was
the bulwark of the Roman power in Cisalpine Gaul, to which province it
even gave its name. Its harbour was of some importance, but is now
silted up, the sea having receded. The remains of its moles were
destroyed in 1807-1809. Ariminum became a place of considerable traffic
owing to the construction of the Via Aemilia (187 B.C.) and the Via
Popilia (132 B.C.), and is frequently mentioned by ancient authors. In
90 B.C. it acquired Roman citizenship, but in 82 B.C. having been held
by the partisans of Marius, it was plundered by those of Sulla (who
probably made the Rubicon the frontier of Italy instead of the Aesis),
and a military colony settled there. Caesar occupied it in 49 B.C. after
his crossing of the Rubicon. It was one of the eighteen richest cities
of Italy which the triumviri selected as a reward for their troops. In
27 B.C. Augustus planted new colonists there, and divided the city into
seven _vici_ after the model of Rome, from which the names of the _vici_
were borrowed. He also restored the Via Flaminia (_Mon. Ancyr._ c. 20)
from Rome to Ariminum. At the entrance to the latter the senate erected,
in his honour, a triumphal arch which is still extant--a fine simple
monument with a single opening. At the other end of the _decumanus
maximus_ or main street (3000 Roman ft. in length) is a fine bridge over
the Ariminus (mod. Marecchia) begun by Augustus and completed by
Tiberius in A.D. 20. It has five wide arches, the central one having a
span of 35 ft., and is well preserved. Both it and the arch are built of
Istrian stone. The present Piazza Giulio Cesare marks the site of the
ancient forum. The remains of the amphitheatre are scanty; many of its
stones have gone to build the city wall, which must, therefore, at the
earliest belong to the end of the classical period. In A.D. 1 Augustus's
grandson Gaius Caesar had all the streets of Ariminum paved. In A.D. 69
the town was attacked by the partisans of Vespasian, and was frequently
besieged in the Gothic wars. It was one of the five seaports which
remained Byzantine until the time of Pippin. (See RIMINI.)
See A. Tonini, _Storia della Città di Rimini_ (Rimini, 1848-1862).
(T. As.)
ARIOBARZANES, the name of three ancient kings or satraps of Pontus, and
of three kings of Cappadocia and a Persian satrap.
Of the Pontic rulers two are most famous, (1) The son of Mithradates I.,
who revolted against Artaxerxes in 362 B.C. and may be regarded as the
founder of the kingdom of Pontus (q.v.). According to Demosthenes he and
his three sons received from the Athenians the honour of citizenship.
(2) The son of Mithradates III., who reigned c. 266-240 B.C., and was
one of those who enlisted the help of the invading Gauls (see GALATIA).
Of the Cappadocian rulers the best-known one ("Philo-Romaeus" on the
coins) reigned nominally from 93 to 63 B.C., but was three times
expelled by Mithradates the Great and as often reinstated by Roman
generals. Soon after the third occasion he formally abdicated in favour
of his son Ariobarzanes "Philopator," of whom we gather only that he was
murdered some time before 51. His son Ariobarzanes, called "Eusebes" and
"Philo-Romaeus," earned the gratitude of Cicero during his proconsulate
in Cilicia, and fought for Pompey in the civil wars, but was afterwards
received with honour by Julius Caesar, who subsequently reinstated him
when expelled by Pharnaces of Pontus. In 42 B.C. Brutus and Cassius
declared him a traitor, invaded his territory and put him to death.
The Persian satrap of this name unsuccessfully opposed Alexander the
Great on his way to Persepolis (331 B.C.).
ARION, of Methymna, in Lesbos, a semi-legendary poet and musician,
friend of Periander, tyrant of Corinth. He flourished about 625 B.C.
Several of the ancients ascribe to him the invention of the dithyramb
and of dithyrambic poetry; it is probable, however, that his real
service was confined to the organization of that verse, and the
conversion of it from a mere drunken song, used in the Dionysiac revels,
to a measured antistrophic hymn, sung by a trained body of performers.
The name Cycleus given to his father indicates the connexion of the son
with the "cyclic" or circular chorus which was the origin of tragedy.
According to Suidas he composed a number of songs and proems; none of
these is extant; the fragment of a hymn to Poseidon attributed to him
(Aelian, _Hist. An._ xii. 45) is spurious and was probably written in
Attica in the time of Euripides. Nothing is known of the life of Arion,
with the exception of the beautiful story first told by Herodotus (i.
23) and elaborated and embellished by subsequent writers. According to
Herodotus, Arion being desirous of exhibiting his skill in foreign
countries left Corinth, and travelled through Sicily and parts of Italy,
where he gained great fame and amassed a large sum of money. At Taras
(Tarentum) he embarked for his homeward voyage in a Corinthian vessel.
The sight of his treasure roused the cupidity of the sailors, who
resolved to possess themselves of it by putting him to death. In answer
to his entreaties that they would spare his life, they insisted that he
should either die by his own hand on shipboard or cast himself into the
sea. Arion chose the latter, and as a last favour begged permission to
sing a parting song. The sailors, desirous of hearing so famous a
musician, consented, and the poet, standing on the deck of the ship, in
full minstrel's attire, sang a dirge accompanied by his lyre. He then
threw himself overboard; but instead of perishing, he was miraculously
borne up in safety by a dolphin, supposed to have been charmed by the
music. Thus he was conveyed to Taenarum, whence he proceeded to Corinth,
arriving before the ship from Tarentum. Immediately on his arrival Arion
related his story to Periander, who was at first incredulous, but
eventually learned the truth by a stratagem. Summoning the sailors, he
demanded what had become of the poet. They affirmed that he had remained
behind at Tarentum; upon which they were suddenly confronted by Arion
himself, arrayed in the same garments in which he had leapt overboard.
The sailors confessed their guilt and were punished. Arion's lyre and
the dolphin were translated to the stars. Herodotus and Pausanias (iii.
25. 7) both refer to a brass figure at Taenarum which was supposed to
represent Arion seated on the dolphin's back. But this story is only one
of several in which the dolphin appears as saving the lives of favoured
heroes. For instance, it is curious that Taras, the mythical founder of
Tarentum, is said to have been conveyed in this manner from Taenarum to
Tarentum. On Tarentine coins a man and dolphin appear, and hence it may
be thought that the monument at Taenarum represented Taras and not
Arion. At the same time the connexion of Apollo with the dolphin must
not be forgotten. Under this form the god appeared when he founded the
celebrated oracle at Delphi, the name of which commemorates the
circumstance. He was also the god of music, the special preserver of
poets, and to him the lyre was sacred.
Among the numerous modern versions of the story, particular mention
may be made of the pretty ballad by A.W. Schlegel; see also Lehrs,
_Populare Aufsatze aus dem Alterthum_ (1844-1846); Clement, _Arion_
(1898).
ARIOSTO, LODOVICO (1474-1533) Italian poet, was born at Reggio, in
Lombardy, on the 8th of September 1474. His father was Niccolo Ariosto,
commander of the citadel of Reggio. He showed a strong inclination to
poetry from his earliest years, but was obliged by his father to study
the law--a pursuit in which he lost five of the best years of his life.
Allowed at last to follow his inclination, he applied himself to the
study of the classics under Gregorio da Spoleto. But after a short time,
during which he read the best Latin authors, he was deprived of his
teacher by Gregorio's removal to France as tutor of Francesco Sforza.
Ariosto thus lost the opportunity of learning Greek, as he intended. His
father dying soon after, he was compelled to forego his literary
occupations to undertake the management of the family, whose affairs
were embarrassed, and to provide for his nine brothers and sisters, one
of whom was a cripple. He wrote, however, about this time some comedies
in prose and a few lyrical pieces. Some of these attracted the notice of
the cardinal Ippolito d'Este, who took the young poet under his
patronage and appointed him one of the gentlemen of his household. This
prince usurped the character of a patron of literature, whilst the only
reward which the poet received for having dedicated to him the _Orlando
Furioso_, was the question, "Where did you find so many stories, Master
Ludovic?" The poet himself tells us that the cardinal was ungrateful;
deplores the time which he spent under his yoke; and adds, that if he
received some niggardly pension, it was not to reward him for his
poetry, which the prelate despised, but to make some just compensation
for the poet's running like a messenger, with the risk of his life, at
his eminence's pleasure. Nor was even this miserable pittance regularly
paid during the period that the poet enjoyed it. The cardinal went to
Hungary in 1518, and wished Ariosto to accompany him. The poet excused
himself, pleading ill health, his love of study, the care of his private
affairs and the age of his mother, whom it would have been disgraceful
to leave. His excuses were not received, and even an interview was
denied him. Ariosto then boldly said, that if his eminence thought to
have bought a slave by assigning him the scanty pension of 75 crowns a
year, he was mistaken and might withdraw his boon--which it seems the
cardinal did.
The cardinal's brother, Alphonso, duke of Ferrara, now took the poet
under his patronage. This was but an act of simple justice, Ariosto
having already distinguished himself as a diplomatist, chiefly on the
occasion of two visits to Rome as ambassador to Pope Julius II. The
fatigue of one of these hurried journeys brought on a complaint from
which he never recovered; and on his second mission he was nearly killed
by order of the violent pope, who happened at the time to be much
incensed against the duke of Ferrara. On account of the war, his salary
of only 84 crowns a year was suspended, and it was withdrawn altogether
after the peace; in consequence of which Ariosto asked the duke either
to provide for him, or to allow him to seek employment elsewhere. A
province, situated on the wildest heights of the Apennines, being then
without a governor, Ariosto received the appointment, which he held for
three years. The office was no sinecure. The province was distracted by
factions and banditti, the governor had not the requisite means to
enforce his authority and the duke did little to support his minister.
Yet it is said that Ariosto's government satisfied both the sovereign
and the people confided to his care; and a story is added of his having,
when walking out alone, fallen in with a party of banditti, whose chief,
on discovering that his captive was the author of _Orlando Furioso_,
humbly apologized for not having immediately shown him the respect which
was due to his rank. Although he had little reason to be satisfied with
his office, he refused an embassy to Pope Clement VII. offered to him by
the secretary of the duke, and spent the remainder of his life at
Ferrara, writing comedies, superintending their performance as well as
the construction of a theatre, and correcting his _Orlando Furioso_, of
which the complete edition was published only a year before his death.
He died of consumption on the 6th of June 1533.
That Ariosto was honoured and respected by the first men of his age is a
fact; that most of the princes of Italy showed him great partiality is
equally true; but it is not less so that their patronage was limited to
kind words. It is not known that he ever received any substantial mark
of their love for literature; he lived and died poor. He proudly wrote
on the entrance of a house built by himself,
"Parva, sed apta mihi, sed nulli obnoxia, sed non
Sordida, parta meo sed tamen aere domus;"
which serves to show the incorrectness of the assertion of flatterers,
followed by Tiraboschi, that the duke of Ferrara built that house for
him. The only one who seems to have given anything to Ariosto as a
reward for his poetical talent was the marquess del Vasto, who assigned
him an annuity of 100 crowns on the revenues of Casteleone in Lombardy;
but it was only paid, if ever, from the end of 1531. That he was crowned
as poet by Charles V. seems untrue, although a diploma may have been
issued to that effect by the emperor.
The character of Ariosto seems to have been fully and justly delineated
by Gabriele, his brother:--
"Ornabat pietas et grata modestia Vatem,
Sancta fides, dictique memor, munitaque recto
Justitia, et nullo patientia victa labore,
Et constans virtus animi, et clementia mitis,
Ambitione procul pulsa, fastusque tumore."
His satires, in which we see him before us such as he was, show that
there was no flattery in this portrait. In these compositions we are
struck with the noble independence of the poet. He loved liberty with a
most jealous fondness. His disposition was changeable withal, as he
himself very frankly confesses in his Latin verses, as well as in the
satires.
"Hoc olim ingenio vitales hausimus auras,
Multa cito ut placeant, displicitura brevi.
Non in amore modo mens haec, sed in omnibus impar
Ipsa sibi longa non retinenda mora."
Hence he never would bind himself, either by going into orders, or by
marrying, till towards the end of his life, when he espoused Alessandra,
widow of Tito Strozzi. He had no issue by his wife, but he left two
natural sons by different mothers.
His Latin poems do not perhaps deserve to be noticed: in the age of
Flaminio, Vida, Fracastoro and Sannazaro, better things were due from a
poet like Ariosto. His lyrical compositions show the poet, although they
do not seem worthy of his powers. His comedies, of which he wrote four,
besides one which he left unfinished, are avowedly imitated from Plautus
and Terence; and although native critics may admire in them the elegance
of the diction, the liveliness of the dialogue and the novelty of some
scenes, few will feel interest either in the subject or in the
characters, and it is hard to approve the immoral passages by which they
are disfigured, however grateful these might be to the audiences and
patrons of theatrical representations in Ariosto's own day.
Of all the works of Ariosto, the most solid monument of his fame is the
_Orlando Furioso_, the extraordinary merits of which have cast into
oblivion the numberless romance poems which inundated Italy during the
15th, 16th and 17th centuries.
The popularity which an earlier poem on the same theme, _Orlando
Innamorato_, by Boiardo, enjoyed in Ariosto's time, cannot be well
conceived, now that the enthusiasm of the crusades, and the interest
which was attached to a war against the Moslems, have passed away.
Boiardo wrote and read his poem at the court of Ferrara, but died before
he was able to finish it. Many poets undertook the difficult task of its
completion; but it was reserved for Ariosto both to finish and to
surpass, his original. Boiardo did not, perhaps, yield to Ariosto either
in vigour or in richness of imagination, but he lived in a less refined
age, and died before he was able to recast or even finish the poetical
romance which he had written under the impulse of his exuberant fancy.
Ariosto, on the other hand, united to a powerful imagination an elegant
and cultivated taste. He began to write his great poem about 1503, and
after having consulted the first men of the age of Leo X., he published
it in 1516, in only 40 cantos (extended afterwards to 46); and up to the
moment of his death never ceased to correct and improve both the subject
and the style. It is in this latter quality that he excels, and for
which he had assigned him the name of _Divino Lodovico_. Even when he
jests, he never compromises his dignity; and in pathetic description or
narrative he excites the reader's deepest feelings. In his machinery he
displays a vivacity of fancy with which no other poet can vie; but he
never lets his fancy carry him so far as to omit to employ, with an art
peculiar to himself, those simple and natural pencil-strokes which, by
imparting to the most extraordinary feats a colour of reality, satisfy
the reason without disenchanting the imagination. The death of Zerbino,
the complaints of Isabella, the effects of discord among the Saracens,
the flight of Astolfo to the moon, the passion which causes Orlando's
madness, teem with beauties of every variety. The supposition that the
poem is not connected throughout is wholly unfounded; there is a
connexion which, with a little attention, will become evident. The love
of Ruggero and Bradamante forms the main subject of the _Furioso_; every
part of it, except some episodes, depend upon this subject; and the poem
ends with their marriage.
The first complete edition of the _Orlando Furioso_ was published at
Ferrara in 1532, as noted above. The edition of Morali (Milan, 1818)
follows the text of the 1532 edition with great correctness. Of
editions published in England, those of Baskerville (Birmingham, 1773)
and Panizzi (London, 1834) are the most important. The indifferent
translations into English of Sir John Harrington (1591) and John Hoole
(1783) have been superseded by the spirited rendering of W. Stewart
Rose (1823). See also E. Gardner, _Ariosto: the Prince of Court Poets_
(1906).
ARISTAENETUS, Greek epistolographer, flourished in the 5th or 6th
century A.D. He was formerly identified with Aristaenetus of Nicaea (the
friend of Symmachus), who perished in an earthquake at Nicomedia, A.D.
358, but internal evidence points to a much later date. Under his name
two books of love stories, in the form of letters, are extant; the
subjects are borrowed from the erotic elegies of such Alexandrian
writers as Callimachus, and the language is a patchwork of phrases from
Plato, Lucian, Alciphron and others. The stories are feeble and insipid,
and full of strange and improbable incidents.
Text: Boissonade (1822); Hercher, _Epistolographi Graeci_ (1873).
English translations: Boyer (1701); Thomas Brown (1715); R.B.
Sheridan and Halked (1771 and later).
ARISTAEUS, a divinity whose worship was widely spread throughout ancient
Greece, but concerning whom the myths are somewhat obscure. The account
most generally received connects him specially with Thessaly. Apollo
carried off from Mount Pelion the nymph Cyrene, daughter or
granddaughter of the river-god Peneus, and conveyed her to Libya, where
she gave birth to Aristaeus. From this circumstance the town of Cyrene
took its name. The child was at first handed over to the care of the
Hours, or the nymph Melissa and the centaur Cheiron. He afterwards left
Libya and went to Thebes, where he received instruction from the Muses
in the arts of healing and prophecy, and married Autonoe, daughter of
Cadmus, by whom he had several children, among others, the unfortunate
Actaeon. He is said to have visited Ceos, where, by erecting a temple to
Zeus Icmaeus (the giver of moisture), he freed the inhabitants from a
terrible drought. The islanders worshipped him, and occasionally
identified him with Zeus, calling him Zeus Aristaeus. After travelling
through many of the Aegean islands, through Sicily, Sardinia and Magna
Graecia, everywhere conferring benefits and receiving divine honours,
Aristaeus reached Thrace, where he was initiated into the mysteries of
Dionysus, and finally disappeared near Mount Haemus. While in Thrace he
is said to have caused the death of Eurydice, who was bitten by a snake
while fleeing from him. Aristaeus was essentially a benevolent deity; he
was worshipped as the first who introduced the cultivation of bees
(Virgil, _Georg._ iv. 315-558), and of the vine and olive; he was the
protector of herdsmen and hunters; he warded off the evil effects of the
dog-star; he possessed the arts of healing and prophecy. He was often
identified with Zeus, Apollo and Dionysus. In ancient sculptures and
coins he is represented as a young man, habited like a shepherd, and
sometimes carrying a sheep on his shoulders. Coins of Ceos exhibit the
head of Aristaeus and Sirius in the form of a dog crowned with rays.
Pindar, _Pythia_, ix. 5-65; Apollonius Rhodius, schol. on ii. 498,
500; Diodorus, iv. 81.
ARISTAGORAS (d. 497 B.C.), brother-in-law and cousin of Histiaeus,
tyrant of Miletus. While Histiaeus was practically a prisoner at the
court of Darius, he acted as regent in Miletus. In 500 B.C. he
persuaded the Persians to join him in an attack upon Naxos, but he
quarrelled with Megabates, the Persian commander, who warned the
inhabitants of the island, and the expedition failed. Finding himself
the object of Persian suspicion, Aristagoras, instigated by a message
from Histiaeus, raised the standard of revolt in Miletus, though it
seems likely that this step had been under consideration for some time
(see IONIA). After the complete failure of the Ionian revolt he
emigrated to Myrcinus in Thrace. Here he fell in battle (497), while
attacking Ennea Hodoi (afterwards Amphipolis) on the Strymon, which
belonged to the Edonians, a Thracian tribe. The aid given to him by
Athens and Eretria, and the burning of Sardis, were the immediate cause
of the invasion of Greece by Darius.
See Herodotus v. 30-51, 97-126; Thucydides iv. 102; Diodorus xii. 68;
for a more favourable view see G.B. Grundy, _Great Persian War_
(London, 1901).
ARISTANDER, of Telmessus in Lycia, was the favourite soothsayer of
Alexander the Great, who consulted him on all occasions. After the death
of the monarch, when his body had lain unburied for thirty days,
Aristander procured its burial by foretelling that the country in which
it was interred would be the most prosperous in the world. He is
frequently mentioned by the historians who wrote about Alexander, and
was probably the author of a work on prodigies, which is referred to by
Pliny (_Nat. Hist_. xvii. 38) and Lucian.
_Philopatris_, 21; Arrian, _Anabasis_, ii. 26, iii. 2, iv. 4;
Plutarch, _Alexander_; Curtius iv. 2, 6, 15, vii. 7.
ARISTARCHUS, of Samos, Greek astronomer, flourished about 250 B.C. He is
famous as having been the first to maintain that the earth moves round
the sun. On this account he was accused of impiety by the Stoic
Cleanthes, just as Galileo, in later years, was attacked by the
theologians. His only extant work is a short treatise (with a commentary
by Pappus) _On the Magnitudes and Distances of the Sun and Moon_. His
method of estimating the relative lunar and solar distances is
geometrically correct, though the instrumental means at his command
rendered his data erroneous. Although the heliocentric system is not
mentioned in the treatise, a quotation in the _Arenarius_ of Archimedes
from a work of Aristarchus proves that he anticipated the great
discovery of Copernicus. Further, Copernicus could not have known of
Aristarchus's doctrine, since Archimedes's work was not published till
after Copernicus's death. Aristarchus is also said to have invented two
sun-dials, one hemispherical, the so-called _scaphion_, the other plane.
Editio princeps by Wallis (1688); Fortia d'Urban (1810); Nizze (1856).
See Bergk-Hinrichs, _Aristarchus van Samos_ (1883); Tannery,
_Aristarque de Samos_; also ASTRONOMY.
ARISTARCHUS, of Samothrace (c. 220-143 B.C.), Greek grammarian and
critic, flourished about 155. He settled early in Alexandria, where he
studied under Aristophanes of Byzantium, whom he succeeded as librarian
of the museum. On the accession of the tyrant Ptolemy Physcon (his
former pupil), he found his life in danger and withdrew to Cyprus, where
he died from dropsy, hastened, it is said, by voluntary starvation, at
the age of 72. Aristarchus founded a school of philologists, called
after him "Aristarcheans," which long flourished in Alexandria and
afterwards at Rome. He is said to have written 800 commentaries alone,
without reckoning special treatises. He edited Hesiod, Pindar,
Aeschylus, Sophocles and other authors; but his chief fame rests on his
critical and exegetical edition of Homer, practically the foundation of
our present recension. In the time of Augustus, two Aristarcheans,
Didymus and Aristonicus, undertook the revision of his work, and the
extracts from these two writers in the Venetian scholia to the _Iliad_
give an idea of Aristarchus's Homeric labours. To obtain a thoroughly
correct text, he marked with an obelus the lines he considered spurious;
other signs were used by him to indicate notes, varieties of reading,
repetitions and interpolations. He arranged the _Iliad_ and the
_Odyssey_ in twenty-four books as we now have them. As a commentator his
principle was that the author should explain himself, without recourse
to allegorical interpretation; in grammar, he laid chief stress on
analogy and uniformity of usage and construction. His views were opposed
by Crates of Mallus, who wrote a treatise [Greek: Heri Anomalias],
especially directed against them.
See Lehrs, _De Aristarchi Stud. Homericis_ (3rd ed., 1882); Ludwich,
_Aristarchs homerische Textcritik_ (1884); especially Sandys, _Hist.
of Class. Schol._ (ed. 1906), vol. i. with authorities; also HOMER.
ARISTEAS, a somewhat mythical personage in ancient Greece, said to have
lived in the time of Cyrus and Croesus, or, according to some, ca. 690
B.C. We are chiefly indebted to Herodotus (iv. 13-15) for our knowledge
of him and his poem _Arimaspeia_. He belonged to a noble family of
Proconnesus, an island colony from Miletus in the Propontis, and was
supposed to be inspired by Apollo. He travelled through the countries
north and east of the Euxine, and visited the Hyperboreans, Issedonians
and Arimaspians, who fought against the gold-guarding griffins. An
important historical fact which seems to be indicated in his poem is the
rush of barbarian hordes towards Europe under pressure from their
neighbours. Twelve lines of the poem are preserved in Tzetzes and
Longinus. Wonderful stories are told of Aristeas. At Proconnesus, he
fell dead in a shop; simultaneously a traveller declared he had spoken
with him near Cyzicus; his body vanished; six years afterwards, he
returned. Again disappearing, 240 years later he was at Metapontum, and
commanded the inhabitants to raise a statue to himself and an altar to
Apollo, whom he had accompanied in the form of a raven, at the founding
of the city. According to Suidas, Aristeas also wrote a prose theogony.
The genuineness of his works is disputed by Dionysius of Halicarnassus.
See Tournier, _De Aristea Proconneso_ (1863); Macan, _Hdt._ iv. 14
note.
ARISTEAS, the pseudonymous author of a famous _Letter_ in which is
described, in legendary form, the origin of the Greek translation of the
Old Testament known as the Septuagint (q.v.). Aristeas represents
himself as a Gentile Greek, but was really an Alexandrian Jew who lived
under one of the later Ptolemies. Though the _Letter_ is unauthentic, it
is now recognized as a useful source of information concerning both
Egyptian and Palestinian affairs in the 2nd and possibly in the 3rd
century B.C.
An English translation, based on a critical Greek text, was published
by H. St J. Thackeray in the _Jewish Quarterly Review_, vol. xv. There
are two modern editions of the Greek, one by the last named (in
Swete's _Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek_, Cambridge,
1900), the other by P. Wendland (Leipzig, 1900).
ARISTIDES [[Greek: Aristeides]] (c. 530-468 B.C.), Athenian statesman,
called "the Just," was the son of Lysimachus, and a member of a family
of moderate fortune. Of his early life we are told merely that he became
a follower of the statesman Cleisthenes and sided with the aristocratic
party in Athenian politics. He first comes into notice as strategus in
command of his native tribe Antiochis at Marathon, and it was no doubt
in consequence of the distinction which he then achieved that he was
elected chief archon for the ensuing year (489-488). In pursuance of his
conservative policy which aimed at maintaining Athens as a land power,
he was one of the chief opponents of the naval policy of Themistocles
(q.v.). The conflict between the two leaders ended in the ostracism of
Aristides, at a date variously given between 485 and 482. It is said
that, on this occasion, a voter, who did not know him, came up to him,
and giving him his sherd, desired him to write upon it the name of
Aristides. The latter asked if Aristides had wronged him. "No," was the
reply, "and I do not even know him, but it irritates me to hear him
everywhere called _the just_."
Early in 480 Aristides profited by the decree recalling the
post-Marathonian exiles to help in the defence of Athens against the
Persian invaders, and was elected strategus for the year 480-479. In the
campaign of Salamis he rendered loyal support to Themistocles, and
crowned the victory by landing Athenian infantry on the island of
Psyttaleia and annihilating the Persian garrison stationed there (see
SALAMIS). In 479 he was re-elected strategus, and invested with special
powers as commander of the Athenian contingent at Plataea; he is also
said to have judiciously suppressed a conspiracy among some oligarchic
malcontents in the army, and to have played a prominent part in
arranging for the celebration of the victory. In 478 or 477 Aristides
was in command of the Athenian squadron off Byzantium, and so far won
the confidence of the Ionian allies that, after revolting from the
Spartan admiral Pausanias, they offered him the chief command and left
him with absolute discretion in fixing the contributions of the newly
formed confederacy (see DELIAN LEAGUE). His assessment was universally
accepted as equitable, and continued as the basis of taxation for the
greater part of the league's duration; it was probably from this that he
won the title of "the Just." Aristides soon left the command of the
fleet to his friend Cimon (q.v.), but continued to hold a predominant
position in Athens. At first he seems to have remained on good terms
with Themistocles, whom he is said to have helped in outwitting the
Spartans over the rebuilding of the walls of Athens. But in spite of
statements in which ancient authors have represented Aristides as a
democratic reformer, it is certain that the period following the Persian
wars during which he shaped Athenian policy was one of conservative
reaction. (For the theory based on Plutarch, _Aristid._ 22, that
Aristides after Plataea threw open the archonship to all the citizens,
see ARCHON.)
He is said by some authorities to have died at Athens, by others on a
journey to the Euxine sea. The date of his death is given by Nepos as
468; at any rate he lived to witness the ostracism of Themistocles,
towards whom he always displayed a generous conduct, but had died before
the rise of Pericles. His estate seems to have suffered severely from
the Persian invasions, for apparently he did not leave enough money to
defray the expenses of his burial, and it is known that his descendants
even in the 4th century received state pensions. (See ATHENS;
THEMISTOCLES.)
AUTHORITIES.--Herodotus viii. 79-81, 95; ix. 28; "Constitution of
Athens" (_Ath. Pol._), 22-24, 41; Plutarch, _Aristides_; Cornelius
Nepos, _Vita Aristidis_. See also E. Meyer, _Geschichte des Altertums_
(Stuttgart, 1901), iii. pp. 481, 492. In the absence of positive
information the 4th-century writers (on whom Plutarch and Nepos mainly
rely) seized upon his surname of "Just," and wove round it a number of
anecdotes more picturesque than historical. Herodotus is practically
our only trustworthy authority. (M. O. B. C.)
ARISTIDES, of Miletus, generally regarded as the father of Greek prose
romance, flourished 150-100 B.C. He wrote six books of erotic _Milesian
Tales_ ([Greek: Milesiaka]), which enjoyed great popularity, and were
subsequently translated into Latin by Cornelius Sisenna (119-67 B.C.).
They are lost, with the exception of a few fragments, but the story of
the Ephesian matron in Petronius gives an idea of their nature. They
have been compared with the old French _fabliaux_ and the tales of
Boccaccio.
Plutarch, _Crassus_, 32; Ovid, _Tristia_, ii. 413, 443; Müller,
_Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum_, iv.
ARISTIDES, of Thebes, a Greek painter of the 4th century B.C. He is said
to have excelled in expression. For example, a picture of his
representing a dying mother's fear lest her infant should suck death
from her breast was much celebrated. He also painted one of Alexander's
battles. One of his pictures is said to have been bought by King Attalus
for 100 talents (more than £20,000).
ARISTIDES, AELIUS, surnamed THEODORUS, Greek rhetorician and sophist,
son of Eudaemon, a priest of Zeus, was born at Hadriani in Mysia, A.D.
117 (or 129). He studied under Herodes Atticus of Athens, Polemon of
Smyrna, and Alexander of Cotyaeum, in whose honour he composed a funeral
oration still extant. In the practice of his calling he travelled
through Greece, Italy, Egypt and Asia, and in many places the
inhabitants erected statues to him in recognition of his talents. In 156
he was attacked by an illness which lasted thirteen years, the nature of
which has caused considerable speculation. However, it in no way
interfered with his studies; in fact, they were prescribed as part of
his cure. Aristides' favourite place of residence was Smyrna. In 178,
when it was destroyed by an earthquake, he wrote an account of the
disaster to Aurelius, which deeply affected the emperor and induced him
to rebuild the city. The grateful inhabitants set up a statue in honour
of Aristides, and styled him the "builder" of Smyrna. He refused all
honours from them except that of priest of Asclepius, which office he
held till his death, about 189. The extant works of Aristides consist of
two small rhetorical treatises and fifty-five declamations, some not
really speeches at all. The treatises are on _political_ and _simple
speech_, in which he takes Demosthenes and Xenophon as models for
illustration; some critics attribute these to a later compiler (Spengel,
_Rhetores Graeci_). The six _Sacred Discourses_ have attracted some
attention. They give a full account of his protracted illness, including
a mass of superstitious details of visions, dreams and wonderful cures,
which the god Asclepius ordered him to record. These cures, from his
account, offer similarities to the effects produced by hypnotism. The
speeches proper are epideictic or show speeches--on certain gods,
panegyrics of the emperor and individual cities (Smyrna, Rome);
justificatory--the attack on Plato's _Gorgias_ in defence of rhetoric
and the four statesmen, Thucydides, Miltiades, Pericles, Cimon;
symbouleutic or political, the subjects being taken from the past
history of free Greece--the Sicilian expedition, peace negotiations with
Sparta, the political situation after the battle of Leuctra. The
_Panathenaicus_ and _Encomium of Rome_ were actually delivered, the
former imitated from Isocrates. The _Leptinea_--the genuineness of which
is disputed--contrast unfavourably with the speech of Demosthenes.
Aristides' works were highly esteemed by his contemporaries; they were
much used for school instruction, and distinguished rhetoricians wrote
commentaries upon them. His style, formed on the best models, is
generally clear and correct, though sometimes obscured by rhetorical
ornamentation; his subjects being mainly fictitious, the cause possessed
no living interest, and his attention was concentrated on form and
diction.
Editio princeps (52 declamations only) (1517); Dindorf (1829); Keil
(1899); Sandys, _Hist. of Class. Schol._ i. 312 (ed. 1906).
ARISTIDES, QUINTILIANUS, the author of an ancient treatise on music, who
lived probably in the third century A.D. According to Meibomius, in
whose collection (_Antiq. Musicae Auc. Septem_, 1652) this work is
printed, it contains everything on music that is to be found in
antiquity. (See Pauly-Wissowa, _Realencyc._ ii. 894.)
ARISTIDES, APOLOGY OF. Until 1878 our knowledge of the early Christian
writer Aristides was confined to the statement of Eusebius that he was
an Athenian philosopher, who presented an apology "concerning the faith"
to the emperor Hadrian. In that year, however, the Mechitharists of S.
Lazzaro at Venice published a fragment in Armenian[1] from the beginning
of the apology; and in 1889 Dr Rendel Harris found the whole of it in a
Syriac version on Mount Sinai. While his edition was passing through the
press, it was observed by the present writer that all the while the work
had been in our hands in Greek, though in a slightly abbreviated form,
as it had been imbedded as a speech in a religious novel written about
the 6th century, and entitled "The Life of Barlaam and Josaphat." The
discovery of the Syriac version reopened the question of the date of the
work. For although its title there corresponds to that given by the
Armenian fragment and by Eusebius, it begins with a formal inscription
to "the emperor Titus Hadrianus Antoninus Augustus Pius"; and Dr R.
Harris is followed by Harnack and others in supposing that it was only
through a careless reading of this inscription that the work was
supposed to have been addressed to Hadrian. If this be the case, it must
be placed somewhere in the long reign of Antoninus Pius (138-161). There
are, however, no internal grounds for rejecting the thrice-attested
dedication to Hadrian his predecessor, and the picture of primitive
Christian life which is here found points to the earlier rather than to
the later date. It is possible that the Apology was read to Hadrian in
person when he visited Athens, and that the Syriac inscription was
prefixed by a scribe on the analogy of Justin's Apology, a mistake being
made in the amplification of Hadrian's name.
The Apology opens thus: "I, O king, by the providence of God came into
the world; and having beheld the heaven, and the earth, and the sea, the
sun and moon, and all besides, I marvelled at their orderly
disposition; and seeing the world and all things in it, that it is moved
by compulsion, I understood that He that moveth and governeth it is God.
For whatsoever moveth is stronger than that which is moved, and
whatsoever governeth is stronger than that which is governed." Having
briefly spoken of the divine nature in the terms of Greek philosophy,
Aristides proceeds to ask which of all the races of men have at all
partaken of the truth about God. Here we have the first attempt at a
systematic comparison of ancient religions. For the purpose of his
inquiry he adopts an obvious threefold division into idolaters, Jews and
Christians. Idolaters, or, as he more gently terms them in addressing
the emperor, "those who worship what among you are said to be gods," he
subdivides into the three great world-civilizations--Chaldeans, Greeks
and Egyptians. He chooses this order so as to work up to a climax of
error and absurdity in heathen worship. The direct nature-worship of the
Chaldeans is shown to be false because its objects are works of the
Creator, fashioned for the use of men. They obey fixed laws and have no
power over themselves. "The Greeks have erred worse than the Chaldeans
... calling those gods who are no gods, according to their evil lusts,
in order that having these as advocates of their wickedness they may
commit adultery, and plunder and kill, and do the worst of deeds." The
gods of Olympus are challenged one by one, and shown to be either vile
or helpless, or both at once. A heaven of quarrelling divinities cannot
inspire a reasonable worship. These gods are not even respectable; how
can they be adorable? "The Egyptians have erred worse than all the
nations; for they were not content with the worships of the Chaldeans
and Greeks, but introduced, moreover, as gods even brute beasts of the
dry land and of the waters, and plants and herbs.... Though they see
their gods eaten by others and by men, and burned, and slain, and
rotting, they do not understand concerning them that they are no gods."
Throughout the whole of the argument there is strong common-sense and a
stern severity unrelieved by conscious humour. Aristides is engaged in a
real contest; he strikes hard blows, and gives no quarter. He cannot
see, as Justin and Clement see, a striving after truth, a feeling after
God, in the older religions, or even in the philosophies of Greece. He
has no patience with attempts to find a deeper meaning in the stories of
the gods. "Do they say that one nature underlies these diverse forms?
Then why does god hate god, or god kill god? Do they say that the
histories are mythical? Then the gods themselves are myths, and nothing
more."
The Jews are briefly treated. After a reference to their descent from
Abraham and their sojourn in Egypt, Aristides praises them for their
worship of the one God, the Almighty Creator; but blames them as
worshipping angels, and observing "sabbaths and new moons, and the
unleavened bread, and the great fast, and circumcision, and cleanness of
meats." He then proceeds to the description of the Christians. He begins
with a statement which, when purged of glosses by a comparison of the
three forms in which it survives, reads thus: "Now the Christians reckon
their race from the Lord Jesus Christ; and He is confessed to be the Son
of God Most High. Having by the Holy Spirit come down from heaven, and
having been born of a Hebrew virgin, He took flesh and appeared unto
men, to call them back from their error of many gods; and having
completed His wonderful dispensation, He was pierced by the Jews, and
after three days He revived and went up to heaven. And the glory of His
coming thou canst learn, O king, from that which is called among them
the evangelic scripture, if thou wilt read it. He bad twelve disciples,
who after His ascent into heaven went forth into the provinces of the
world and taught His greatness; whence they who at this day believe
their preaching are called Christians." This passage contains striking
correspondences with the second section of the Apostles' Creed. The
attribution of the Crucifixion to the Jews appears in several
2nd-century documents; Justin actually uses the words "He was pierced by
you" in his dialogue with Trypho the Jew.
"These are they," he proceeds, "who beyond all the nations of the earth
have found the truth: for they know God as Creator and Maker of all
things, and they worship no other god beside Him; for they have His
commandments graven on their hearts, and these they keep in expectation
of the world to come.... Whatsoever they would not should be done unto
them, they do not to another.... He that hath supplieth him that hath
not without grudging: if they see a stranger they bring him under their
roof, and rejoice over him, as over a brother indeed, for they call not
one another brethren after the flesh, but after the spirit. They are
ready for Christ's sake to give up their own lives; for His commandments
they securely keep, living holily and righteously, according as the Lord
their God hath commanded them, giving thanks to Him at all hours, over
all their food and drink, and the rest of their good things." This
simple description is fuller in the Syriac, but the additional details
must be accepted with caution: for while it is likely that the monk who
appropriated the Greek may have cut it down to meet the exigencies of
his romance, it is the habit of certain Syriac translators to elaborate
their originals. After asserting that "this is the way of truth," and
again referring for further information to "the writings of the
Christians," he says: "And truly this is a new race, and there is
something divine mingled with it." At the close we have a passage which
is found only in the Syriac, but which is shown by internal evidence to
contain original elements: "The Greeks, because they practise foul
things ... turn the ridicule of their foulness upon the Christians."
This is an allusion to the charges of Thyestean banquets and other
immoralities, which the early apologists constantly rebut. "But the
Christians offer up prayers for them, that they may turn from their
error; and when one of them turns, he is ashamed before the Christians
of the deeds that were done by him, and he confesses to God saying: 'In
ignorance I did these things'; and he cleanses his heart, and his sins
are forgiven him, because he did them in ignorance in former time, when
he was blaspheming the true knowledge of the Christians."
These last words point to the use in the composition of this Apology of
a lost apocryphal work of very early date, _The Preaching of Peter_.
This book is known to us chiefly by quotations in Clement of Alexandria:
it was widely circulated, and at one time claimed a place within the
Canon. It was used by the Gnostic Heracleon and probably by the unknown
writer of the epistle to Diognetus. From the fragments which survive we
see that it contained: (1) a description of the nature of God, which
closely corresponds with Arist. i., followed by (2) a warning not to
worship according to the Greeks, with an exposure of various forms of
idolatry; (3) a warning not to worship according to the Jews--although
they alone think they know the true God--for they worship angels and are
superstitious about moons and sabbaths, and feasts, comp. Arist. xiv.;
(4) a description of the Christians as being "a third race," and
worshipping God in "a new way" through Christ; (5) a proof of
Christianity from Jewish prophecy; (6) a promise of forgiveness to Jews
and Gentiles who should turn to Christ, because they had sinned "in
ignorance" in the former time. Now all these points, except the proof
from Jewish prophecy, are taken up and worked out by Aristides with a
frequent use of the actual language of _The Preaching of Peter_. A
criterion is thus given us for the reconstruction of the Apology, where
the Greek which we have has been abbreviated, and we are enabled to
claim with certainty some passages of the Syriac which might otherwise
be suspected as interpolations.
The style of the Apology is exceedingly simple. It is curiously
misdescribed by Jerome, who never can have seen it, as "Apologeticum pro
Christianis contextum philosophorum sententiis." Its merits are its
recognition of the helplessness of the old heathenism to satisfy human
aspiration after the divine, and the impressive simplicity with which it
presents the unfailing argument of the lives of Christians.
The student may consult _The Apology of Aristides_, Syriac text and
translation (J.R. Harris), with an appendix containing the Greek
text, _Texts and Studies_, i. 1 (1891), and a critical discussion by
R. Seeberg in Zahn's _Forschungen_, v. 2 (1893); also, brief
discussions by A. Harnack, _Altchristl. Litteratur_, i. 96 ff.,
_Chronologie_, i. 271 ff., where references to other writers may be
found. The _Epistola ad omnes philosophos_ and the _Homily on the
Penitent Thief_, ascribed by Armenian tradition to Aristides, are
really of 5th-century origin. Trans. of _Apology_ by W.S. Walford
(1909). (J. A. R.)
FOOTNOTE:
[1] _Codex Venet. ann._, 981, and _Codex Etchmiaz._ of the 11th
century.
ARISTIPPUS (c. 435-356 B.C.), Greek philosopher, the founder of the
Cyrenaic school, was the son of Aritadas, a merchant of Cyrene. At an
early age he came to Athens, and was induced to remain by the fame of
Socrates, whose pupil he became. Subsequently he travelled through a
number of Grecian cities, and finally settled in Cyrene, where he
founded his school. His philosophy was eminently practical (see
CYRENAICS). Starting from the two Socratic principles of virtue and
happiness, he emphasized the second, and made pleasure the criterion of
life. That he held to be good which gives the maximum of pleasure. In
pursuance of this he indulged in all forms of external luxury. At the
same time he remained thoroughly master of himself and had the
self-control to refrain or to enjoy. Diogenes Laertius (ii. 65), quoting
Phanias the peripatetic, says that he received money for his teaching,
and Aristotle (_Met_. ii. 2) expressly calls him a sophist. Diogenes
further states that he wrote several treatises, but none have survived.
The five letters attributed to him are undoubtedly spurious. His
daughter Arete, and her son Aristippus ([Greek: maetrodidaktos], "pupil
of his mother"), carried on the school after his death. A cosmopolitan
on principle, and a convinced disbeliever in the ethics of his day, he
comes very near to modern empiricism and especially to the modern
Hedonist school.
ARISTO or ARISTON, of Chios (c. 250 B.C.), a Stoic philosopher and pupil
of Zeno. He differed from Zeno on many points, and approximated more
closely to the Cynic school. He was eloquent (hence his nickname "the
Siren") but controversial in tone. He despised logic, and rejected the
philosophy of nature as beyond the powers of man. Ethics alone he
considered worthy of study, and in that only general and theoretical
questions. He rejected Zeno's doctrine of desirable things, intermediate
between virtue and vice. There is only one virtue--a clear, intelligent,
healthy state of mind (_hygeia_). Aristo is frequently confounded with
another philosopher of the same name, Ariston of Iulis, in Ceos, who,
about 230 B.C., succeeded Lyco as scholarch of the Peripatetics. (See
STOICS.)
ARISTO, of Pella, a Jewish Christian writer of the middle of the 2nd
century, who like Hegesippus (q.v.) represents a school of thought more
liberal than that of the Pharisaic and Essene Ebionites to which the
decline of Jewish Christianity mainly led. Aristo is cited by Eusebius
(_Hist. Eccl._ iv. 6. 3) for a decree of Hadrian respecting the Jews,
but he is best known as the writer of a _Dialogue_ (between Papiscus, an
Alexandrian Jew, and Jason, who represents the author) on the witness of
prophecy to Jesus Christ, which was approvingly defended by Origen
against the reproaches of Celsus. The little book was perhaps used by
Justin Martyr in his own _Dialogue with Trypho_, and probably also by
Tertullian and Cyprian, but it has not been preserved.
The literature is cited in G. Krüger's _Early Christian Literature_,
pp. 104 f.
ARISTOBULUS, of Cassandreia, Greek historian, accompanied Alexander the
Great on his campaigns, of which he wrote an account, mainly
geographical and ethnological. His work was largely used by Arrian.
Müller, _Historicorum Graecorum Fragmenta_; Schöne, _De Rerum
Alexandri Magni Scriptoribus_ (1870).
ARISTOBULUS, of Paneas (c. 160 B.C.), a Jewish philosopher of the
Peripatetic school. Gercke places him in the time of Ptolemy X.
Philometor (end of 2nd century), Anatolius in that of Ptolemy II.
Philadelphus, but the middle of the 2nd century is more probable. He was
among the earliest of the Jewish-Alexandrian philosophers whose aim was
to reconcile and identify Greek philosophical conceptions with the
Jewish religion. Only a few fragments of his work, apparently entitled
_Commentaries on the Writings of Moses_, are quoted by Clement, Eusebius
and other theological writers, but they suffice to show its object. He
endeavoured to prove that early Greek philosophers had borrowed largely
from certain parts of Scripture, and quoted from Linus, Orpheus, Musaeus
and others, passages which strongly resemble the Mosaic writings. These
passages, however, were obvious forgeries. It is suggested that the name
Aristobulus was taken from 2 Macc. i. 10. The hypothesis (Schlatter,
_Das neugefundene hebräische Stück des Sirach_) that it was from
Aristobulus that the philosophy of _Ecclesiasticus_ was derived is not
generally accepted.
See E. Schürer, _History of the Jewish People_ (Eng. trans.,
1890-1891), ii. 237 seq.; article ALEXANDRIAN SCHOOL: _Philosophy_;
and _s.v._ "Aristobulus" in _Jewish Encyclopedia_ (Paul Wendland).
ARISTOCRACY (Gr. [Greek: aristos], best; [Greek: aristos], government),
etymologically, the "rule of the best," a form of government variously
defined and appreciated at different times and by different authorities.
In Greek political philosophy, aristocracy is the government of those
who most nearly attain to the ideal of human perfection. Thus Plato in
the _Republic_ advocates the rule of the "philosopher-king" who, in the
social scheme, is analogous to Reason in the intellectual, and alone is
qualified to control the active principles, i.e. the fighting population
and the artisans or workers. Aristocracy is thus the government by those
who are superior both morally and intellectually, and, therefore, govern
directly in the interests of the governed, as a good doctor works for
the good of his patient. Aristotle classified good governments under
three heads--monarchy, aristocracy and commonwealth [Greek: politeia],
to which he opposed the three perverted forms--tyranny or absolutism,
oligarchy and democracy or mob-rule. The distinction between aristocracy
and oligarchy, which are both necessarily the rule of the few, is that
whereas the few [Greek: aristoi] will govern unselfishly, the oligarchs,
being the few wealthy ("plutocracy" in modern terminology), will allow
their personal interests to predominate. While Plato's aristocracy might
be the rule of the wise and benevolent despot, Aristotle's is
necessarily the rule of the few.
Historically aristocracy develops from primitive monarchy by the gradual
progressive limitation of the regal authority. This process is effected
primarily by the nobles who have hitherto formed the council of the king
(an excellent example will be found in Athenian politics, see ARCHON),
whose triple prerogative--religious, military and judicial--is vested,
e.g., in a magistracy of three. These are either members of the royal
house or the heads of noble families, and are elected for life or
periodically by their peers, i.e. by the old royal council (cf. the
Areopagus at Athens, the Senate at Rome), now the sovereign power. In
practice this council depends primarily on a birth qualification, and
thus has always been more or less inferior to the Aristotelian ideal; it
is, by definition, an "oligarchy" of birth, and is recruited from the
noble families, generally by the addition of emeritus magistrates. From
the earliest times, therefore, the word "aristocracy" became practically
synonymous with "oligarchy," and as such it is now generally used in
opposition to democracy (which similarly took the place of Aristotle's
[Greek: politeia]), in which the ultimate sovereignty resides in the
whole citizen body.
The aristocracy of which we know most in ancient Greece was that of
Athens prior to the reforms of Cleisthenes, but all the Greek
city-states passed through a period of aristocratic or oligarchic
government. Rome, between the regal and the imperial periods, was always
more or less under the aristocratic government of the senate, in spite
of the gradual growth of democratic institutions (the Lat. _optimates_
is the equivalent of [Greek: aristoi]). There is, however, one feature
which distinguishes these aristocracies from those of modern states,
namely, that they were all slave-owning. The original relation of the
slave-population, which in many cases outnumbered the free citizens,
cannot always be discovered. But in some cases we know that the slaves
were the original inhabitants who had been overcome by an influx of
racially different invaders (cf. Sparta with its Helots); in others they
were captives taken in war. Hence even the most democratic states of
antiquity were so far aristocratic that the larger proportion of the
inhabitants had no voice in the government. In the second place this
relation gave rise to a philosophic doctrine, held even by Aristotle,
that there were peoples who were inferior by nature and adapted to
submission ([Greek: phusei douloi]); such people had no "virtue" in the
technical civic sense, and were properly occupied in performing the
menial functions of society, under the control of the [Greek: aristoi].
Thus, combined with the criteria of descent, civic status and the
ownership of the land, there was the further idea of intellectual and
social superiority. These qualifications were naturally, in course of
time, shared by an increasingly large number of the lower class who
broke down the barriers of wealth and education. From this stage the
transition is easy to the aristocracy of wealth, such as we find at
Carthage and later at Venice, in periods when the importance of commerce
was paramount and mercantile pursuits had cast off the stigma of
inferiority (in Gr. [Greek: banausia]).
It is important at this stage to distinguish between aristocracy and the
feudal governments of medieval Europe. In these it is true that certain
power was exercised by a small number of families, at the expense of the
majority. But under this system each noble governed in a particular area
and within strict limitations imposed by his sovereign; no sovereign
authority was vested in the nobles collectively.
Under the conditions of the present day the distinction of aristocracy,
democracy and monarchy cannot be rigidly maintained from a purely
governmental point of view. In no case does the sovereign power in a
state reside any longer in an aristocracy, and the word has acquired a
social rather than a political sense as practically equivalent to
"nobility," though the distinction is sometimes drawn between the
"aristocracy of birth" and the "aristocracy of wealth." Modern history,
however, furnishes many examples of government in the hands of an
aristocracy. Such were the aristocratic republics of Venice, Genoa and
the Dutch Netherlands, and those of the free imperial cities in Germany.
Such, too, in practice though not in theory, was the government of Great
Britain from the Revolution of 1689 to the Reform Bill of 1832. The
French nobles of the _Ancien Régime_, denounced as "aristocrats" by the
Revolutionists, had no share as such in government, but enjoyed
exceptional privileges (e.g. exemption from taxation). This privileged
position is still enjoyed by the heads of the German mediatized families
of the "High Nobility." In Great Britain, on the other hand, though the
aristocratic principle is still represented in the constitution by the
House of Lords, the "aristocracy" generally, apart from the peers, has
no special privileges.
ARISTODEMUS (8th century B.C.), semi-legendary ruler of Messenia in the
time of the first Messenian War. Tradition relates that, after some six
years' fighting, the Messenians were forced to retire to the fortified
summit of Ithome. The Delphic oracle bade them sacrifice a virgin of the
house of Aepytus. Aristodemus offered his own daughter, and when her
lover, hoping to save her life, declared that she was no longer a
maiden, he slew her with his own hand to prove the assertion false. In
the thirteenth year of the war, Euphaes, the Messenian king, died. As he
left no children, popular election was resorted to, and Aristodemus was
chosen as his successor, though the national soothsayers objected to him
as the murderer of his daughter. As a ruler he was mild and
conciliatory. He was victorious in the pitched battle fought at the foot
of Ithome in the fifth year of his reign, a battle in which the
Messenians, reinforced by the entire Arcadian levy and picked
contingents from Argos and Sicyon, defeated the combined Spartan and
Corinthian forces. Shortly afterwards, however, led by unfavourable
omens to despair of final success, he killed himself on his daughter's
tomb. Though little is known of his life and the chronology is
uncertain, yet Aristodemus may fairly be regarded as a historical
character. His reign is dated 731-724 B.C. by Pausanias, and this may be
taken as approximately correct, though Duncker (_History of Greece_,
Eng. trans., ii. p. 69) inclines to place it eight years later.
Pausanias iv. 9-13 is practically our only authority. He followed as
his chief source the prose history of Myron of Priene, an
untrustworthy writer, probably of the 2nd century B.C.; hence a good
deal of his story must be regarded as fanciful, though we cannot
distinguish accurately between the true and the fictitious.
(M. N. T.)
ARISTOLOCHIA (Gr. [Greek: aristos], best, [Greek: locheia], child-birth,
in allusion to its repute in promoting child-birth), a genus of shrubs
or herbs of the natural order Aristolochiaceae, often with climbing
stems, found chiefly in the tropics. The flower forms a tube inflated at
the base. _A. Clematitis_, birthwort, is a central and southern European
species, found sometimes in England apparently wild on ruins and similar
places, but not a native. _A. Sipho_, Dutchman's pipe, or pipe vine, is
a climber, native in the woods of the Atlantic United States, and grown
in Europe as a garden plant. The flower is bent like a pipe.
A member of the same order is the _asarabacca_ (_Asarum europaeum_), a
small creeping herb with kidney-shaped leaves and small purplish
bell-shaped flowers. It is a native of the woods of Europe and north
temperate Asia, and occurs wild in some English counties. It was
formerly grown for medicinal purposes, the underground stem having
cathartic and emetic properties. An allied species, _A. canadense_, is
the Canadian snake-root, a native of Canada and the Atlantic United
States.
ARISTOMENES, of Andania, the semi-legendary hero of the second Messenian
war. He was a member of the Aepytid family, the son of Nicomedes (or,
according to another version, of Pyrrhus) and Nicoteleia, and took a
prominent part in stirring up the revolt against Sparta and securing the
co-operation of Argos and Arcadia. He showed such heroism in the first
encounter, at Derae, that the crown was offered him, but he would accept
only the title of commander-in-chief. His daring is illustrated by the
story that he came by night to the temple of Athene "of the Brazen
House" at Sparta, and there set up his shield with the inscription,
"Dedicated to the goddess by Aristomenes from the Spartans." His prowess
contributed largely to the Messenian victory over the Spartan and
Corinthian forces at "The Boar's Barrow" in the plain of Stenyclarus,
but in the following year the treachery of the Arcadian king
Aristocrates caused the Messenians to suffer a crushing defeat at "The
Great Trench." Aristomenes and the survivors retired to the mountain
stronghold of Eira, where they defied the Spartans for eleven years. On
one of his raids he and fifty of his companions were captured and thrown
into the Caeadas, the chasm on Mt. Taygetus into which criminals were
cast. Aristomenes alone was saved, and soon reappeared at Eira: legend
told how he was upheld in his fall by an eagle and escaped by grasping
the tail of a fox, which led him to the hole by which it had entered. On
another occasion he was captured during a truce by some Cretan
auxiliaries of the Spartans, and was released only by the devotion of a
Messenian girl who afterwards became his daughter-in-law. At length Eira
was betrayed to the Spartans (668 B.C. according to Pausanias), and
after a heroic resistance Aristomenes and his followers had to evacuate
Messenia and seek a temporary refuge with their Arcadian allies. A
desperate plan to seize Sparta itself was foiled by Aristocrates, who
paid with his life for his treachery. Aristomenes retired to Ialysus in
Rhodes, where Damagetus, his son-in-law, was king, and died there while
planning a journey to Sardis and Ecbatana to seek aid from the Lydian
and Median sovereigns (Pausanias iv. 14-24). Another tradition
represents him as captured and slain by the Spartans during the war
(Pliny, _Nat. Hist._ xi. 187; Val. Maximus i. 8, 15; Steph. Byzant. s.v.
[Greek: Andania]). Though there seems to be no conclusive reason for
doubting the existence of Aristomenes, his history, as related by
Pausanias, following mainly the _Messeniaca_ of the Cretan epic poet
Rhianus (about 230 B.C.), is evidently largely interwoven with fictions.
These probably arose after the foundation of Messene in 369 B.C.
Aristomenes' statue was set up in the stadium there: his bones were
fetched from Rhodes and placed in a tomb surmounted by a column (Paus.
iv. 32. 3, 6); and more than five centuries later we still find heroic
honours paid to him, and his exploits a popular subject of song (_ib_.
iv. 14. 7; 16. 6).
For further details see Pausanias iv.; Polyaenus ii. 31; G. Grote,
_History of Greece_, pt. ii. chap. vii.; M. Duncker, _History of
Greece_, Eng. trans., book iv. chap, viii.; A. Holm, _History of
Greece_, Eng. trans., vol. i. chap. xvi. (M. N. T.)
ARISTONICUS, of Alexandria, Greek grammarian, lived during the reigns of
Augustus and Tiberius. He taught at Rome and wrote commentaries and
grammatical treatises. His chief work was [Greek: Peri Saemeion
Homaerou], in which he gave an account of the "critical marks" inserted
by Aristarchus in the margin of his recension of the text of the _Iliad_
and _Odyssey_. Important fragments are preserved in the scholia of the
Venetian Codex A of the _Iliad_.
Friedländer, _Aristonici_ [Greek: Peri Saemeion Iliados] _reliquiae_
(1853); Carnuth, _Aristonici_ [Greek: Peri Saemeion Odusseias]
_reliquiae_ (1869).
ARISTOPHANES (c. 448-385 B.C.[1]), the great comic dramatist and poet of
Athens. His birth-year is uncertain. He is known to have been about the
same age as Eupolis, and is said to have been "almost a boy" when his
first comedy (_The Banqueters_) was brought out in 427 B.C. His father
Philippus was a landowner in Aegina. Aristophanes was an Athenian
citizen of the tribe Pandionis, and the deme Cydathene. The stories
which made him a native of Camirus in Rhodes, or of the Egyptian
Naucratis, had probably no other foundation than an indictment for
usurpation of civic rights ([Greek: xenias graphae]) which appears to
have been more than once laid against him by Cleon. His three
sons--Philippus, Araros and Nicostratus--were all comic poets.
Philippus, the eldest, was a rival of Eubulus, who began to exhibit in
376 B.C. Araros brought out two of his father's latest comedies--the
_Cocalus_ and the _Aeolosicon_, and in 375 began to exhibit works of his
own. Nicostratus, the youngest, is assigned by Athenaeus to the Middle
Comedy, but belongs, as is shown by some of the names and characters of
his pieces, to the New Comedy also.
Although tragedy and comedy had their common origin in the festivals of
Dionysus, the regular establishment of tragedy at Athens preceded by
half a century that of comedy. The Old Comedy may be said to have lasted
about eighty years (470-390 B.C.), and to have flourished about
fifty-six (460-404 B.C.). Of the forty poets who are named as having
illustrated it the chief were Cratinus, Eupolis and Aristophanes. The
Middle Comedy covers a period of about seventy years (390-320 B.C.), its
chief poets being Antiphanes, Alexis, Theopompus and Strattis. The New
Comedy was in vigour for about seventy years (320-250 B.C.), having for
its foremost representatives Menander, Philemon and Diphilus. The Old
Comedy was possible only for a thorough democracy. Its essence was a
satirical censorship, unsparing in personalities, of public and of
private life--of morality, of statesmanship, of education, of
literature, of social usage--in a word, of everything which had an
interest for the city or which could amuse the citizens. Preserving all
the freedom of banter and of riotous fun to which its origin gave it an
historical right, it aimed at associating with this a strong practical
purpose--the expression of a democratic public opinion in such a form
that no misconduct or folly could altogether disregard it. That
licentiousness, that grossness of allusion which too often disfigures
it, was, it should be remembered, exacted by the sentiment of the
Dionysiac festivals, as much as a decorous cheerfulness is expected at
the holiday times of other worships. This was the popular element.
Without this the entertainment would have been found flat and
unseasonable. But for a comic poet of the higher calibre the
consciousness of a recognized power which he could exert, and the desire
to use this power for the good of the city, must always have been the
uppermost feelings. At Athens the poet of the Old Comedy had an
influence analogous, perhaps, rather to that of the journalist than to
that of the modern dramatist. But the established type of Dionysiac
comedy gave him an instrument such as no public satirist has ever
wielded. When Molière wished to brand hypocrisy he could only make his
Tartuffe the central figure of a regular drama, developed by a regular
process to a just catastrophe. He had no choice between touching too
lightly and using sustained force to make a profound impression. The
Athenian dramatist of the Old Comedy worked under no such limitations of
form. The wildest flights of extravagance were permitted to him. Nothing
bound him to a dangerous emphasis or a wearisome insistence. He could
deal the keenest thrust, or make the most earnest appeal, and at the
next moment--if his instinct told him that it was time to change the
subject--vary the serious strain by burlesque. He had, in short, an
incomparable scope for trenchant satire directed by sure tact.
Aristophanes is for us the representative of the Old Comedy. But his
genius, while it includes, also transcends the genius of the Old Comedy.
He can denounce the frauds of a Cleon, he can vindicate the duty of
Athens to herself and to her allies, with a stinging scorn and a force
of patriotic indignation which makes the poet almost forgotten in the
citizen. He can banter Euripides with an ingenuity of light mockery
which makes it seem for the time as if the leading Aristophanic trait
was the art of seeing all things from their prosaic side. Yet it is
neither in the denunciation nor in the mockery that he is most
individual. His truest and highest faculty is revealed by those
wonderful bits of lyric writing in which he soars above everything that
can move laughter or tears, and makes the clear air thrill with the
notes of a song as free, as musical and as wild as that of the
nightingale invoked by his own chorus in the _Birds_. The speech of
Dikaios Logos in the _Clouds_, the praises of country life in the
_Peace_, the serenade in the _Ecclesiazusae_, the songs of the Spartan
and Athenian maidens in the _Lysistrata_, above all, perhaps, the chorus
in the _Frogs_, the beautiful chant of the Initiated,--these passages,
and such as these, are the true glories of Aristophanes. They are the
strains, not of an artist, but of one who warbles for pure gladness of
heart in some place made bright by the presence of a god. Nothing else
in Greek poetry has quite this wild sweetness of the woods. Of modern
poets Shakespeare alone, perhaps, has it in combination with a like
richness and fertility of fancy.
Fifty-four[2] comedies were ascribed to Aristophanes. Forty-three of
these are allowed as genuine by Bergk. Eleven only are extant. These
eleven form a running commentary on the outer and the inner life of
Athens during thirty-six years. They may be ranged under three periods.
The first, extending to 420 B.C., includes those plays in which
Aristophanes uses an absolutely unrestrained freedom of political
satire. The second ends with the year 405. Its productions are
distinguished from those of the earlier time by a certain degree of
reticence and caution. The third period, down to 388 B.C., comprises two
plays in which the transition to the character of the Middle Comedy is
well marked, not merely by disuse of the parabasis, but by general
self-restraint.
I. _First Period_, (1) 425 B.C. _The Acharnians._--Since the defeat in
Boeotia the peace party at Athens had gained ground, and in this play
Aristophanes seeks to strengthen their hands. Dicaeopolis, an honest
countryman, is determined to make peace with Sparta on his own account,
not deterred by the angry men of Acharnae, who crave vengeance for the
devastation of their vineyards. He sends to Sparta for samples of peace;
and he is so much pleased with the flavour of the Thirty Years' sample
that he at once concludes a treaty for himself and his family. All the
blessings of life descend on him; while Lamachus, the leader of the war
party, is smarting from cold, snow and wounds.
(2) 424 B.C. _The Knights._--Three years before, in his _Babylonians_,
Aristophanes had assailed Cleon as the typical demagogue. In this play
he continues the attack. The Demos, or State, is represented by an old
man who has put himself and his household into the hands of a rascally
Paphlagonian steward. Nicias and Demosthenes, slaves of Demos, contrive
that the Paphlagonian shall be supplanted in their master's favour by a
sausage-seller. No sooner has Demos been thus rescued than his
youthfulness and his good sense return together.
(3) 423 B.C. _The Clouds_ (the first edition; a second edition was
brought out in 422 B.C.).--This play would be correctly described as an
attack on the new spirit of intellectual inquiry and culture rather than
on a school or class. Two classes of thinkers or teachers are, however,
specially satirized under the general name of "Sophist" (v. 331)--1. The
Physical Philosophers--indicated by allusions to the doctrines of
Anaxagoras, Heraclitus and Diogenes of Apollonia. 2. The professed
teachers of rhetoric, belles lettres, &c., such as Protagoras and
Prodicus. Socrates is taken as the type of the entire tendency. A youth
named Pheidippides--obviously meant for Alcibiades--is sent by his
father to Socrates to be cured of his dissolute propensities. Under the
discipline of Socrates the youth becomes accomplished in dishonesty and
impiety. The conclusion of the play shows the indignant father preparing
to burn up the philosopher and his hall of contemplation.
(4) 422 B.C. _The Wasps._--This comedy, which suggested _Les Plaideurs_
to Racine, is a satire on the Athenian love of litigation. The strength
of demagogy, while it lay chiefly in the ecclesia, lay partly also in
the paid dicasteries. From this point of view the _Wasps_ may be
regarded as supplementing the _Knights_. Philocleon (admirer of Cleon),
an old man, has a passion for lawsuits--a passion which his son,
Bdelycleon (detester of Cleon) fails to check, until he hits upon the
device of turning the house into a law-court, and paying his father for
absence from the public suits. The house-dog steals a Sicilian cheese;
the old man is enabled to gratify his taste by trying the case, and, by
an oversight, acquits the defendant. In the second half of the play a
change comes over the dream of Philocleon; from litigation he turns to
literature and music, and is congratulated by the chorus on his happy
conversion.
(5) 421 B.C.[3] _The Peace._--In its advocacy of peace with Sparta, this
play, acted at the Great Dionysia shortly before the conclusion of the
treaty, continues the purpose of the _Acharnians_. Trygaeus, a
distressed Athenian, soars to the sky on a beetle's back. There he finds
the gods engaged in pounding the Greek states in a mortar. In order to
stop this, he frees the goddess Peace from a well in which she is
imprisoned. The pestle and mortar are laid aside by the gods, and
Trygaeus marries one of the handmaids of Peace.
II. _Second Period_. (6) 414 B.C. _The Birds._--Peisthetaerus, an
enterprising Athenian, and his friend Euelpides persuade the birds to
build a city--"Cloud-Cuckoo-borough"--in mid-air, so as to cut off the
gods from men. The plan succeeds; the gods send envoys to treat with the
birds; and Peisthetaerus marries Basileia, daughter of Zeus. Some have
found in the _Birds_ a complete historical allegory of the Sicilian
expedition; others, a general satire on the prevalence at Athens of
headstrong caprice over law and order; others, merely an aspiration
towards a new and purified Athens--a dream to which the poet had turned
from his hope for a revival of the Athens of the past. In another view,
the piece is mainly a protest against the religious fanaticism which the
incident of the Hermae had called forth.
(7) 411 B.C. _The Lysistrata._--This play was brought out during the
earlier stages of those intrigues which led to the revolution of the
Four Hundred. It appeared shortly before Peisander had arrived in Athens
from the camp at Samos for the purpose of organizing the oligarchic
policy. The _Lysistrata_ expresses the popular desire for peace at any
cost. As the men can do nothing, the women take the question into their
own hands, occupy the citadel, and bring the citizens to surrender.
(8) 411 B.C. _The Thesmophoriazusae_ (Priestesses of Demeter).--This
came out three months later than the _Lysistrata_, during the reign of
terror established by the oligarchic conspirators, but before their blow
had been struck. The political meaning of the play lies in the absence
of political allusion. Fear silences even comedy. Only women and
Euripides are satirized. Euripides is accused and condemned at the
female festival of the Thesmophoria.
(9) 405 B.C. _The Frogs._--This piece was brought out just when Athens
had made her last effort in the Peloponnesian War, eight months before
the battle of Aegospotami, and about fifteen months before the taking of
Athens by Lysander. It may be considered as an attempt to distract men's
minds from public affairs. It is a literary criticism. Aeschylus and
Euripides were both lately dead. Athens is beggared of poets; and
Dionysus goes down to Hades to bring back a poet. Aeschylus and
Euripides contend in the under-world for the throne of tragedy; and the
victory is at last awarded to Aeschylus.
III. _Third Period_.[4] (10) 393 B.C.[4] _The Ecclesiazusae_ (women in
parliament).--The women, disguised as men, steal into the ecclesia, and
succeed in decreeing a new constitution. At this time the demagogue
Agyrrhius led the assembly; and the play is, in fact, a satire on the
general demoralization of public life.
(11) 388 B.C. _The Plutus_ (Wealth).--The first edition of the play had
appeared in 408 B.C., being a symbolical representation of the fact that
the victories won by Alcibiades in the Hellespont had brought back the
god of wealth to the treasure-chamber of the Parthenon. In its extant
form the _Plutus_ is simply a moral allegory. Chremylus, a worthy but
poor man, falls in with a blind and aged wanderer, who proves to be the
god of wealth. Asclepius restores eyesight to Plutus; whereupon all the
just are made rich and all the unjust are reduced to poverty.
Among the lost plays, the following are the chief of which anything is
known:--
1. _The Banqueters_ [Greek: Daitaleis], 427 B.C.--A satire on young
Athens. A father has two sons; one is brought up in the good old
school, another in the tricky subtleties of the new; and the contrast
of results is the chief theme.
2. _The Babylonians_, 426 B.C.--Under this name the subject-allies of
Athens are represented as "Babylonians"-barbarian slaves, employed to
grind in the mill. The oppression of the allies by the demagogues--a
topic often touched elsewhere--was, then, the main subject of the
piece, in which Aristophanes is said to have attacked especially the
system of appointing to offices by lot. The comedy is memorable as
opening that Aristophanic war upon Cleon which was continued in the
_Knights_ and the _Wasps_.
_The Merchantmen, The Farmers, The Preliminary Contest_ (_Proagon_),
and possibly the _Old Age_ (_Geras_), belonged to the First Period.
The _Geras_ is assigned by Süvern to 422 B.C., and is supposed to have
been a picture of dotage similar to that in the _Knights_. A comedy
called _The Islands_ is conjectured to have dealt with the sufferings
imposed by the war on the insular tributaries. The _Triphales_ was
probably a satire on Alcibiades; the _Storks_, on the tragic poet
Patrocles.
In the _Aeolosicon_--produced by his son Araros in 387
B.C.--Aristophanes probably parodied the _Aeolus_ of Euripides. The
_Cocalus_ is thought to have been a parody of the legend, according to
which a Sicilian king of that name slew Minos.
A sympathetic reader of Aristophanes can hardly fail to perceive that,
while his political and intellectual tendencies are well marked, his
opinions, in so far as they colour his comedies, are too indefinite to
reward, or indeed to tolerate, analysis. Aristophanes was a natural
conservative. His ideal was the Athens of the Persian wars. He
disapproved the policy which had made Athenian empire irksome to the
allies and formidable to Greece; he detested the vulgarity and the
violence of mob-rule; he clave to the old worship of the gods; he
regarded the new ideas of education as a tissue of imposture and
impiety. How far he was from clearness or precision of view in regard to
the intellectual revolution which was going forward, appears from the
_Clouds_, in which thinkers and literary workers who had absolutely
nothing in common are treated with sweeping ridicule as prophets of a
common heresy. Aristophanes is one of the men for whom opinion is mainly
a matter of feeling, not of reason. His imaginative susceptibility gave
him a warm and loyal love for the traditional glories of Athens, however
dim the past to which they belonged; a horror of what was ugly or
ignoble in the present; a keen perception of what was offensive or
absurd in pretension. The broad preferences and dislikes thus generated
were enough not only to point the moral of comedy, but to make him, in
many cases, a really useful censor for the city. The service which he
could render in this way was, however, only negative. He could hardly
be, in any positive sense, a political or a moral teacher for Athens.
His rooted antipathy to intellectual progress, while it affords easy and
wide scope for his wit, must after all, lower his intellectual rank. The
great minds are not the enemies of ideas. But as a mocker--to use the
word which seems most closely to describe him on this side--he is
incomparable for the union of subtlety with riot of the comic
imagination. As a poet, he is immortal. And, among Athenian poets, he
has it for his distinctive characteristic that he is inspired less by
that Greek genius which never allows fancy to escape from the control of
defining, though spiritualizing, reason, than by such ethereal rapture
of the unfettered fancy as lifts Shakespeare or Shelley above it,--
"Pouring his full heart
In profuse strains of unpremeditated art."
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Editio princeps (Aldine, Venice, 1498), by Marcus
Musurus (not including the _Lysistrata_ and _Thesmophoriazusae_); S.
Bergler (ed. P. Burmann, 1760); Invernizi-Beck-Dindorf (1794-1834); I.
Bekker (1829); H.A. Holden (expurgated text, 1868), with
_Onomasticon_ (new ed., 1902); F.H.M. Blaydes (1880-1893), and
critical edition (1886); J. van Leeuwen (1893 foll.); F.W. Hall and
E.M. Geldart (text, 1900-1901), with the fragment (from the
Oxyrhynchus papyri) of a dialogue between two women concerning a
leathern phallus, perhaps from Aristophanes. There is a complete
edition of the valuable scholia by F. Dübner (1842, Didot
series),--with the anonymous biographies of the poet; of the Ravenna
MS. by A. Martin (1883), and W.G. Rutherford (1896-1905). Among
English translations mention may be made of those of V.J. Hickie
(prose, in Bohn's _Classical Library_); (verse) J. Hookham Frere, five
plays; T. Mitchell, four plays; and, above all, B.B. Rogers, a
brilliant work of exceptional merit. There is a concordance to the
plays and fragments by H. Dunbar (1883). On Aristophanes generally see
H. Müller-Strübing, _Aristophanes und die historische Kritik_ (1873);
the article by G. Kaibel in Pauly-Wissowa's _Realencyclopadie_, ii. 1
(1896); A. Couat, _Aristophane et l'ancienne comédie attique_ (1889);
E. Deschanel, _Études sur Aristophane_ (3rd ed., 1892); G. Dantu,
_Opinions et critiques d'Aristophane sur le mouvement politique et
intellectuel à Athènes_ (Paris, 1907). For the numerous editions and
translations of separate plays in English and other languages see the
introductions to Blaydes's edition, and, for the literature, the
introduction to W.J.M. Starkie's edition of the _Wasps_ (1897); W.
Engelmann, _Scriptores Graeci_ (1880); and "Bericht über die Literatur
der griechischen Komödie aus den Jahren 1892-1901" in C. Bursian's
_Jahresbericht über die Fortschritte der classischen
Altertumswissenschaft_, cxvi. (1904). (R. C. J.)
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The dates in the text, as given by Jebb, are retained. According
to R.G. Kent, _Classical Review_ (April 1905, April 1906),
Aristophanes was born in 465, and died in 375 B.C.
[2] Or "fourty-four" (reading [Greek: mt'] for [Greek: nd'] in
Suidas).
[3] See E. Curtius, _Hist. of Greece_, iii (Eng. trans. p. 275).
[4] The date is uncertain; others give 392 and 389.
ARISTOPHANES, of Byzantium, Greek critic and grammarian, was born about
257 B.C. He removed early to Alexandria, where he studied under
Zenodotus and Callimachus. At the age of sixty he was appointed chief
librarian of the museum. He died about 185-180 B.C. Aristophanes chiefly
devoted himself to the poets, especially Homer, who had already been
edited by his master Zenodotus. He also edited Hesiod, the chief lyric,
tragic and comic poets, arranged Plato's dialogues in trilogies, and
abridged Aristotle's _Nature of Animals_. His arguments to the plays of
Aristophanes and the tragedians are in great part preserved. His works
on Athenian courtesans, masks and proverbs were the results of his study
of Attic comedy. He further commented on the [Greek: Pinakes] of
Callimachus, a sort of history of Greek literature. As a lexicographer,
Aristophanes compiled collections of foreign and unusual words and
expressions, and special lists (words denoting relationship, modes of
address). As a grammarian, he founded a scientific school, and in his
_Analogy_ systematically explained the various forms. He introduced
critical signs--except the obelus; punctuation prosodiacal, and
accentual marks were probably already in use. The foundation of the
so-called Alexandrian "canon" was also due to his impulse (_Sandys,
Hist. Class. Schol_., ed. 1906, i. 129 f.).
Nauck, _Aristophanis Byzantii Grammatici Fragmenta_ (1848).
ARISTOTLE (384-322 B.C.), the great Greek philosopher, was born at
Stagira, on the Strymonic Gulf, and hence called "the Stagirite."
Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in his _Epistle on Demosthenes and
Aristotle_ (chap. 5), gives the following sketch of his life:--Aristotle
([Greek: Aristotelaes]) was the son of Nicomachus, who traced back his
descent and his art to Machaon, son of Aesculapius; his mother being
Phaestis, a descendant of one of those who carried the colony from
Chalcis to Stagira. He was born in the 99th Olympiad in the archonship
at Athens of Diotrephes (384-383), three years before Demosthenes. In
the archonship of Polyzelus (367-366), after the death of his father, in
his eighteenth year, he came to Athens, and having joined Plato spent
twenty years with him. On the death of Plato (May 347) in the archonship
of Theophilus (348-347) he departed to Hermias, tyrant of Atarneus, and,
after three years' stay, during the archonship of Eubulus (345-344) he
moved to Mitylene, whence he went to Philip of Macedon in the archonship
of Pythodotus (343-342), and spent eight years with him as tutor of
Alexander. After the death of Philip (336), in the archonship of
Euaenetus (335-334), he returned to Athens and kept a school in the
Lyceum for twelve years. In the thirteenth, after the death of Alexander
(June 323) in the archonship of Cephisodorus (323-322), having departed
to Chalcis, he died of disease (322), after a life of three-and-sixty
years.
I. ARISTOTLE'S LIFE
This account is practically repeated by Diogenes Laertius in his _Life
of Aristotle_, on the authority of the _Chronicles_ of Apollodorus, who
lived in the 2nd century B.C. Starting then from this tradition, near
enough to the time, we can confidently divide Aristotle's career into
four periods: his youth under his parents till his eighteenth year; his
philosophical education under Plato at Athens till his thirty-eighth
year; his travels in the Greek world till his fiftieth year; and his
philosophical teaching in the Lyceum till his departure to Chalcis and
his death in his sixty-third year. But when we descend from generals to
particulars, we become less certain, and must here content ourselves
with few details.
Aristotle from the first profited by having a father who, being
physician to Amyntas II., king of Macedon, and one of the Asclepiads
who, according to Galen, practised their sons in dissection, both
prepared the way for his son's influence at the Macedonian court, and
gave him a bias to medicine and biology, which certainly led to his
belief in nature and natural science, and perhaps induced him to
practise medicine, as he did, according to his enemies, Timaeus and
Epicurus, when he first went to Athens. At Athens in his second period
for some twenty years he acquired the further advantage of balancing
natural science by metaphysics and morals in the course of reading
Plato's writings and of hearing Plato's unwritten dogmas (cf. [Greek: en
tois legomenois agraphois dogmasin], Ar. _Physics_, iv. 2, 209 b 15,
Berlin ed.). He was an earnest, appreciative, independent student. The
master is said to have called his pupil the intellect of the school and
his house a reader's. He is also said to have complained that his pupil
spurned him as colts do their mothers. Aristotle, however, always
revered Plato's memory (_Nic. Ethics_, i. 6), and even in criticizing
his master counted himself enough of a Platonist to cite Plato's
doctrines as what "we say" (cf. [Greek: phamen], _Metaphysics_, i. 9,
990 b 16). At the same time, he must have learnt much from other
contemporaries at Athens, especially from astronomers such as Eudoxus
and Callippus, and from orators such as Isocrates and Demosthenes. He
also attacked Isocrates, according to Cicero, and perhaps even set up a
rival school of rhetoric. At any rate he had pupils of his own, such as
Eudemus of Cyprus, Theodectes and Hermias, books of his own, especially
dialogues, and even to some extent his own philosophy, while he was
still a pupil of Plato.
Well grounded in his boyhood, and thoroughly educated in his manhood,
Aristotle, after Plato's death, had the further advantage of travel in
his third period, when he was in his prime. The appointment of Plato's
nephew, Speusippus, to succeed his uncle in the Academy induced
Aristotle and Xenocrates to leave Athens together and repair to the
court of Hermias. Aristotle admired Hermias, and married his friend's
sister or niece, Pythias, by whom he had his daughter Pythias. After the
tragic death of Hermias, he retired for a time to Mitylene, and in
343-342 was summoned to Macedon by Philip to teach Alexander, who was
then a boy of thirteen. According to Cicero (_De Oratore_, iii. 41),
Philip wished his son, then a boy of thirteen, to receive from Aristotle
"agendi praecepta et eloquendi." Aristotle is said to have written on
monarchy and on colonies for Alexander; and the pupil is said to have
slept with his master's edition of Homer under his pillow, and to have
respected him, until from hatred of Aristotle's tactless relative,
Callisthenes, who was done to death in 328, he turned at last against
Aristotle himself. Aristotle had power to teach, and Alexander to learn.
Still we must not exaggerate the result. Dionysius must have spoken too
strongly when he says that Aristotle was tutor of Alexander for eight
years; for in 340, when Philip went to war with Byzantium, Alexander
became regent at home, at the age of sixteen. From this date Aristotle
probably spent much time at his paternal house in his native city at
Stagira as a patriotic citizen. Philip had sacked it in 348: Aristotle
induced him or his son to restore it, made for it a new constitution,
and in return was celebrated in a festival after his death. All these
vicissitudes made him a man of the world, drew him out of the
philosophical circle at Athens, and gave him leisure to develop his
philosophy. Besides Alexander he had other pupils: Callisthenes,
Cassander, Marsyas, Phanias, and Theophrastus of Eresus, who is said to
have had land at Stagira. He also continued the writings begun in his
second period; and the Macedonian kings have the glory of having
assisted the Stagirite philosopher with the means of conducting his
researches in the _History of Animals_.
At last, in his fourth period, after the accession of Alexander,
Aristotle at fifty returned to Athens and became the head of his own
school in the Lyceum, a gymnasium near the temple of Apollo Lyceius in
the suburbs. The master and his scholars were called Peripatetics
([Greek: oi ek ton peripaton]), certainly from meeting, like other
philosophical schools, in a walk ([Greek: peripatos]), and perhaps also,
on the authority of Hermippus of Smyrna, from walking and talking there,
like Protagoras and his followers as described in Plato's _Protagoras_
(314 E, 315 C). Indeed, according to Ammonius, Plato too had talked as
he walked in the Academy; and all his followers were called
Peripatetics, until, while the pupils of Xenocrates took the name
"Academics," those of Aristotle retained the general name. Aristotle
also formed his Peripatetic school into a kind of college with common
meals under a president ([Greek: archon]) changing every ten days; while
the philosopher himself delivered lectures, in which his practice, as
his pupil Aristoxenus tells us (_Harmonics_ ii, _init_.), was, avoiding
the generalities of Plato, to prepare his audience by explaining the
subject of investigation and its nature. But Aristotle was an author as
well as a lecturer; for the hypothesis that the Aristotelian writings
are notes of his lectures taken down by his pupils is contradicted by
the tradition of their learning while walking, and disproved by the
impossibility of taking down such complicated discourses from dictation.
Moreover, it is clear that Aristotle addressed himself to readers as
well as hearers, as in concluding his whole theory of syllogisms he
says, "There would remain for all of you or for our hearers ([Greek:
panton umon ae ton aekroamenon]) a duty of according to the defects of
the investigation consideration, to its discoveries much gratitude"
(_Sophisticai Elenchi_, 34,184 b 6). In short, Aristotle was at once a
student, a reader, a lecturer, a writer and a book collector. He was,
says Strabo (608), the first we knew who collected books and taught the
kings in Egypt the arrangement of a library. In his library no doubt
were books of others, but also his own. There we must figure to
ourselves the philosopher, constantly referring to his autograph rolls;
entering references and cross-references; correcting, rewriting,
collecting and arranging them according to their subjects; showing as
well as reading them to his pupils; with little thought of publication,
but with his whole soul concentrated on being and truth.
On his first visit to Athens, during which occurred the fatal battle of
Mantineia (362 B.C.), Aristotle had seen the confusion of Greece
becoming the opportunity of Macedon under Philip; and on his second
visit he was supported at Athens by the complete domination of Macedon
under Alexander. Having witnessed the unjust exactions of a democracy at
Athens, the dwindling population of an oligarchy at Sparta, and the
oppressive selfishness of new tyrannies throughout the Greek world, he
condemned the actual constitutions of the Greek states as deviations
([Greek: parekbaseis]) directed merely to the good of the government;
and he contemplated a right constitution ([Greek: orthae politeia]),
which might be either a commonwealth, an aristocracy or a monarchy,
directed to the general good; but he preferred the monarchy of one man,
pre-eminent in virtue above the rest, as the best of all governments
(_Nicomachean Ethics_, viii. 10; _Politics_, [Gamma] 14-18). Moreover,
by adding (_Politics_, [Eta] 7, 1327 b 29-33) that the Greek race could
govern the world by obtaining one constitution ([Greek: mias tonchanon
politeias]), he indicated some leaning to a universal monarchy under
such a king as Alexander. On the whole, however, he adhered to the Greek
city-state ([Greek: polis]), partly perhaps out of patriotism to his own
Stagira. Averse at all events to the Athenian democracy, leaning towards
Macedonian monarchy, and resting on Macedonian power, he maintained
himself in his school at Athens, so long as he was supported by the
friendship of Antipater, the Macedonian regent in Alexander's absence.
But on Alexander's sudden death in 323, when Athens in the Lamian war
tried to reassert her freedom against Antipater, Aristotle found himself
in danger. He was accused of impiety on the absurd charge of deifying
the tyrant Hermias; and, remembering the fate of Socrates, he retired to
Chalcis in Euboea. There, away from his school, in 322 he died. (A tomb
has been found in our time inscribed with the name of Biote, daughter of
Aristotle. But is this _our_ Aristotle?)
Such is our scanty knowledge of Aristotle's life, which seems to have
been prosperous by inheritance and position, and happy by work and
philosophy. His will, which was quoted by Hermippus, and, as afterwards
quoted by Diogenes Laertius, has come down to us, though perhaps not
complete, supplies some further details, as follows:--Antipater is to be
executor with others. Nicanor is to marry Pythias, Aristotle's daughter,
and to take charge of Nicomachus his son. Theophrastus is to be one of
the executors if he will and can, and if Nicanor should die to act
instead, if he will, in reference to Pythias. The executors and Nicanor
are to take charge of Herpyllis, "because," in the words of the
testator, "she has been good to me," and to allow her to reside either
in the lodging by the garden at Chalcis or in the paternal house at
Stagira. They are to provide for the slaves, who in some cases are to be
freed. They are to see after the dedication of four images by Gryllion
of Nicanor, Proxenus, Nicanor's mother and Arimnestus. They are to
dedicate an image of Aristotle's mother, and to see that the bones of
his wife Pythias are, as she ordered, taken up and buried with him. On
this will we may remark that Proxenus is said to have been Aristotle's
guardian after the death of his father, and to have been the father of
Nicanor; that Herpyllis of Stagira was the mother of Nicomachus by
Aristotle; and that Arimnestus was the brother of Aristotle, who also
had a sister, Arimneste. Every clause breathes the philosopher's
humanity.
II. DEVELOPMENT FROM PLATONISM
Turning now from the man to the philosopher as we know him best in his
extant writings (see _Aristoteles_, ed. Bekker, Berlin, 1831, the pages
of which we use for our quotations), we find, instead of the general
dialogues of Plato, special didactic treatises, and a fundamental
difference of philosophy, so great as to have divided philosophers into
opposite camps, and made Coleridge say that everybody is born either a
Platonist or an Aristotelian. Platonism is the doctrine that the
individuals we call things only become, but a thing is always one
universal form beyond many individuals, e.g. one good beyond seeming
goods; and that without supernatural forms, which are models of
individuals, there is nothing, no being, no knowing, no good.
Aristotelianism is the contrary doctrine: a thing is always a separate
individual, a _substance_ ([Greek: ousia]), natural such as earth or
supernatural such as God; and without these individual substances, which
have attributes and universals belonging to them, there is nothing, to
be, to know, to be good. Philosophic differences are best felt by their
practical effects: philosophically, Platonism is a philosophy of
universal forms, Aristotelianism a philosophy of individual substances:
practically, Plato makes us think first of the supernatural and the
kingdom of heaven, Aristotle of the natural and the whole world.
So diametrical a difference could not have arisen at once. For, though
Aristotle was different from Plato, and brought with him from Stagira a
Greek and Ionic but colonial origin, a medical descent and tendency, and
a matter-of-fact worldly kind of character, nevertheless on coming to
Athens as pupil of Plato he must have begun with his master's
philosophy. What then in more detail was the philosophy which the pupil
learnt from the master? When Aristotle at the age of eighteen came to
Athens, Plato, at the age of sixty-two, had probably written all his
dialogues except the _Laws_; and in the course of the remaining twenty
years of his life and teaching, he expounded "the so-called unwritten
dogmas" in his lectures on the Good. There was therefore a written
Platonism for Aristotle to read, and an unwritten Platonism which he
actually heard.
To begin with the written philosophy of the Dialogues. Individual
so-called things neither are nor are not, but become: the real thing is
always one universal form beyond the many individuals, e.g. the one
beautiful beyond all beautiful individuals; and each form ([Greek:
idea]) is a model which causes individuals by participation to become
like, but not the same as, itself. Above all forms stands the form of
the good, which is the cause of all other forms being, and through them
of all individuals becoming. The creator, or the divine intellect, with
a view to the form of the good, and taking all forms as models, creates
in a receptacle ([Greek: hypodochae], Plato, _Timaeus_, 49 A) individual
impressions which are called things but really change and become without
attaining the permanence of being. Knowledge resides not in sense but in
reason, which, on the suggestion of sensations of changing individuals,
apprehends, or (to be precise) is reminded of, real universal forms,
and, by first ascending from less to more general until it arrives at
the form of good and then descending from this unconditional principle
to the less general, becomes science and philosophy, using as its method
the dialectic which gives and receives questions and answers between man
and man. Happiness in this world consists proximately in virtue as a
harmony between the three parts, rational, spirited and appetitive, of
our souls, and ultimately in living according to the form of the good;
but there is a far higher happiness, when the immortal soul, divesting
itself of body and passions and senses, rises from earth to heaven and
contemplates pure forms by pure reason. Such in brief is the Platonism
of the written dialogues; where the main doctrine of forms is
confessedly advanced never as a dogma but always as a hypothesis, in
which there are difficulties, but without which Plato can explain
neither being, nor truth nor goodness, because throughout he denies the
being of individual things. In the unwritten lectures of his old age, he
developed this formal into a mathematical metaphysics. In order to
explain the unity and variety of the world, the one universal form and
the many individuals, and how the one good is the main cause of
everything, he placed as it were at the back of his own doctrine of
forms a Pythagorean mathematical philosophy. He supposed that the one
and the two, which is indeterminate, and is the great and little, are
opposite principles or causes. Identifying the form of the good with the
one, he supposed that the one, by combining with the indeterminate two,
causes a plurality of forms, which like every combination of one and two
are numbers but peculiar in being incommensurate with one another, so
that each form is not a mathematical number ([Greek: mathaematikos
arithmos]), but a formal number ([Greek: eidaetikos arithmos]). Further
he supposed that in its turn each form, or formal number, is a limited
one which, by combining again with the indeterminate two, causes a
plurality of individuals. Hence finally he concluded that the good as
the one combining with the indeterminate two is directly the cause of
all forms as formal numbers, and indirectly through them all of the
multitude of individuals in the world.
Aristotle knew Plato, was present at his lectures on the Good, wrote a
report of them ([Greek: peri tagathou]), and described this latter
philosophy of Plato in his _Metaphysics_. Modern critics, who were not
present and knew neither, often accuse Aristotle of misrepresenting
Plato. But Heracleides and Hestiacus, Speusippus and Xenocrates were
also present and wrote similar reports. What is more, both Speusippus
and Xenocrates founded their own philosophies on this very
Pythagoreanism of Plato. Speusippus as president of the Academy from 347
to 339 taught that the one and the many are principles, while abolishing
forms and reducing the good from cause to effect. Xenocrates as
president from 339 onwards taught that the one and many are principles,
only without distinguishing mathematical from formal numbers.
Aristotle's critics hardly realize that for the rest of his life he had
to live and to struggle with a formal and a mathematical Platonism,
which exaggerated first universals and attributes and afterwards the
quantitative attributes, one and many, into substantial things and real
causes.
Aristotle had no sympathy with the unwritten dogmas of Plato. But with
the written dialogues of Plato he always continued to agree almost as
much as he disagreed. Like Plato, he believed in real universals, real
essences, real causes; he believed in the unity of the universal, and in
the immateriality of essences; he believed in the good, and that there
is a good of the universe; he believed that God is a living being,
eternal and best, who is a supernatural cause of the motions and changes
of the natural world, and that essences and matter are also necessary
causes; he believed in the divine intelligence and in the immortality of
our intelligent souls; he believed in knowledge going from sense to
reason, that science requires ascent to principles and is descent from
principles, and that dialectic is useful to science; he believed in
happiness involving virtue, and in moral virtue being a control of
passions by reason, while the highest happiness is speculative wisdom.
All these inspiring metaphysical and moral doctrines the pupil accepted
from his master's dialogues, and throughout his life adhered to the
general spirit of realism without materialism pervading the Platonic
philosophy. But what he refused to believe with Plato was that reality
is not here, but only above; and what he maintained against Plato was
that it is both, and that universals and forms, one and many, the good,
are real but not separate realities. This deep metaphysical divergence
was the prime cause of the transition from Platonism to Aristotelianism.
_Fragmenta Aristotelis._--Aristotle's originality soon asserted itself
in early writings, of which fragments have come down to us, and have
been collected by Rose (see the Berlin edition of Aristotle's works, or
more readily in the Teubner series, which we shall use for our
quotations). Many, no doubt, are spurious; but some are genuine, and a
few perhaps cited in Aristotle's extant works. Some are dialogues,
others didactic works. A special interest attaches to the dialogues
written after the manner of Plato but with Aristotle as principal
interlocutor; and some of these, e.g. the [Greek: peri poiaeton] and the
_Eudemus_, seem to have been published. It is not always certain which
were dialogues, which didactic like Aristotle's later works; but by
comparing those which were certainly dialogues with their companions in
the list of Aristotle's books as given by Diogenes Laertius, we may
conclude with Bernays that the books occurring first in that list were
dialogues. Hence we may perhaps accept as genuine the following:--
1. Dialogues:--
[Greek: peri dikaiosunaes]: On justice.
[Greek: peri poiaeton]: On poets (perhaps cited in _Poetics_, 15,
1454 b 18, [Greek: en tois ekdekomenois logois]).
[Greek: peri philosophias]: On philosophy (perhaps cited in
_Physics_, ii. 2, 194 a 35-36).
[Greek: peri politikou]: A politician.
[Greek: peri rhaetorikaes hae Grullos]: On rhetoric.
[Greek: protreptikos]: An exhortation to philosophy (probably in
dialogue, because it is the model of Cicero's dialogue
_Hortensius_).
[Greek: Eudaemos hae peri Psuchaes]: On soul (perhaps cited in _De
Anima_, i. 4, 407 b 29, [Greek: kai tois en koino levomenois
logois]).
2. Didactic writings:--
(1) Metaphysical:--
[Greek: peri tagathou]: On the good (probably not a dialogue but a
report of Plato's lectures).
[Greek: peri ideon]: On forms.
(2) Political:--
[Greek: peri basileias]: On monarchy.
[Greek: Alexandros hae hyper apoikon]: On colonies.
(3) Rhetorical:--
[Greek: technaes taes theodektou sunagogae]: The _Theodectea_
(cited in the Preface to the _Rhetoric to Alexander_ (chap.
i.)), and as [Greek: ta theodekteia] in the _Rhetoric_ (iii. 9,
1410 b 2),
[Greek: technon sunagogae]: A historical collection of arts of
rhetoric.
Difficult as it is to determine when Aristotle wrote all these various
works, some of them indicate their dates. Gryllus, celebrated in the
dialogue on rhetoric, was Xenophon's son who fell at Mantineia in 362;
and Eudemus of Cyprus, lamented in the dialogue on soul, died in Sicily
in 352. These then were probably written before Plato died in 347; and
so probably were most of the dialogues, precisely because they were
imitations of the dialogues of Plato. Among the didactic writings, the
[Greek: peri tagathou] would probably belong to the same time, because
it was Aristotle's report of Plato's lectures. On the other hand, the
two political works, if written for Alexander, would be after 343-342
when Philip made Aristotle his tutor. So probably were the rhetorical
works, especially the _Theodectea_; since both politics and oratory were
the subjects which the father wanted the tutor to teach his son, and,
when Alexander came to Phaselis, he is said by Plutarch (_Alexander_,
17) to have decorated the statue of Theodectes in honour of his
association with the man through Aristotle and philosophy. On the whole,
then, it seems as if Aristotle began with dialogues during his second
period under Plato, but gradually came to prefer writing didactic works,
especially in the third period after Plato's death, and in connexion
with Alexander.
These early writings show clearly how Aristotle came to depart from
Plato. In the first place as regards style, though the Stagirite pupil
Aristotle could never rival his Attic master in literary form, yet he
did a signal service to philosophy in gradually passing from the vague
generalities of the dialogue to the scientific precision of the didactic
treatise. The philosophy of Plato is dialogue trying to become science;
that of Aristotle science retaining traces of dialectic. Secondly as
regards subject-matter, even in his early writings Aristotle tends to
widen the scope of philosophic inquiry, so as not only to embrace
metaphysics and politics, but also to encourage rhetoric and poetics,
which Plato tended to discourage or limit. Thirdly as regards doctrines,
the surpassing interest of these early writings is that they show the
pupil partly agreeing, partly disagreeing, with his master. The
_Eudemus_ and _Protrepticus_ are with Plato; the dialogues _on
Philosophy_ and the treatise _on Forms_ are against Plato.
The _Eudemus_, on the soul (_Fragmenta_, 37 seq.), must have been in
style and thought the most Platonic of all the Aristotelian writings.
Plato's theory of the soul and its immortality was not the ordinary
Greek view derived from Homer, who regarded the body as the self, the
soul as a shade having a future state but an obscure existence, and
stamped that view on the hearts of his countrymen, and affected
Aristotle himself. After Homer there had come to Greece the new view
that the soul is more real than the body, that it is imprisoned in the
carcase as a prison-house, that it is capable of enjoying a happier
life freed from the body, and that it can transmigrate from body to
body. This strange, exotic, ascetic view was adopted by some
philosophers, and especially by the Pythagoreans, and so transmitted
to Plato. Aristotle in the _Eudemus_, written about 352, when he was
thirty-two, also believed in it. Accordingly, the soul of Eudemus,
when it left his body, is said to be returning home: the soul is made
subject to the casting of lots, and in coming from the other world to
this it is supposed to forget its former visions: but its disembodied
life is regarded as its natural life in a better world. The _Eudemus_
also contained a celebrated passage, preserved by Plutarch (_Consolat.
ad Apoll._.27; _Fragm._ 44). Here we can read the young Aristotle,
writing in the form of the dialogue like Plato, avoiding hiatus like
Isocrates, and justifying the praises accorded to his style by Cicero,
Quintilian and Dionysius. It shows how nearly the pupil could imitate
his master's dialogues, and still more how exactly he at first
embraced his master's doctrines. It makes Silenus, captured by Midas,
say that the best of all things is not to have been born, and the next
best, having been born, to die as soon as possible. Nothing could be
more like Plato's _Phaedo_, or more unlike Aristotle's later work _on
the Soul_, which entirely rejects transmigration and allows the next
life to sink into the background.
Hardly less Platonic is the _Protrepticus_ (_Fragm._ 50 seq.), an
exhortation to philosophy which, according to Zeno the Stoic, was
studied by his master Crates. It is an exhortation, whose point is
that the chief good is philosophy, the contemplation of the universe
by divine and immortal intellect. This is indeed a doctrine of
Platonic ethics from which Aristotle in his later days never swerved.
But in the _Protrepticus_ he goes on to say that seeming goods, such
as strength, size, beauty, honours, opinions, are mere illusion
([Greek: okiagraphia]), worthless and ridiculous, as we should know if
we had Lyncean eyes to compare them with the vision of the eternal.
This indifference to goods of body and estate is quite Platonic, but
is very different from Aristotle's later ethical doctrine that such
goods, though not the essence, are nevertheless necessary conditions
of happiness. Finally, in the spirit of Plato's _Phaedo_ and the
dialogue _Eudemus_, the _Protrepticus_ holds that the soul is bound to
the sentient members of the body as prisoners in Etruria are bound
face to face with corpses; whereas the later view of the _De Anima_ is
that the soul is the vital principle of the body and the body the
necessary organ of the soul.
Thus we find that at first, under the influence of his master,
Aristotle held somewhat ascetic views on soul and body and on goods of
body and estate, entirely opposed both in psychology and in ethics to
the moderate doctrines of his later writings. This perhaps is one
reason why Cicero, who had Aristotle's early writings, saw no
difference between the Academy and the Peripatetics (_Acad. Post_, i.
4, 17-18).
On the other hand, the dialogue _on Philosophy_ ([Greek: peri
philosophias], _Fragm._ 1 seq.) strikingly exhibits the origin of
Aristotle's divergence from Platonism, and that too in Plato's
lifetime. The young son of a doctor from the colonies proved too fond
of this world to stomach his Athenian master's philosophy of the
supernatural. Accordingly in this dialogue he attacked Plato's
fundamental position, both in its written and in its unwritten
presentment, as a hypothesis both of forms and of formal numbers.
First, he attacked the hypothesis of forms ([Greek: taen ton ideon
hypothesin], _Fragm._ 8), exclaiming in his dialogues, according to
Proclus, that he could not sympathize with the dogma even if it should
be thought that he was opposing it out of contentiousness; while
Plutarch says that his attacks on the forms by means of his exoteric
dialogues were thought by some persons more contentious than
philosophical, as presuming to disdain Plato's philosophy: so far was
he, says Plutarch, from following it. Secondly, in the same dialogue
(_Fragm._ 9), according to Syrianus, he disagreed with the hypothesis
of formal numbers ([Greek: tois eidaetikois arithmois]). If, wrote
Aristotle, the forms are another sort of number, not mathematical,
there would be no understanding of it. Lastly, in the same dialogue
(_Fragm._ 18 seq.) he revealed his emphasis on nature by contending
that the universe is uncreate and indestructible. According to Plato,
God caused the natural world to become: according to Aristotle it is
eternal. This eternity of the world became one of his characteristic
doctrines, and subsequently enabled him to explain how essences can be
eternal without being separate from this world which is also eternal
(cf. _Metaph._ [Zeta] 8). Thus early did Aristotle begin, even in
Plato's lifetime, to oppose Plato's hypothesis of supernatural forms,
and advance his own hypothesis of the eternity of the world.
He made another attack on Platonism in the didactic work [Greek: peri
ideon], (_Fragm._ 185 seq.), contending that the Platonic arguments
prove not forms ([Greek: ideai]) but only things common ([Greek: ta
koina]). Here, according to Alexander the commentator, he first
brought against Plato the argument of "the third man" ([Greek: ho
tritos anthropos]); that, if there is the form, one man beyond many
men, there will be a third man predicated of both man and men, and a
fourth predicated of all three, and so on to infinity (_Fragm._ 188).
Here, too, he examined the hypothesis of Eudoxus that things are
caused by mixture of forms, a hypothesis which formed a kind of
transition to his own later views, but failed to satisfy him on
account of its difficulties. Lastly, in the didactic work [Greek: peri
tagathou] (_Fragm._ 27 seq.), containing his report of Plato's
lectures on the Good, he was dealing with the same mathematical
metaphysics which in his dialogue _on Philosophy_ he criticized for
converting forms into formal numbers. Aristoxenus, at the beginning of
the second book of the _Harmonics_, gives a graphic account of the
astonishment caused by these lectures of Plato, and of their effect on
the lectures of Aristotle. In contending, as Aristotle's pupil, that a
teacher should begin by proposing his subject, he tells us how
Aristotle used to relate that most of Plato's hearers came expecting
to get something about human goods and happiness, but that when the
discourses turned out to be all about mathematics, with the conclusion
that good is one, it appeared to them a paradox, which some despised
and others condemned. The reason, he adds, was that they were not
informed by Plato beforehand; and for this very reason, Aristotle, as
he told Aristoxenus himself, used to prepare his hearers by informing
them of the nature of the subject. From this rare personal
reminiscence we see at a glance that the mind of Plato and the mind of
Aristotle were so different, that their philosophies must diverge; the
one towards the supernatural, the abstract, the discursive, and the
other towards the natural, the substantial, the scientific.
Aristotle then even in the second period of his life, while Plato was
still alive, began to differ from him in metaphysics. He rejected the
Platonic hypothesis of forms, and affirmed that they are not separate
but common, without however as yet having advanced to a constructive
metaphysics of his own; while at the same time, after having at first
adopted his master's dialectical treatment of metaphysical problems,
he soon passed from dialogues to didactic works, which had the result
of separating metaphysics from dialectic. The all-important
consequence of this first departure from Platonism was that Aristotle
became and remained primarily a metaphysician. After Plato's death,
coming to his third period he made a further departure from Platonism
in his didactic works on politics and rhetoric, written in connexion
with Alexander and Theodectes. Those on politics (_Fragm._ 646-648)
were designed to instruct Alexander on monarchy and on colonization;
and in them Aristotle agreed with Plato in assigning a moral object to
the state, but departed from him by saying that a king need not be a
philosopher, as Plato had said in the _Republic_, but does need to
listen to philosophers. Still more marked was his departure from Plato
as regards rhetoric. Plato in the _Gorgias_, (501 [Alpha]) had
contended that rhetoric is not an art but an empirical practice
([Greek: tribae kai empeiria]); Aristotle in the _Gryllus_ (_Fragm._
68-69), written in his second period, took according to Quintilian a
similar view. But in his third period, in the _Theodectea_ (_Fragm._
125 seq.), rhetoric is treated as an art, and is laid out somewhat in
the manner of his later _Art of Rhetoric_; while he also showed his
interest in the subject by writing a history of other arts of rhetoric
called [Greek: technon ounagogae] (_Fragm._ 136 seq.). Further, in
treating rhetoric as an art in the _Theodectea_ he was forced into a
conclusion, which carried him far beyond Plato's rigid notions of
proof and of passion: he concluded that it is the work of an orator to
use persuasion, and to arouse the passions ([Greek: to ta pathae
diageirai]), e.g. anger and pity (_ib._ 133-134). Nor could he treat
poetry as he is said to have done without the same result.
On the whole then, in his early dialectical and didactic writings, of
which mere fragments remain, Aristotle had already diverged from Plato,
and first of all in metaphysics. During his master's life, in the second
period of his own life, he protested against the Platonic hypothesis of
forms, formal numbers and the one as the good, and tended to separate
metaphysics from dialectic by beginning to pass from dialogues to
didactic works. After his master's death, in the third period of his own
life, and during his connexion with Alexander, but before the final
construction of his philosophy into a system, he was tending to write
more and more in the didactic style; to separate from dialectic, not
only metaphysics, but also politics, rhetoric and poetry; to admit by
the side of philosophy the arts of persuasive language; to think it part
of their legitimate work to rouse the passions; and in all these ways to
depart from the ascetic rigidity of the philosophy of Plato, so as to
prepare for the tolerant spirit of his own, and especially for his
ethical doctrine that virtue consists not in suppressing but in
moderating almost all human passions. In both periods, too, as we shall
find in the sequel, he was already occupied in composing some of the
extant writings which were afterwards to form parts of his final
philosophical system. But as yet he had given no sign of system,
and--what is surprising--no trace of logic. Aristotle was primarily a
metaphysician against Plato; a metaphysician before he was a logician; a
metaphysician who made what he called primary philosophy ([Greek: protae
philosophia]) the starting-point of his philosophical development, and
ultimately of his philosophical system.
III. COMPOSITION OF HIS EXTANT WORKS
The system which was taught by Aristotle at Athens in the fourth period
of his life, and which is now known as the Aristotelian philosophy, is
contained not in fragments but in extant books. It will be best then to
give at once a list of these extant works, following the traditional
order in which they have long been arranged, and marking with a dagger
([+]) those which are now usually considered not to be genuine, though
not always with sufficient reason.
A. LOGICAL
1. [Greek: Kataegoriai]: _Categoriae_: On simple expressions
signifying different kinds of things and capable of predication
[probably an early work of Aristotle, accepting species and genera as
"secondary substances" in deference to Plato's teaching].
2. [Greek: peri Hermaeneias]: _De interpretatione_: On language as
expression of mind, and especially on the enunciation or assertion
([Greek: apophansis, apophantikos logos]) [rejected by Andronicus
according to Alexander; but probably an early work of Aristotle, based
on Plato's analysis of the sentence into noun and verb].
3. [Greek: Analytika protera]: _Analytica Priora_, On syllogism, with
a view to demonstration.
4. [Greek: Analytika ustera]: _Analytica Posteriora_: On
demonstration, or demonstrative or scientific syllogism ([Greek:
apodeixis, apodeiktikos ae epistaemonilos syllogismos]).
5. [Greek: Topika]: _Topica_: On dialectical syllogism ([Greek:
Dialektikos syllogismos]), so called from consisting mainly of
commonplaces ([Greek: topoi]. _loci_), or general sources of argument.
6. [Greek: Sophistikoi elenchoi]: _Sophistici Elenchi_: On sophistic
([Greek: sophistikos]) or eristic syllogism ([Greek: eristikos
syllogismos]), so called from the fallacies used by sophists in
refutation ([Greek: elenchos]) of their opponents.
[Numbers 1-6 were afterwards grouped together as the _Organon_.]
B. PHYSICAL
1. [Greek: Physikae akroasis]: _Physica Auscultatio_: On Nature as
cause of change, and the general principles of natural science.
2. [Greek: peri ouranou]: _De coelo_: On astronomy, &c.
3. [Greek: peri geneseos kai phthoras]: _De generatione et
corruptione_: On generation and destruction in general.
4. [Greek: Meteorologika]: _Meteorologica_: On sublunary changes.
5.[+] [Greek: peri kosmou]: _De mundo_: On the universe. [Supposed by
Zeller to belong to the latter half of the 1st century B.C.]
6. [Greek: peri psychês]: _De anima_: On soul, conjoined with organic
body.
7. [Greek: peri aisthêseos kai aisthêton]: _De sensu et sensili_: On
sense and objects of sense.
8. [Greek: peri mnaemaes kai anamnêseos]: _De memoria et
reminiscentia_: On memory and recollection.
9. [Greek: peri hypnou kai egrêgorseos]: _De somno et vigilia_: On
sleep and waking.
10. [Greek: peri enypnion]: _De insomniis_: On dreams.
11. [Greek: peri taes kath hypnon mantikês] or [Greek: peri mantikês
pês hen tois hypnois]: _De divinatione per somnum_: On prophecy in
sleep.
12. [Greek: peri makrobiotêtos kai brachybiotêtos]: _De longitudine et
brevitate vitae_: On length and shortness of life.
13. [Greek: peri neotêtos kai gêros kai peri zoaes kai thanatou]: _De
juventute et senectute et de vita et morte_: On youth and age, and on
life and death.
14. [Greek: peri anapnoês]: _De respiratione_: On respiration.
[Numbers 7-14 are grouped together as Parva naturalia.]
15.[+] [Greek: peri pneumatos]: _De spiritu_: On innate spirit
(_spiritus vitalis_).
16. [Greek: peri ta zoa istoriai]: _Historia animalium_: Description
of facts about animals, i.e. their organs. &c.
17. [Greek: peri zoon morion]. _De partibus animalium_: Philosophy of
the causes of the facts about animals, i.e. their functions.
18.[+] [Greek: peri zoon kinêseos]: _De animalium motione_: On the
motion of animals. [Ascribed to the school of Theophrastus and Strato
by Zeller.]
19. [Greek: peri zoon poreias]: _De animalium incessu_: On the going
of animals.
20. [Greek: peri zoon geneseos]: _De animalium generatione_: On the
generation of animals.
21.[+] [Greek: peri chromaton]: _De coloribus_: On colours. [Ascribed
to the school of Theophrastus and Strato by Zeller.]
22.[+] [Greek: peri akouston]: _De audibilibus_. [Ascribed to the
school of Theophrastus and Strato by Zeller.]
23.[+] [Greek: Physiognomonika]: _Physiognomonica_: On physiognomy,
and the sympathy of body and soul.
24.[+] [Greek: peri phytos]: _De plantis_: On plants. [Not Aristotle's
work on this subject.]
25.[+] [Greek: peri thaumasion akousmatos]: _De mirabilibus
ausculationibus_: On phenomena chiefly connected with natural history.
26.[+] [Greek: Maechanica]: _Quaestiones mechanicae_: Mechanical
questions.
C. MISCELLANEOUS
1.[+] [Greek: Problaemata]: _Problemata_: Problems on various subjects
[gradually collected by the Peripatetics from partly Aristotelian
materials, according to Zeller].
2.[+] [Greek: peri atomon grammon]: _De insecabilibus lineis_: On
indivisible lines. [Ascribed to Theophrastus, or his time, by Zeller.]
3.[+] [Greek: anemos theseis kai prosaegoriai]: _Ventorum situs et
appellationes_: A fragment on the winds.
4.[+] [Greek: peri Xenophanous, peri Zaenonos, peri Gorgiou]: _De
Xenophane, Zenone et Gorgia_: On Xenophanes, Zeno and Gorgias.
D. PRIMARY PHILOSOPHY OR THEOLOGY OR WISDOM
[Greek: ta meta ta physika]: _Metaphysica_: On being as being and its
properties, its causes and principles, and on God as the motive motor
of the world.
E. PRACTICAL
1. [Greek: Aethika Nikomacheia]: _Ethica Nicomachea_: On the good of
the individual.
2.[+] [Greek: Aethika megala]: _Magna Moralia_: On the same subject.
[According to Zeller, an abstract of the _Nicomachean_ and the
_Eudemian Ethics_, tending to follow the latter, but possibly an early
draft of the _Nicomachean Ethics_.]
3.[+] [Greek: Aethika Eudaemia] or [Greek: pros Eudaemos]: _Ethica ad
Eudemum_: On the same subject. [Usually supposed to be written by
Eudemus, but possibly an early draft of the _Nicomachean Ethics_.]
4.[+] [Greek: peri aretos kai kakios]: _De virtutibus et vitiis_: On
virtues and vices. [An eclectic work of the 1st century B.C., half
Academic and half Peripatetic, according to Zeller.]
5. [Greek: Politika]: _De re publica_: Politics, on the good of the
state.
6.[+] [Greek: Oikonomika]: _De cura rei familiaris_: Economics, on the
good of the family. [The first book a work of the school of
Theophrastus or Eudemus, the second later Peripatetic, according to
Zeller.]
F. ART
1. [Greek: technae Rhaetorikae]: _Ars rhetorica_: On the art of
oratory.
2.[+] [Greek: Rhaetorikae pros: Alexandron:] _Rhetorica ad
Alexandrum_: On the same subject. [Ascribed to Anaximenes of Lampsacus
(fl. 365, Diodorus xv. 76) by Petrus Victorius, and Spengel, but
possibly an earlier rhetoric by Aristotle.]
3. [Greek: peri Poiaetikaes]: _De poetica_: On the art of poetry
[fragmentary].
G. HISTORICAL
[Greek: Athaenaion politeia:] _De republica Atheniensium_: On the
Constitution of Athens. [One of the [Greek: Politeiai], said to have
been 158 at least, the genuineness of which is attested by the defence
which Polybius (xii.) makes of Aristotle's history of the Epizephyrian
Locrians against Timaeus, Aristotle's contemporary and critic.
Hitherto, only fragments have come down to us (cf. _Fragm_. 381-603).
The present treatise, without however its beginning and end, written
on a papyrus discovered in Egypt and now in the British Museum, was
first edited by F.G. Kenyon 1890-1891.] (See the article CONSTITUTION
OF ATHENS.)
_The Difficulty._--The genuineness of the Aristotelian works, as
Leibnitz truly said (_De Stilo Phil. Nizolii_, xxx.), is ascertained by
the conspicuous harmony of their theories, and by their uniform method
of swift subtlety. Nevertheless difficulties lurk beneath their general
unity of thought and style. In style they are not quite the same: now
they are brief and now diffuse: sometimes they are carelessly written,
sometimes so carefully as to avoid hiatus, e.g. the _Metaphysics_ A, and
parts of the _De Coelo_ and _Parva Naturalia_, which in this respect
resemble the fragment quoted by Plutarch from the early dialogue
_Eudemus_ (_Fragm_. 44). They also appear to contain displacements,
interpolations, prefaces such as that to the _Meteorologica_, and
appendices such as that to the _Sophistical Elenchi_, which may have
been added. An Aristotelian work often goes on continuously at first,
and then becomes disappointing by suddenly introducing discussions which
break the connexion or are even inconsistent with the beginning; as in
the _Posterior Analytics_, which, after developing a theory of
demonstration from necessary principles, suddenly makes the admission,
which is also the main theory of science in the _Metaphysics_, that
demonstration is about either the necessary or the contingent, from
principles either necessary or contingent, only not accidental. At times
order is followed by disorder, as in the _Politics_. Again, there are
repetitions and double versions, e.g. those of the _Physics_, vii., and
those of the _De Anima_, ii., discovered by Torstrik; or two discussions
of the same subject, e.g. of pleasure in the _Nicomachean Ethics_, vii.
and x.; or several treatises on the same subject very like one another,
viz. the _Nicomachean Ethics_, the _Eudemian Ethics_ and the _Magna
Moralia_; or, strangest of all, a consecutive treatise and other
discourses amalgamated, e.g. in the _Metaphysics_, where a systematic
theory of being running through several books ( [Beta, Gamma, Epsilon,
Zeta, Eta, Theta]) is preceded, interrupted and followed by other
discussions of the subject. Further, there are frequently several titles
of the same work or of different parts of it. Sometimes diagrams
([Greek: diagraphai] or [Greek: hypographai]) are mentioned, and
sometimes given (e.g. in _De Interp_. 13, 22 a 22; _Nicomachean Ethics_,
ii. 7; _Eudemian Ethics_, ii. 3), but sometimes only implied (e.g. in
_Hist. An._ i. 17, 497 a 32; iii. 1, 510 a 30; iv. 1, 525 a 9). The
different works are more or less connected by a system of references,
which give rise to difficulties, especially when they are
cross-references: for example, the _Analytics_ and _Topics_ quote one
another: so do the _Physics_ and the _Metaphysics_; the _De Vita_ and
_De Respiratione_ and the _De Partibus Animalium_; this latter treatise
and the _De Animalium Incessu_; the _De Interpretatione_ and the _De
Anima_. A late work may quote an earlier; but how, it may be asked, can
the earlier reciprocally quote the later?
Besides these difficulties in and between the works there are others
beyond them. On the one hand, there is the curious story given partly by
Strabo (608-609) and partly in Plutarch's _Sulla_ (c. 26), that
Aristotle's successor Theophrastus left the books of both to their joint
pupil, Neleus of Scepsis, where they were hidden in a cellar, till in
Sulla's time they were sold to Apellicon, who made new copies,
transferred after Apellicon's death by Sulla to Rome, and there edited
and published by Tyrannio and Andronicus. On the other hand, there are
the curious and puzzling catalogues of Aristotelian books, one given by
Diogenes Laertius, another by an anonymous commentator (perhaps
Hesychius of Miletus) quoted in the notes of Gilles Ménage on Diogenes
Laertius, and known as "Anonymus Menagii," and a third copied by two
Arabian writers from Ptolemy, perhaps King Ptolemy Philadelphus, son of
the founder of the library at Alexandria. (See Rose, _Fragm_. pp. 1-22.)
But the extraordinary thing is that, without exactly agreeing among
themselves, the catalogues give titles which do not agree well with the
Aristotelian works as we have them. A title in some cases suits a given
work or a part of it; but in other cases there are no titles for works
which exist, or titles for works which do not exist.
These difficulties are complicated by various hypotheses concerning the
composition of the Aristotelian works. Zeller supposes that, though
Aristotle may have made preparations for his philosophical system
beforehand, still the properly didactic treatises composing it almost
all belong to the last period of his life, i.e. from 335-334 to 322; and
from the references of one work to another Zeller has further suggested
a chronological order of composition during this period of twelve years,
beginning with the treatises on Logic and Physics, and ending with that
on Metaphysics. There is a further hypothesis that the Aristotelian
works were not originally treatises, but notes of lectures either for or
by his pupils. This easily passes into the further and still more
sceptical hypothesis that the works, as we have them, under Aristotle's
name, are rather the works of the Peripatetic school, from Aristotle,
Theophrastus and Eudemus downwards. "We cannot assert with certainty,"
says R. Shute in his _History of the Aristotelian Writings_ (p. 176),
"that we have even got throughout a treatise in the exact words of
Aristotle, though we may be pretty clear that we have a fair
representation of his thought. The unity of style observable may belong
quite as much to the school and the method as to the individual." This
sceptical conclusion, the contrary of that drawn by Leibnitz from the
harmony of thought and style pervading the works, shows us that the
Homeric question has been followed by the Aristotelian question.
_The Solution._--Such hypotheses attend to Aristotle's philosophy to the
neglect of his life. He was really, as we have seen, a prolific writer
from the time when he was a young man under Plato's guidance at Athens;
beginning with dialogues in the manner of his master, but afterwards
preferring to write didactic works during the prime of his own life
between thirty-eight and fifty (347-335-334), and with the further
advantage of leisure at Atarneus and Mitylene, in Macedonia and at home
in Stagira. When at fifty he returned to Athens, as head of the
Peripatetic school, he no doubt wrote much of his extant philosophy
during the twelve remaining years of his life (335-322). But he was then
a busy teacher, was growing old, and suffered from a disease in the
stomach for a considerable time before it proved fatal at the age of
sixty-three. It is therefore improbable that he could between fifty and
sixty-three have written almost the whole of the many books on many
subjects constituting that grand philosophical system which is one of
the most wonderful works of man. It is far more probable that he was
previously composing them at his leisure and in the vigour of manhood,
precisely as his contemporary Demosthenes composed all his great
speeches except the _De Corona_ before he was fifty.
Turning to Aristotle's own works, we immediately light upon a surprise:
Aristotle began his extant scientific works during Plato's lifetime. By
a curious coincidence, in two different works he mentions two different
events as contemporary with the time of writing, one in 357 and the
other in 356. In the _Politics_ ([Epsilon] 10, 1312 b 10), he mentions
as now ([Greek: nun]) Dion's expedition to Sicily which occurred in 357.
In the _Meteorologica_ (iii. 1, 371 a 30), he mentions as now ([Greek:
nun]) the burning of the temple at Ephesus, which occurred in 356. To
save his hypothesis of late composition, Zeller resorts to the vagueness
of the word "now" ([Greek: nun]). But Aristotle is graphically
describing isolated events, and could hardly speak of events of 357 and
356 as happening "now" in or near 335. Moreover, these two works contain
further proofs that they were both begun earlier than this date. The
_Politics_ ([Beta] 10) mentions as having happened lately ([Greek:
neosti]) the expedition of Phalaecus to Crete, which occurred towards
the end of the Sacred War in 346. The _Meteorologica_ ([Gamma] 7)
mentions the comet of 341. It is true that the _Politics_ also mentions
much later events, e.g. the assassination of Philip which took place in
336 ([Epsilon] 10, 1311 b 1-3). Indeed, the whole truth about this great
work is that it remained unfinished at Aristotle's death. But what of
that? The logical conclusion is that Aristotle began writing it as early
as 357, and continued writing it in 346, in 336, and so on till he died.
Similarly, he began the _Meteorologica_ as early as 356 and was still
writing it in 341. Both books were commenced some years before Plato's
death: both were works of many years: both were destined to form parts
of the Aristotelian system of philosophy. It follows that Aristotle,
from early manhood, not only wrote dialogues and didactic works,
surviving only in fragments, but also began some of the philosophical
works which are still parts of his extant writings. He continued these
and no doubt began others during the prime of his life. Having thus
slowly matured his separate writings, he was the better able to combine
them more and more into a system, in his last years. No doubt, however,
he went on writing and rewriting well into the last period of his life;
for example, the recently discovered [Greek: Athaenaion politeia]
mentions on the one hand (c. 54) the archonship of Cephisophon
(329-328), on the other hand (c. 46) triremes and quadriremes but
without quinqueremes, which first appeared at Athens in 325-324; and as
it mentions nothing later it probably received its final touches between
320 and 324. But it may have been begun long before, and received
additions and changes. However early Aristotle began a book, so long as
he kept the manuscript, he could always change it. Finally he died
without completing some of his works, such as the _Politics_, and
notably that work of his whole philosophic career and foundation of his
whole philosophy--the _Metaphysics_--which, projected in his early
criticism of Plato's philosophy of universal forms, gradually developed
into his positive philosophy of individual substances, but remained
unfinished after all.
On the whole, then, Aristotle was writing his extant works very
gradually for some thirty-five years (357-322), like Herodotus (iv. 30)
contemplated additions, continued writing them more or less together,
not so much successively as simultaneously, and had not finished writing
at his death.
There is a curious characteristic connected with this gradual
composition. An Aristotelian treatise frequently has the appearance of
being a collection of smaller discourses ([Greek: logoi]), as, e.g.,
K.L. Michelet has remarked.
This is obvious enough in the _Metaphysics_: it has two openings (Books
[Alpha] and [alpha]); then comes a nearly consecutive theory of being
([Beta], [Gamma], [Epsilon], [Zeta], [Eta], [Theta]), but interrupted by
a philosophical lexicon [Delta]; afterwards follows a theory of unity
([Iota]); then a summary of previous books and of doctrines from the
_Physics_ ([Kappa]); next a new beginning about being, and, what is
wanted to complete the system, a theory of God in relation to the world
([Lambda]); finally a criticism of mathematical metaphysics ([Mu],
[Nu]), in which the argument against Plato ([Alpha] 9) is repeated
almost word for word ([Mu] 4-5). The _Metaphysics_ is clearly a
compilation formed from essays or discourses; and it illustrates another
characteristic of Aristotle's gradual method of composition. It refers
back to passages "in the first discourses" ([Greek: en tois protois
logois]) --an expression not uncommon in Aristotelian writings.
Sometimes the reference is to the beginning of the whole treatise; e.g.
_Met_. [Beta] 2, 997 b 3-5, referring back to [Alpha] 6 and 9 about
Platonic forms. Sometimes, on the other hand, the reference only goes
back to a previous part of a given topic, e.g. _Met_. [Theta] 1, 1045 b
27-32, referring back to [Zeta] 1, or at the earliest to [Gamma] 2. On
either alternative, however, "the first discourses" mentioned may have
originally been a separate discourse; for Book [Gamma] begins quite
fresh with the definition of the science of being, long afterwards
called "Metaphysics," and Book [Zeta] begins Aristotle's fundamental
doctrine of substance.
Another indication of a treatise having arisen out of separate
discourses is its consisting of different parts imperfectly connected.
Thus the _Nicomachean Ethics_ begins by identifying the good with
happiness ([Greek: eudaimonia]), and happiness with virtuous action. But
when it comes to the moral virtues (Book iii. 6), a new motive of the
"honourable" ([Greek: tou kalou eneka]) is suddenly introduced without
preparation, where one would expect the original motive of happiness.
Then at the end of the moral virtues justice is treated at inordinate
length, and in a different manner from the others, which are regarded as
means between two vices, whereas justice appears as a mean only because
it is of the middle between too much and too little. Later, the
discussion on friendship (Books viii.-ix.) is again inordinate in
length, and it stands alone. Lastly, pleasure, after having been first
defined (Book vii.) as an activity, is treated over again (Book x.) as
an end beyond activity, with a warning against confusing activity and
pleasure. The probability is that the _Nicomachean Ethics_ is a
collection of separate discourses worked up into a tolerably systematic
treatise; and the interesting point is that these discourses correspond
to separate titles in the list of Diogenes Laertius ([Greek: peri kalou,
peri dikaion, peri philias, peri haedonaes, and peri haedonon]). The
same list also refers to tentative notes ([Greek: upomnaemata
epicheiraematika]), and the commentators speak of ethical notes ([Greek:
aethika upomnaemata]). Indeed, they sometimes divide Aristotle's works
into notes ([Greek: upomnaematika]) and compilations ([Greek:
syntagmatika]). How can it be doubted that in the gradual composition of
his works Aristotle began with notes ([Greek: upomnaematika]) and
discourses ([Greek: logoi]), and proceeded to treatises ([Greek:
pragmateiai])? He would even be drawn into this process by his writing
materials, which were papyrus rolls of some magnitude; he would tend to
write discourses on separate rolls, and then fasten them together in a
bundle into a treatise.
If then Aristotle was for some thirty-five years gradually and
simultaneously composing manuscript discourses into treatises and
treatises into a system, he was pursuing a process which solves
beforehand the very difficulties which have since been found in his
writings. He could very easily write in different styles at different
times, now avoiding hiatus and now not, sometimes writing diffusely and
sometimes briefly, partly polishing and partly leaving in the rough,
according to the subject, his own state of health or humour, his age,
and the degree to which he had developed a given topic; and all this
even in the same manuscript as well as in different manuscripts, so that
a difference of style between different parts of a work or between
different works, explicable by one being earlier than another, does not
prove either to be not genuine. As he might write, so might he think
differently in his long career. To put one extreme case, about the soul
he could think at first in the _Eudemus_ like Plato that it is
imprisoned in the body, and long afterwards in the _De Anima_ like
himself that it is the immateriate essence of the material bodily
organism. Again, he might be inconsistent; now, for example, calling a
universal a substance in deference to Plato, and now denying that a
universal can be a substance in consequence of his own doctrine that
every substance is an individual; and so as to contradict himself in the
same treatise, though not in the same breath or at the same moment of
thinking. Again, in developing his discourses into larger treatises he
might fall into dislocations; although it must be remembered that these
are often inventions of critics who do not understand the argument, as
when they make out that the treatment of reciprocal justice in the
_Ethics_ (v. 5-6) needs rearrangement through their not noticing that,
according to Aristotle, reciprocal justice, being the fairness of a
commercial bargain, is not part of absolute or political justice, but is
part of analogical or economical justice. Or he might make repetitions,
as in the same book, where he twice applies the principle, that so far
as the agent does the patient suffers, first to the corrective justice
of the law court (_Eth_. v. 4) in order to prove that in a wrong the
injurer gains as much as the injured loses, and immediately afterwards
to the reciprocal justice of commerce (_ib_. 5) in order to prove that
in a bargain a house must be exchanged for as many shoes as equal it in
value. Or he might himself, without double versions, repeat the same
argument with a different shade of meaning; as when in the _Nic. Ethics_
(vii. 4) he first argues that incontinence about such natural pleasures
as that of gain is only modified incontinence, a sign (as _causa
cognoscendi_) of which is that it is not so bad as incontinence about
carnal pleasures, and then argues that, because (as _causa essendi_) it
is only modified incontinence, therefore it is not so bad. Or he might
return again and again to the same point with a difference: there is a
good instance in his conclusion that the speculative life is the highest
happiness; which he first infers because it is the life of man's highest
and divine faculty, intelligence (1176 b-1178 a 8), then after an
interval infers a second time because our speculative life is an
imitation of that of God (1178 b 7-32), and finally after another
interval infers a third time, because it will make man most dear to God
(1179 a 22-32). Or, extending himself as it were still more, he might
write two drafts, or double versions of his own, on the same subject;
_e.g. Physics_, vii. and _De Anima_, ii. Or he might, going still
further, in his long literary career write two or more treatises on the
same subject, different and even more or less inconsistent with each
other, as we shall find in the sequel. Finally, having a great number of
discourses and treatises, containing all those small blemishes, around
him in his library, and determined to collect, consolidate and connect
them into a philosophical system, he would naturally be often taking
them down from their places to consult and compare one with another, and
as naturally enter in them references one to the other, and
cross-references between one another. Thus he would enter in the
_Metaphysics_ a reference to the _Physics_, and in the _Physics_ a
reference to the _Metaphysics_, precisely because both were manuscripts
in his library. For the same purpose of connexion he would be tempted to
add a preface to a book like the _Meteorologica_. In order to refer back
to the _Physics_, the _De Coelo_, and the _De Generatione_, this work
begins by stating that the first causes of all nature and all natural
motion, the stars ordered according to celestial motion and the bodily
elements with their transmutations, and generation and corruption have
all been discussed; and by adding that there remains to complete this
investigation, what previous investigators called meteorology. To
suppose this preface, presupposing many sciences, to have been written
in 356, when the _Meteorologica_ had been already commenced, would be
absurd; but equally absurd would it be to reject that date on account of
the preface, which even a modern author often writes long after his
book. Nor is it at all absurd to suppose that, long after he began the
_Meteorologica_, Aristotle himself added the preface in the process of
gathering his general treatises on natural science into a system. So he
might afterwards add the preface to the _De Interpretatione_, in order
to connect it with the _De Anima_, though written afterwards, in order
to connect his treatises on mind and on its expression. So also he might
add the appendix to the _Sophistical Elenchi_, long after he had written
that book, and perhaps, to judge from its being a general claim to have
discovered the syllogism, when the founder of logic had more or less
realized that he had written a number of connected treatises on
reasoning.
_The Question of Publication._--There is still another point which would
facilitate Aristotle's gradual composition of discourses into treatises
and treatises into a system; there was no occasion for him to publish
his manuscripts beyond his school. Printing has accustomed us to
publication, and misled us into applying to ancient times the modern
method of bringing out one book after another at definite dates by the
same author. But Greek authors contemplated works rather than books.
Some of the greatest authors were not even writers: Homer, Aesop,
Thales, Socrates. Some who were writers were driven to publish by the
occasion; and after the orders of government, which were occasionally
published to be obeyed, occasional poems, such as the poems of Solon,
the odes of Pindar and the plays of the dramatists, which all had a
political significance, were probably the first writings to be published
or, rather, recited and acted, from written copies. With them came
philosophical poems, such as those of Xenophanes and Empedocles; the
epical history of Herodotus; the dramatic philosophy of Plato. On a
larger scale speeches written by orators to be delivered by litigants
were published and encouraged publication; and, as the Attic orators
were his contemporaries, publication had become pretty common in the
time of Aristotle, who speaks of many bundles ([Greek: desmas]) of
judicial speeches by Isocrates being hawked about by the booksellers
(_Fragm_. 140).
No doubt then Aristotle's library contained published copies of the
works of other authors, as well as the autographs of his own. It does
not follow that his own works went beyond his library and his school.
Publication to the world is designed for readers, who at all times have
demanded popular literature rather than serious philosophy such as that
of Aristotle. Accordingly it becomes a difficult question, how far
Aristotle's works were published in his lifetime. In answering it we
must be careful to exclude any evidence which refers to Aristotle as a
man, not as a writer, or refers to him as a writer but does not prove
publication while he was alive.
Beginning then with his early writings, which are now lost, the
dialogues _On Poetry_ and the _Eudemus_ were probably the published
discourses to which Aristotle himself refers (_Poetics_, 15; _De Anima_,
i. 4); and the dialogue _Protrepticus_ was known to the Cynic Crates,
pupil of Diogenes and master of Zeno (_Fragm_. 50), but not necessarily
in Aristotle's lifetime, as Crates was still alive in 307. Again,
Aristotle's early rhetorical instructions and perhaps writings, as well
as his opinion that a collection of proverbs is not worth while, must
have been known outside Aristotle's rhetorical school to the orator
Cephisodorus, pupil of Isocrates and master of Demosthenes, for him to
be able to write in his _Replies to Aristotle_ ([Greek: en tais pros
Aristotelaen antigraphais]) an admired defence of Isocrates (Dionys. H.
_De Isoc_. 18). But this early dialectic and rhetoric, being popular,
would tend to be published. History comes nearer to philosophy; and
Aristotle's _Constitutions_ were known to his enemy Timaeus, who
attacked him for disparaging the descent of the Locrians of Italy,
according to Polybius (xii.), who defended Aristotle. But as Timaeus
brought his history down to 264 B.C. (Polyb. i. 5), and therefore might
have got his information after Aristotle's death, we cannot be sure that
any of the _Constitutions_ were published in the author's lifetime. We
are equally at a loss to prove that Aristotle published his philosophy.
He had, like all the great, many enemies, personal and philosophical;
but in his lifetime they attacked the man, not his philosophy. In the
Megarian school, first Eubulides quarrelled with him and calumniated him
(Diog. Laert. ii. 109) in his lifetime; but the attack was on his life,
not on his writings: afterwards Stilpo wrote a dialogue ([Greek:
Aristotelaes]), which may have been a criticism of the Aristotelian
philosophy from the Megarian point of view; but he outlived Aristotle
thirty years. In the absence of any confirmation, "the current
philosophemata" ([Greek: ta egkuklia philosophaemata]), mentioned in the
_De Coela_ (i. 9, 279 a 30), are sometimes supposed to be Aristotle's
published philosophy, to which he is referring his readers. But the
example there given, that the divine is unchangeable, is precisely such
a religious commonplace as might easily be a current philosopheme of
Aristotle's day, not of Aristotle; and this interpretation suits the
parallel passage in the _Nic. Ethics_ (i. 5, 1096 a 3) where opinions
about the happiness of political life are said to have been sufficiently
treated "even in current discussions" ([Greek: kai en tois egkukliois]).
There is therefore no contemporary proof that Aristotle published any
part of his mature philosophical system in his lifetime. It is true that
a book of Andronicus, as reported by Aulus Gellius (xx. 5), contained a
correspondence between Alexander and Aristotle in which the pupil
complained that his master had published his "acroatic discourses"
([Greek: tous akroatikous ton logon]). But ancient letters are
proverbially forgeries, and in the three hundred years which elapsed
between the supposed correspondence and the time of Andronicus there was
plenty of time for the forgery of these letters. But even if the
correspondence is genuine, "acroatic discourses" must be taken to mean
what Alexander would mean by them in the time of Aristotle, and not what
they had come to mean by the time of Andronicus. Alexander meant those
discourses which Aristotle, when he was his tutor, intended for the ears
of himself and his fellow-pupils; such as the early political works on
_Monarchy_ and on _Colonies_, and the early rhetorical works, the
_Theodectea_, the _Collection of Arts_, and possibly the _Rhetoric to
Alexander_, in the preface to which the writer actually says to
Alexander: "You wrote to me that nobody else should receive this book."
These few early works may have been published, and contrary to the
wishes of Alexander, without affecting Aristotle's later system. But
even so, Alexander's complaint would not justify writers three centuries
later in taking Alexander to have referred to mature scientific
writings, which were not addressed, and not much known, to him, the
conqueror of Asia; although by the times of Andronicus and Aulus
Gellius, Aristotle's scientific writings were all called acroatic, or
acroamatic, or sometimes esoteric, in distinction from exoteric--a
distinction altogether unknown to Aristotle, and therefore to Alexander.
In the absence of any contemporary evidence, we cannot believe that
Aristotle in his lifetime published any, much less all, of his
scientific books. The conclusion then is that Aristotle on the one hand
to some extent published his early dialectical and rhetorical writings,
because they were popular, though now they are lost, but on the other
hand did not publish any of the extant historical and philosophical
works which belong to his mature system, because they were best adapted
to his philosophical pupils in the Peripatetic school. The object of the
philosopher was not the applause of the public but the truth of things.
Now this conclusion has an important bearing on the composition of
Aristotle's writings and on the difficulties which have been found in
them. If he had like a modern author brought out each of his extant
philosophical works on a definite day of publication, he would not have
been able to change them without a second edition, which in the case of
serious writings so little in demand would not be worth while. But as he
did not publish them, but kept the unpublished manuscripts together in
his library and used them in his school, he was able to do with them as
he pleased down to the very end of his life, and so gradually to
consolidate his many works into one system.
While Aristotle did not publish his philosophical works to the world, he
freely communicated them to the Peripatetic school. They are not mere
lectures; but he used them for lectures: he allowed his pupils to read
them in his library, and probably to take copies from them. He also used
diagrams, which are sometimes incorporated in his works, but sometimes
are only mentioned, and were no doubt used for purposes of teaching. He
also availed himself of his pupils' co-operation, as we may judge from
his description in the _Ethics_ (x. 7) of the speculative philosopher
who, though he is self-sufficing, is better having co-operators ([Greek:
synergous hexon]). From an early time he had a tendency to address his
writings to his friends. For example, he addressed the _Theodectea_ to
his pupil Theodectes; and even in ancient times a doubt arose whether it
was a work of the master or the pupil. It was certainly by Aristotle,
because it contained the triple grammatical division of words into noun,
verb and conjunction, which the history of grammar recognized as his
discovery. But we may explain the share of Theodectes by supposing that
he had a hand in the work (cf. Dionys. H. _De Comp. Verb._ 2; Quintilian
i. 4. 18). Similarly in astronomy, Aristotle used the assistance of
Eudoxus and Callippus. Indeed, throughout his writings he shows a
constant wish to avail himself of what is true in the opinions of
others, whether they are philosophers, or poets or ordinary people
expressing their thoughts in sayings and proverbs. With one of his
pupils in particular, Theophrastus, who was born about 370 and therefore
was some fifteen years younger than himself, he had a long and intimate
connexion; and the work of the pupil bears so close a resemblance to
that of his master, that, even when he questions Aristotle's opinions
(as he often does), he seems to be writing in an Aristotelian
atmosphere; while he shows the same acuteness in raising difficulties,
and has caught something of the same encyclopaedic genius. Another
pupil, Eudemus of Rhodes, wrote and thought so like his master as to
induce Simplicius to call him the most genuine of Aristotle's companions
([Greek: ho gnaesiotatos ton Aristotelous hetairon]). It is probable
that this extraordinary resemblance is due to the pupils having actually
assisted their master; and this supposition enables us to surmount a
difficulty we feel in reading Aristotle's works. How otherwise, we
wonder, could one man writing alone and with so few predecessors compose
the first systematic treatises on the psychology of the mental powers
and on the logic of reasoning, the first natural history of animals, and
the first civil history of one hundred and fifty-eight constitutions, in
addition to authoritative treatises on metaphysics, biology, ethics,
politics, rhetoric and poetry; in all penetrating to the very essence of
the subject, and, what is most wonderful, describing more facts than any
other man has ever done on so many subjects?
_The Uncompleted Works._--Such then was the method of composition by
which Aristotle began in early manhood to write his philosophical works,
continued them gradually and simultaneously, combined shorter discourses
into longer treatises, compared and connected them, kept them together
in his library without publishing them, communicated them to his school,
used the co-operation of his best pupils, and finally succeeded in
combining many mature writings into one harmonious system. Nevertheless,
being a man, he did not quite succeed. He left some unfinished; such as
the _Categories_, in which the main part on categories is not finished,
while the last part, afterwards called postpredicaments, is probably not
his, the _Politics_ and the _Poetics_. He left others imperfectly
arranged, and some of the most important, the _Metaphysics_, the
_Politics_ and the logical writings. Of the imperfect arrangement of the
_Metaphysics_ we have already spoken; and we shall speak of that of his
logical writings when we come to the order of his whole system. At
present the _Politics_ will supply us with a conspicuous example of the
imperfect arrangement of some, as well as of the gradual composition of
all, of Aristotle's extant writings.
The _Politics_ was begun as early as 357, yet not finished in 322. It
betrays its origin from separate discourses. First comes a general
theory of constitutions, right and wrong (Books [Alpha], [Beta],
[Gamma]); and this part is afterwards referred to as "the first
discourses" ([Greek: hen tois protois logois]). Then follows the
treatment of oligarchy, democracy, commonwealth and tyranny, and of the
various powers of government ([Delta]), and independent investigation of
revolution, and of the means of preserving states ([Epsilon]), and a
further treatment of democracy and oligarchy, and of the different
offices of the state ([Zeta]), and finally a return to the discussion of
the right form of constitution ([Eta], [Theta]). But [Delta] and [Zeta]
are a group interrupted by [Epsilon], and [Eta] and [Theta] are another
group unconnected with the previous group and with [Epsilon], and are
also distinguished in style by avoiding hiatus. Further, the group
([Delta], [Zeta]) and the group ([Eta], [Theta]) are both unfinished.
Finally the group ([Delta], [Zeta]), the book ([Epsilon]) and the group
([Eta], [Theta]) though unconnected with one another, are all connected
though imperfectly with "the first discourses" ([Alpha], [Beta],
[Gamma]). This complicated arrangement may be represented in the
following diagram:--
[Alpha], [Beta], [Gamma]
|
+----------------------+----------------------+
| | |
[Delta], [Epsilon] [Eta],
[Zeta] [Theta]
The simplest explanation is that Aristotle began by writing separate
discourses, four at least, on political subjects; that he continued to
write them and perhaps tried to combine them: but that in the end he
failed and left the _Politics_ unfinished and in disorder. But modern
commentators, possessed by the fallacy that Aristotle like a modern
author must from the first have comtemplated a whole treatise in a
regular order for definite publication, lose themselves in vain disputes
as to whether to go by the traditional order of books indicated by their
letters and known to have existed as early as the abstract (given in
Stobaeus, _Ecl._ ii. 7) ascribed to Didymus (1st century A.D.), or to
put the group [Eta], [Theta], as more connected with [Alpha], [Beta],
[Gamma], before the group [Delta], [Zeta], and this group before the
book [Eta]. It is agreed, says Zeller, that the traditional order
contradicts the original plan. But what right have we to say that
Aristotle had an original plan?
The incomplete state in which Aristotle left the _Metaphysics_, the
_Politics_ and his logical works, brings us to the hard question how
much he did, and how much his Peripatetic followers did to his writings
after his death. To answer it we should have to go far beyond Aristotle.
But two corollaries follow from our present investigation of his extant
writings; the first, that it was the long continuance of the Peripatetic
school which gradually caused the publication, and in some cases the
forgery, of the separate writings; and the second, that his Peripatetic
successors arranged and edited some of Aristotle's writings, and
gradually arrived by the time of Andronicus, the eleventh from
Aristotle, at an order of the whole body of writings forming the system.
Now, it is probable that the arrangement of the works which we are
considering was done by the Peripatetic successors of Aristotle. There
is nothing indeed in the _Metaphysics_ to show whether he left it in
isolated treatises or in its present disorder; and nothing in the
_Politics_. On the other hand, in the case of logic, it is certain that
he did not combine his works on the subject into one whole, but that the
Peripatetics afterwards put them together as organic, and made them the
parts of logic as an organon, as they are treated by Andronicus. Perhaps
something similar occurred to the _Metaphysics_, as Alexander imputed
its redaction to Eudemus, and the majority of ancient commentators
attributed its second opening (Book [alpha]) to Pasicles, nephew of
Eudemus. Again, it is not unlikely that the _Politics_ was arranged in
the traditional order of books by Theophrastus, and that this is the
meaning of the curious title occurring in the list of Aristotle's works
as given by Diogenes Laertius, [Greek: politikês akroaseos hos hê
theophrastou a' b' g' d' e' s' z' ê'], which agrees with the _Politics_
in having eight books. Although, however, we may concede that such great
works as the _Metaphysics_, the _Politics_ and the logical writings did
not receive their present form from Aristotle himself, that concession
does not deprive Aristotle of the authorship, but only of the
arrangement of those works. On the contrary, Theophrastus and Eudemus,
his immediate followers, both wrote works presupposing Aristotle's
_Metaphysics_ and his logical works, and Dicaearchus, their
contemporary, used his _Politics_ for his own _Tripoliticus_. It was
Aristotle himself then who wrote these works, whether he arranged them
or not; and if he wrote the incomplete works, then _a fortiori_ he wrote
the completed works except those which are proved spurious, and
practically consummated the Aristotelian system, which, as Leibnitz
said, by its unity of thought and style evinces its own genuineness and
individuality. We must not exaggerate the school and underrate the
individual, especially such an individual. What he mainly wanted was the
time, the leisure and the labour, which we have supposed to have been
given to the gradual composition of the extant Aristotelian writings.
Aristotle, asked where dwell the Muses, answered, "In the souls of those
who love work."
IV. EARLIER AND LATER WRITINGS
Aristotle's quotations of his other books and of historical facts only
inform us at best of the dates of isolated passages, and cannot decide
the dates and sequences of whole philosophical books which occupied him
for many years. Is there then any way of discriminating between early
and late works? There is the evidence of the influences under which the
books were written. This evidence applies to the whole Aristotelian
literature including the fragments. As to the fragments, we are safe in
saying that the early dialogues in the manner of Plato were written
under the influence of Plato, and that the subsequent didactic writings
connected with Alexander were written more under the influence of Philip
and Alexander. Turning to the extant writings, we find that some are
more under the influence of Plato, while others are more original and
Aristotelian. Also some writings are more rudimentary than others on the
same subject; and some have the appearance of being first drafts of
others. By these differences we can do something to distinguish between
earlier and later philosophical works; and also vindicate as genuine
some works, which have been considered spurious because they do not
agree in style or in matter with his most mature philosophy. In
thirty-five years of literary composition, Aristotle had plenty of time
to change, because any man can differ from himself at different times.
On these principles, we regard as early genuine philosophical works of
Aristotle, (1) the _Categories_, (2) the _De Interpretatione_;(3) the
_Eudemian Ethics_ and _Magna Moralia_; (4) the _Rhetoric to Alexander_.
1. The Categories ([Greek: kataegoriai]).--This short discourse turns on
Aristotle's fundamental doctrine of individual substances, without which
there is nothing. He arrives at it from a classification of categories,
by which he here means "things stated in no combination" ([Greek: ta
kata maedemian symplokaen legomena]) or what we should call "names,"
capable of becoming predicates ([Greek: kataegoroumena, kataegoriai]).
"Every name," says he (chap. 4), "signifies either substance or
something quantitative, or qualitative, or relative, or somewhere, or
sometimes, or that it is in a position, or in a condition, or active or
passive." He immediately adds that, by the combination of these names
with one another, affirmation or negation arises. The categories then
are names signifying things capable of becoming predicates in a
proposition. Next he proceeds to substances ([Greek: ousiai]), which he
divides into primary ([Greek: protai]) and secondary ([Greek:
deuterai]). "Substance", says he (chap. 5), "which is properly,
primarily and especially so called, is that which is neither a predicate
of a subject nor inherent in a subject; for example, a particular man,
or a particular horse. Secondary substances so called are the species in
which are the primarily called substances, and the genera of these
species: for example, a particular man is in a species, man, the genus
of which is animal: these then are called secondary substances, man and
animal." Having made these subdivisions of substance, he thereupon
reduces secondary substances and all the rest of the categories to
belongings of individual or primary substances. "All other things", says
he, "are either predicates of primary substances as subjects" ([Greek:
kath' hypokeimenon ton proton ousion]) "or inherent in them as subjects"
([Greek: en hypokeimenais autais]). He explains that species and genus
are predicates of, and that other categories (e.g. the quality of
colour) are inherent in, some individual substance such as a particular
man. Then follows his conclusion: "without primary substances it is
impossible for anything to be" ([Greek: mae ouson oun ton proton ousion
adunaton ton hallon ti einai]. _Cat._ 5, 2 b 5-6).
Things are individual substances, without which there is nothing--this
is the fundamental point of Aristotelianism, as against Platonism, of
which the fundamental point is that things are universal forms without
which there becomes nothing. The world, according to Aristotle, consists
of substances, each of which is a separate individual, this man, this
horse, this animal, this plant, this earth, this water, this air, this
fire; in the heavens that moon, that sun, those stars; above all, God.
On the other hand, a universal species or genus of substances is a
predicate which, as well as everything else in all the other categories,
always belongs to some individual substance or other as subject, and has
no separate being. In full, then, a substance is a separate individual,
having universals, and things in all other categories, inseparably
belonging to it. The individual substance Socrates, for example, is a
man and an animal ([Greek: ousia]), tall, ([Greek: poson]), white
([Greek: poion]), a husband ([Greek: pros ti]), in the market ([Greek:
pou]), yesterday ([Greek: pote]), sitting ([Greek: keisthai]), armed
([Greek: hechein]), talking ([Greek: poiein]), listening ([Greek:
paschein]). Aristotelianism is this philosophy of substantial things.
The doctrine that all things are substances which are separate
individuals, stated in the _Categories_, is expanded in the
_Metaphysics_. Both works arrive at it from the classification of
categories, which is the same in both; except that in the former the
categories are treated rather as a logical classification of names
signifying things, in the latter rather as a metaphysical
classification of things. In neither, however, are they a grammatical
classification of words by their structure; and in neither are they a
psychological classification of notions or general conceptions
([Greek: noaemata]), such as they afterwards became in Kant's
_Critique_ and the post-Kantian idealism. Moreover, even in the
_Categories_ as names signifying distinct things they imply distinct
things; and hence the _Categories_, as well as the _Metaphysics_,
draws the metaphysical conclusion that individual substances are the
things without which there is nothing else, and thereby lays the
positive foundation of the philosophy running through all the extant
Aristotelian writings.
Again, according to both works, an individual substance is a subject,
a universal its predicate; and they have in common the Aristotelian
metaphysics, which differs greatly from the modern logic of subject
and predicate. Subject ([Greek: upokeimenon]) originally meant a real
thing which is the basis of something, and was used by Aristotle both
for a thing to which something belongs and for a name of which another
is asserted: accordingly "predicate" ([Greek: kataegoroymenon]) came
with him to mean something really belonging ([Greek: uparchon]) to a
substance as real subject, as well as a name capable of being asserted
of a name as a nominal subject. In other words, to him subject meant
real as well as nominal subject, and predicate meant real as well as
nominal predicate; whereas modern logic has gradually reduced both to
the nominal terms of a proposition. Accordingly, when he said that a
substance is a subject, he meant a real subject; and when he said that
a universal species or genus is a predicate, he meant that it is a
real predicate belonging to a real subject, which is always some
individual substance of the kind. It follows that Aristotelianism in
the _Categories_ and in the _Metaphysics_ is a realism both of
individuals and of universals; of individual substances as real
subjects, and of universals as real predicates.
Lastly, the two works agree in reducing the _Categories_ to substance
and its belongings ([Greek: uparchonta]). According to both, it is
always some substance, such as Socrates, which is quantitative,
qualitative, relative, somewhere, some time, placed, conditioned,
active, passive; so that all things in all other categories are
attributes which are belongings of substances. There are therefore two
kinds of belongings, universals and attributes; and in both cases
belonging in the sense of having no being but the being of the
substance.
In brief then the common ground of the _Categories_ and the
_Metaphysics_ is the fundamental position that all things are
substances having belonging to them universals and attributes, which
have no separate being as Plato falsely supposed.
This essential agreement suffices to show that the _Categories_ and
the _Metaphysics_ are the result of one mind. Nevertheless, there is a
deep difference between them in detail, which may be expressed by
saying that the _Categories_ is nearer to Platonism. We have seen how
anxious Aristotle was to be considered one of the Platonists, how
reluctant he was to depart from Plato's hypothesis of forms, and how,
in denying the separability, he retained the Platonic belief in the
reality and even in the unity of the universal. We have now to see
that, in writing the _Categories_, on the one hand he carried his
differences from his master further than he had done in his early
criticisms by insisting that individual substances are not only real,
but are the very things which sustain the universal; but on the other
hand, he clung to further relics of the Platonic theory, and it is
those which differentiate the _Categories_ and the _Metaphysics_.
In the first place, in the _Categories_ the belonging of things in
other categories to individual substances in the first category is not
so well developed. A distinction (chap. 2) is drawn between things
which are predicates of a subject ([Greek: kath upokeimenon]) and
things which inhere in a subject ([Greek: en ipokeimeno]); and, while
universals are called predicates of a subject, things in a subordinate
category, i.e. attributes such as colour ([Greek: chroma]) in the
qualitative, are said to inhere in a subject. It is true that the work
gives only a negative definition of the inherent, namely, that it does
not inhere as a part and cannot exist apart from that in which it
inheres (1 a 24-25), and it admits that what is inherent may sometimes
also be a predicate (chap. 5, 2 a 27-34). The commentators explain
this to mean that an attribute as individual is inherent, as universal
is a predicate. But even so the _Categories_ concludes that everything
is either a predicate of, or inherent in, a substance; and the view
that this colour belongs to this substance only in the sense of being
in it, not of it, leaves the impression that, like a Platonic form, it
is an entity rather in than of an individual substance, though even in
the _Categories_ Aristotle is careful to deny its separability. The
hypothesis of inherence gives an inadequate account of the dependence
of an attribute on a substance, and is a kind of half-way house
between separation and predication.
On the other hand, in the _Metaphysics_, the distinction between
inherence and predication disappears; and what is more, the relation
of an attribute to a substance is regarded as so close that an
attribute is merely the substance modified. "The thing itself and the
thing affected," says Aristotle, "are in a way the same; e.g. Socrates
and Socrates musical" (_Met._ [Delta] 29, 1024 b 30-31). Consequently,
all attributes, as well as universals, belong as predicates of
individual substances as subjects, according to the _Metaphysics_, and
also according to the most authoritative works of Aristotle, such as
the _Posterior Analytics_, where (cf. i. 4, 22) an attribute ([Greek:
symbebaekos]) is said to be only by being the substance possessing it,
and any separation of an attribute from a substance is held to be
entirely a work of human abstraction ([Greek: aphairesis]). At this
point, Plato and Aristotle have become very far apart: to the master
beauty appears to be an independent thing, and really separate, to the
pupil at his best only something beautiful, an attribute which is only
mentally separable from an individual substance. The first difference
then between the _Categories_ and the _Metaphysics_ is in the nature
of an attribute; and the theory of inherence in the _Categories_ is
nearer to Plato and more rudimentary than the theory of predication in
the _Metaphysics_. The second difference is still nearer to Plato and
more rudimentary, and is in the nature of substance. For though both
works rest on the reality of individual substances, the _Categories_
(chap. 5) admits that universal species and genera can be called
substances, whereas the _Metaphysics_ ([Zeta] 13) denies that a
universal can be a substance at all.
It is evident that in the category of substance, as Aristotle
perceived, substance is predicate of substance, e.g. Socrates ([Greek:
ousia]) is a man ([Greek: ousia]), and an animal ([Greek: ousia]). The
question then arises, what sort of substance can be predicate; and in
the _Categories_ Aristotle gave an answer, which would have been
impossible, if he had not, under Plato's influence, accepted both the
unity and the substantiality of the universal. What he said in
consequence was that the substance in the predicate is not an
individual substance, e.g. this man or this animal, because such a
primary substance is not a predicate; but that the species man or the
genus animal is the substance which is the predicate of Socrates the
subject (_Cat._ 5, 3 a 36 seq.). Finding then that substances are real
predicates, and supposing that in that case they must be species or
genera, he could not avoid the conclusion that some substances are
species or genera, which were therefore called by him "secondary
substances," and by his Latin followers _substantiae universales_. It
is true that this conclusion gave him some misgivings, because he
recognized that it is a characteristic of a substance to signify an
individual ([Greek: tose ti]), which a species or a genus does not
signify (_ib._ 5, 3 b 10-21). Nevertheless, in the _Categories_, he
did not venture to deny that in the category of substance a universal
species (e.g. man), or genus (e.g. animal), is itself a substance. On
the other hand, in the _Metaphysics_ ([Zeta] 13), he distinctly denies
that any universal can be a substance, on the ground that a substance
is a subject, whereas a universal is a predicate and a belonging of a
subject, from which it follows as he says that no universal is a
substance, and no substance universal. Here again the _Categories_
forms a kind of transition from Platonism to the _Metaphysics_ which
is the reverse: to call universals "secondary substances" is half way
between Plato's calling them the only substances and Aristotle's
denial in the _Metaphysics_ that they are substances at all.
What conclusion are we to draw from these differences between the
_Categories_ and the _Metaphysics_? The only logical conclusion is
that the _Categories_, being nearer to Plato on the nature of
attributes, and still nearer on the relation of universals to
substances, is earlier than the _Metaphysics_. There are difficulties
no doubt in drawing this conclusion; because the _Metaphysics_, though
it denies that universals can be substances, and does not allow
species and genera to be called "secondary substances," nevertheless
falls itself into calling a universal essence ([Greek: to ti aen
einai]) a substance---and that too in the very book where it is proved
that no universal can be a substance. But this lapse only shows how
powerful a dominion Plato exercised over Aristotle's soul to the last;
for it arises out of the pupil still accepting from his master the
unity of the universal though now applying it, not to classes, but to
essences. The argument about essences in the _Metaphysics_ is as
follows:--Since a separate individual, e.g. Socrates, is a substance,
and he is essentially a rational animal, then his essence, being what
he is, is a substance; for we cannot affirm that Socrates is a
substance and then deny that this rational animal is a substance
(_Met._ [Zeta] 3). Now, according to the unity of a universal asserted
by Plato and accepted by Aristotle, the universal essence of species,
being one and the same for all individuals of the kind, is the same as
the essence of each individual: e.g. the rational animal in the human
species and in Socrates is one and the same; "for the essence is
indivisible" ([Greek: atomon gar to eisos], _Met._ [Zeta] 8, 1034 a
8). It follows that we must call this selfsame essence, at once
individual and universal, substance--a conclusion, however, which
Aristotle never drew in so many words, though he continued always to
call essence substance, and definition a knowledge of substance.
There is therefore a history of Aristotle's metaphysical views,
corresponding to his gradual method of composition. It is as
follows:--
(1) Negative rejection of Plato's hypothesis of forms and formal
numbers, and reduction of forms to the common in the early dialogue
[Greek: peri philosophias] and in the early work [Greek: peri iseon].
(2) Positive assertion of the doctrine that things are individual
substances in the _Categories_, but with the admission that attributes
sometimes inhere in substance without being predicates of it, and that
universal species and genera are "secondary substances."
(3) Expansion of the doctrine that things are individual substances in
the _Metaphysics_, coupled with the reduction of all attributes to
predicates, and the direct denial of universal substances; but
nevertheless calling the universal essence of a species of substances
substance, because the individual essence of an individual substance
really is that substance, and the universal essence of the whole
species is supposed to be indivisible and therefore identical with the
individual essence of any individual of the species.
2. The _De Interpretatione._--Another example of Aristotle's gradual
desertion of Plato is exhibited by the _De Interpretatione_ as compared
with the _Prior Analytics_, and it shows another gradual history in
Aristotle's philosophy, namely, the development of subject, predicate
and copula, in his logic.
The short discourse on the expression of thought by language ([Greek:
peri Ermaeneias], _De Interpretatione_) is based on the Platonic
division of the sentence ([Greek: logos]) into noun and verb ([Greek:
onoma] and [Greek: rema].) Its point is to separate the enunciative
sentence, or that in which there is truth or falsity, from other
sentences; and then, dismissing the rest to rhetoric or poetry (where we
should say grammar), to discuss the enunciative sentence ([Greek:
apophantikos logos]), or enunciation ([apophansís]), or what we should
call the proposition (_De Int._ chap. 4). Here Aristotle, starting from
the previous grammar of sentences in general, proceeded, for the first
time in philosophical literature, to disengage the logic of the
proposition, or that sentence which can alone be true or false, whereby
it alone enters into reasoning. But in spite of this great logical
achievement, he continued throughout the discourse to accept Plato's
grammatical analysis of all sentences into noun and verb, which indeed
applies to the proposition as a sentence but does not give its
particular elements. The first part of the work confines itself strictly
to noun and verb, or the form of proposition called _secundi
adjacentis_. Afterwards (chap. 10) proceeding to the opposition of
propositions, he adds the form called _tertii adjacentis_, in a passage
which is the first appearance, or rather adumbration, of the verb of
being as a copula. In the form _secundi adjacentis_ we only get
oppositions, such as the following:--
man is--man is not
not-man is--not-man is not
In the form _tertii adjacentis_ the oppositions, becoming more complex,
are doubled, as follows:--
man is just--man is not just
man is non-just--man is not non-just
not-man is just--not-man is not just
not-man is non-just--not-man is not non-just.
The words introducing this form ([Greek: dtan de to esti triton
proskategoretai], chap. 10, 19 b 19), which are the origin of the phrase
_tertii adjacentis_, disengage the verb of being ([Greek: esti])
partially but not entirely, because they still treat it as an extra part
of the predicate, and not as a distinct copula. Nor does the work get
further than the analysis of some propositions into noun and verb with
"is" added to the predicated verb; an analysis, however, which was a
great logical discovery and led Aristotle further to the remark that
"is" does not mean "exists"; e.g. "Homer is a poet" does not mean "Homer
exists" (_De Int._ chap. 11).
How then did Aristotle get further in the logical analysis of the
proposition? Not in the _De Interpretatione_, but in the _Prior
Analytics_. The first adumbration was forced upon him in the former work
by his theory of opposition; the complete appearance in the latter work
by his theory of syllogism. In analysing the syllogism, he first says
that a premiss is an affirmative or negative sentence, and then that a
term is that into which a premiss is dissolved, i.e. predicate and
subject, combined or divided by being and not being (_Pr. An._ i. 1).
Here, for the first time in logical literature, subject and predicate
suddenly appear as terms, or extremes, with the verb of being ([Greek:
to einai]) or not being ([Greek: to me einai]) completely disengaged
from both, but connecting them as a copula. Why here? Because the
crossing of terms in a syllogism requires it. In the syllogism "Every
man is mortal and Socrates is a man," if in the minor premiss the copula
"is" were not disengaged from the predicate "man," there would not be
one middle term "man" in the two premisses. It is not necessary in every
proposition, but it is necessary in the arrangement of a syllogism, to
extricate the terms of its propositions from the copula; e.g.
mortal--man--Socrates.
This important difference between the _De Interpretatione_ and the
_Prior Analytics_ can only be explained by supposing that the former is
the earlier treatise. It is nearer to Plato's analysis of the sentence,
and no logician would have gone back to it, after the Prior Analytics.
It is not spurious, as some have supposed, nor later than the _De
Anima_, as Zeller thought, but Aristotle in an earlier frame of mind.
Moreover we can make a history of Aristotle's thought and gradual
composition thus:
(1) Earlier acceptance in the _De Interpretatione_ of Plato's
grammatical analysis of the sentence into noun and verb (_secundi
adjacentis_) but gradually disengaging the proposition, and afterwards
introducing the verb of being as a third thing added (_tertium
adjacens_) to the predicated verb, for the purpose of opposition.
(2) Later logical analysis in the _Prior Analytics_ of the proposition
as premiss into subject, predicate and copula, for the purpose of
syllogism; but without insisting that the original form is illogical.
3. The _Eudemian Ethics_ and _Magna Moralia_ in relation to the
_Nicomachean Ethics._--Under the name of Aristotle, three treatises on
the good of man have come down to us, [Greek: Ethika Nikomacheia]
([Greek: pros Nikomachon], Porphyry), [Greek: Ethika Eudemia] ([Greek:
pros Eudemon], Porphyry), and [Greek: Ethika Megala]; so like one
another that there seems no tenable hypothesis except that they are the
manuscript writings of one man. Nevertheless, the most usual hypothesis
is that, while the _Nicomachean Ethics_ (E.N.) was written by Aristotle
to Nicomachus, the _Eudemian_ (E.E.) was written, not to, but by,
Eudemus, and the _Magna Moralia_ (M.M.) was written by some early
disciple before the introduction of Stoic and Academic elements into the
Peripatetic school. The question is further complicated by the fact that
three Nicomachean books (E.N. v.-vii.) and three Eudemian (E.E.
[Delta]-[Zeta]) are common to the two treatises, and by the consequent
question whether, on the hypothesis of different authorship, the common
books, as we may style them, were written for the _Nicomachean_ by
Aristotle, or for the _Eudemian Ethics_ by Eudemus, or some by one and
some by the other author. Against the "Chorizontes," who have advanced
various hypotheses on all these points without convincing one another,
it may be objected that they have not considered Aristotle's method of
gradual and simultaneous composition of manuscripts within the
Peripatetic school. We have to remember the traces of his separate
discourses, and his own double versions; and that, as in ancient times
Simplicius, who had two versions of the _Physics_, Book vii., suggested
that both were early versions of Book viii. on the same subject, so in
modern times Torstrik, having discovered that there were two versions of
the _De Anima_, Book ii., suggested that both were by Aristotle. Above
all, we must consider our present point that Platonic influence is a
sign of earliness in an Aristotelian work; and generally, the same man
may both think and write differently at different times, especially if,
like Aristotle, he has been a prolific author.
These considerations make it probable that the author of all three
treatises was Aristotle himself; while the analysis of the treatises
favours the hypothesis that he wrote the _Eudemian Ethics_ and the
_Magna Moralia_ more or less together as the rudimentary first drafts of
the mature _Nicomachean Ethics_.
As the Platonic philosophy was primarily moral, and its metaphysics a
theory of the moral order of the universe, Aristotle from the first must
have mastered the Platonic ethics. At first he adopted the somewhat
ascetic views of his master about soul and body, and about goods of body
and estate; but before Plato's death he had rejected the hypothesis of
forms, formal numbers and the form of the good identified with the one,
by which Plato tried to explain moral phenomena; while his studies and
teaching on rhetoric and poetry soon began to make him take a more
tolerant view than Plato did of men's passions. Throughout his whole
subsequent life, however, he retained the fundamental doctrine, which he
had learnt from Plato, and Plato from Socrates, that virtue is essential
to happiness. Twice over this tenet, which makes Socrates, Plato and
Aristotle one ethical school, inspired Aristotle to attempt poetry:
first, in the Elegy to Eudemus of Cyprus, in which, referring to either
Socrates or Plato, he praises the man who first showed clearly that a
good and happy man are the same (_Fragm._ 673); and secondly, in the
Hymn in memory of Hermias, beginning "Virtue, difficult to the human
race, noblest pursuit in life" (_ib._ 675). Moreover, the successors of
Plato in the Academy, Speusippus and Xenocrates, showed the same belief
in the essentiality of virtue. The question which divided them was what
the good is. Speusippus took the ascetic view that the good is a perfect
condition of neutrality between two contrary evils, pain and pleasure.
Xenocrates took the tolerant view that it is the possession of
appropriate virtue and noble actions, requiring as conditions bodily
and external goods. Aristotle was opposed to Speusippus, and nearly
agreed with Xenocrates. According to him, the good is activity of soul
in accordance with virtue in a mature life, requiring as conditions
bodily and external goods of fortune; and virtue is a mean state of the
passions. It is probable that when, after Plato's death and the
accession of Speusippus in 347, Aristotle with Xenocrates left Athens to
visit his former pupil Hermias, the three discussed this moderate system
of Ethics in which the two philosophers nearly agreed. At any rate, it
was adopted in each of the three moral treatises which pass under the
name of Aristotle.
The three treatises are in very close agreement throughout, and in the
following details. The good of Ethics is human good; and human good is
happiness, not the universal good or form of the good to which Plato
subordinated human happiness. Happiness is activity of soul according
to virtue in a mature life: it requires other goods only as
conditions. The soul is partly irrational, partly rational; and
therefore there are two kinds of virtue. Moral virtue, which is that
of the irrational desires so far as they are obedient to reason, is a
purposive habit in the mean. The motive of the moral virtues is the
honourable ([Greek: to kalon], _honestum_). As the rational is either
deliberative or scientific, either practical or speculative intellect,
there are two virtues of the intellect--prudence of the deliberative
or practical, and wisdom of the scientific or speculative, intellect.
The right reason by which moral virtue is determined is prudence,
which is determined in its turn by wisdom. Pleasure is a psychical
state, and is not a generation in the body supplying a defect and
establishing a natural condition, but an activity of a natural
condition of the soul. It should be specially noted that this doctrine
like the rest is common to the three treatises: in Book vii. of the
_Nicomachean_, which is [Zeta] of the _Eudemian_, pleasure is defined
as [Greek: energeia taes kata thusin exeos anempodistos] (chap. 12,
1153 a 14-15); and in the _Magna Moralia_ as [Greek: hae kinaesis
autou kai hae energeia] (ii. 7, 1204 b 28; cf. 1205 b 20-28). It is
plain from the context that in the former definition "the natural
condition" ([Greek: hae kata thusin exis]) refers to the soul which,
while the body is regenerated, remains unimpaired (cf. 1152 b 35 seq.,
1154 b 15 seq.); and in the latter definition the thing ([Greek:
autou]), whose "motion, that is activity" is spoken of, is the part of
the soul with which we feel pleased.
Down then to their common definition of pleasure as activity the three
treatises present a harmonious system of morals, consistently with one
another, and with the general philosophy of Aristotle. In particular,
the theory that pleasure is activity ([Greek: energeia]) is the theory
of two of his most authoritative works. In the _De Anima_ (iii. 7, 431
a 10-12), being pleased and pained are defined by him as acting
[Greek: to] ([Greek: energein]) by a sensitive mean in relation to
good or evil as such. In the _Metaphysics_ ([lambda] 7, 1072 b 16), in
discussing the occupation of God, he says "his pleasure is activity,"
or "his activity is pleasure," according to a difference of readings
which makes no difference to the identification of pleasure and
activity ([Greek: energeia]). As then we find this identification of
pleasure with activity in the _Metaphysics_ and in the _De Anima_, as
well as in the _Nicomachean Ethics_, the _Eudemian Ethics_ and the
_Magna Moralia_, the only logical conclusion, from which there is no
escape, is that, so far as the treatment of pleasure goes, any
Aristotelian treatise which defines it as activity is genuine. There
is no reason for doubting that the _Nicomachean Ethics_ to the end of
Book vii., the _Eudemian Ethics_ to the end of Book [Zeta], and the
_Magna Moralia_ as far as Book ii. chap. 7, were all three written by
Aristotle.
Why then doubt at all? It is because the _Nicomachean Ethics_ contains
a second discourse on pleasure (x. 1-5), in which the author, while
agreeing with the previous treatment of the subject that pleasure is
not a bodily generation, even when accompanied by it, but something
psychical, nevertheless defines it (x. 4, 1174 b 31-33) not as an
activity, but as a supervening end ([Greek: epigignomenon ti telos])
perfecting an activity ([Greek: teleioi taen energeian]). He allows
indeed that activity and pleasure are very closely related; that a
pleasure of sense or thought perfects an act of sensation or of
thinking, depends on it, and is so inseparably conjoined with it as to
raise a doubt whether pleasure is end of life or life end of pleasure,
and even whether the activity is the same as the pleasure. But he
disposes of this doubt in a very emphatic and significant manner.
"Pleasure," says he, "does not seem to be thinking or perceiving; for
it is absurd: but on account of not being separated from them, it
appears to some persons to be the same." Now it is not likely that
Aristotle either, after having so often identified pleasure with
activity, would say that the identification is absurd though it
appears true to some persons, of whom he would in that case be one,
or, having once disengaged the pleasure of perceiving and thinking
from the acts of perceiving and thinking, would go backwards and
confuse them. It is more likely that Aristotle identified pleasure
with activity in the _De Anima_, the _Metaphysics_ and the three moral
treatises, as we have seen; but that afterwards some subsequent
Peripatetic, considering that the pleasure of perceiving or thinking
is not the same as perceiving or thinking, declared the previous
identification of pleasure with activity absurd. At any rate, if we
are to choose, it is the identification that is Aristotle's, and the
distinction not Aristotle's. Moreover, the distinction between
activity and pleasure in the tenth book is really fatal to the
consistency of the whole _Nicomachean Ethics_, which started in the
first book with the identification of happiness and virtuous activity.
For if the pleasure of virtuous activity is a supervening end beyond
the activity, it becomes a supervening end beyond the happiness of
virtuous activity, which thus ceases to be the final end.
Nevertheless, the distinction between activity and pleasure is true.
Some unknown Peripatetic detected a flaw in the _Nicomachean Ethics_
when he said that pleasure is a supervening end beyond activity, and,
if he had gone on to add that happiness is also a supervening end
beyond the virtuous activities which are necessary to produce it, he
would have destroyed the foundation of his own founder's Ethics.
It is further remarkable that the _Nicomachean Ethics_ proceeds to a
different conclusion. After the intrusion of this second discourse on
pleasure, it goes on (E.N. x. 6-fin.) to the famous theory that the
highest happiness is the speculative life of intellect or wisdom as
divine, but that happiness as human also includes the practical life
of combining prudence and moral virtue; and that, while both lives
need external goods as necessaries, the practical life also requires
them as instruments of moral action. The treatise concludes with the
means of making men virtuous; contending that virtue requires
habituation, habituation law, law legislative art, and legislative art
politics: Ethics thus passes into Politics. The _Eudemian Ethics_
proceeds to its conclusion (E.E. [Eta] 13-15) differently, with the
consideration of (1) good fortune ([Greek: eutuchia]), and (2)
gentlemanliness ([Greek: kalokagathia]). Good fortune it divides into
two kinds, both irrational; one divine, according to impulse, and more
continuous; the other contrary to impulse and not continuous.
Gentlemanliness it regards as perfect virtue, containing all
particular virtues, and all goods for the sake of the honourable.
Finally, it concludes with the limit ([Greek: horos]) of goods. First
it finds the limit of goods of fortune in that desire and possession
of them which will conduce to the contemplation of God, whereas that
which prevents the service and contemplation of God is bad. Then it
adds that the best limit of the soul is as little as possible to
perceive the other part of the soul (i.e. desire). Finally, the
treatise concludes with saying that the limit of gentlemanliness has
thus been stated, meaning that its limit is the service and
contemplation of God and the control of desire by reason. The _Magna
Moralia_ (M.M. ii. 8-10) on these points is unlike the _Nicomachean_,
and like the _Eudemian Ethics_ in discussing good fortune and
gentlemanliness, but it discusses them in a more worldly way. On good
fortune (ii. 8), after recognizing the necessity of external goods to
happiness, it denies that fortune is due to divine grace, and simply
defines it as irrational nature ([Greek: alogos thusis]).
Gentlemanliness (ii. 9) it regards as perfect virtue, and defines the
gentleman as the man to whom really good things are good and really
honourable things honourable. It then adds (ii. 10) that acting
according to right reason is when the irrational part of the soul does
not hinder the rational part of intellect from doing its work.
Thereupon it proceeds to a discourse on friendship, which in the
_Nicomachean_ and _Eudemian Ethics_ is discussed in an earlier
position, but breaks off unfinished.
On the whole, the three moral treatises proceed on very similar lines
down to the common identification of pleasure with activity, and then
diverge. From this point the _Eudemian Ethics_ and the _Magna Moralia_
become more like one another than like the _Nicomachean Ethics_. They
also become less like one another than before: for the treatment of
good fortune, gentlemanliness, and their limit is more theological in
the _Eudemian Ethics_ than in the _Magna Moralia_.
How are the resemblances and differences of the three to be explained?
By Aristotle's gradual method of composition. All three are great
works, contributing to the origin of the independent science of
Ethics. But the _Eudemian Ethics_ and the _Magna Moralia_ are more
rudimentary than the _Nicomachean Ethics_, which as it were seems to
absorb them except in the conclusion. They are, in short, neither
independent works, nor mere commentaries, but Aristotle's first drafts
of his Ethics.
In the _Ethics to Eudemus_, as Porphyry properly called the _Eudemian
Ethics_, Aristotle in the first four books successively investigates
happiness, virtue, the voluntary and the particular moral virtues, in
the same order and in the same letter and spirit as in his _Ethics to
Nicomachus_. But the investigations are never so good. They are all
such rudiments as Aristotle might well polish into the more developed
expositions in the first four books of the _Nicomachean Ethics_. On
the other hand, nobody would have gone back afterwards on his masterly
treatment of happiness, in the first book, or of virtue in the second,
or of the voluntary in the third, or of the particular virtues in the
third and fourth, to write the sketchy accounts of the _Eudemian
Ethics_.
Again, these sketches are rough preparations for the subsequent books
common to the two treatises. It is true, as Dr Henry Jackson has
pointed out, though with some exaggeration, that the Eudemian agrees
in detail rather better than the Nicomachean treatment of the
voluntary with the subsequent discussion of injury (E.E. [Delta] =
E.N. v. 8); and, as Th. H. Fritzsche remarks, the distinction between
politics, and economics, and prudence in the _Eudemian Ethics_
([Alpha] 8) is a closer anticipation of the subsequent triple
distinction of practical science (E.E. [Epsilon] = E.N. vi 8). On the
other hand, there are still more fundamental points in which the first
three books of the _Eudemian Ethics_ are a very inadequate preparation
for the common books. Notably its treatment of prudence ([Greek:
phronaesis]) is a chaos. At first, prudence appears as the operation
of the philosophical life and connected with the speculative
philosophy of Anaxagoras (E.E. [Alpha] 1-5): then it is brought into
connexion with the practical philosophy of Socrates (_ib_. 5) and
co-ordinated with politics and economics (_ib_. 8); then it is
intruded into the diagram of moral virtues as a mean between villainy
([Greek: panourgia]) and simplicity (([Greek: euhaetheia]) (E.E.
[Beta] 33, 1221 a 12); finally, a distinction between virtue by nature
and virtue with prudence ([Greek: metha phronhaeseos]) is promised
(E.E. [Tau] 7, 1234 a 4). In addition to all this confusion of
speculative and practical knowledge, prudence is absent when it ought
to be present; e.g. from the division of virtues into moral and
intellectual (E.E. [Beta] 1, 1220 a 4-13), and from the definition of
moral virtue (_ib_. 5, 10); while, in a passage ([Beta] 11)
anticipating the subsequent discussion of the relation between
prudence and moral virtue (E.E. [Epsilon] = E.N. vi. 12-13), it is
stated that in purpose the end is made right by moral virtue, the
means by another power, reason, without this right reason being stated
to be prudence. After this, it can never be said that the earlier
books of the _Eudemian Ethics_ are so good a preparation as those of
the _Nicomachean Ethics_ for the distinction between prudence ([Greek:
phrhoraesis]) and wisdom ([Greek: sophia]), which is the main point of
the common books, and one of Aristotle's main points against Plato's
philosophy.
Curiously enough, although little is made of it, this distinction,
absent from the earlier books, is present in the final book II of the
_Eudemian Ethics_ (cf. 1246 b 4 seq., 1248 a 35, 1249 b 14); and
probably therefore this part was a separate discourse. Meanwhile,
however, the truth about the _Eudemian Ethics_ in general is that it
was an earlier rudimentary sketch written by Aristotle, when he was
still struggling, without quite succeeding, to get over Plato's view
that there is one philosophical knowledge of universal good, by which
not only the dialectician and mathematician must explain the being and
becoming of the world, but also the individual and the statesman guide
the life of man. Indeed, the final proof that the _Eudemian Ethics_ is
earlier than the _Nicomachean_ is the very fact that it is more under
Platonic influence. In the first place, the reason why the account of
prudence begins by confusing the speculative with the practical is
that the _Eudemian Ethics_ starts from Plato's _Philebus_, where,
without differentiating speculative and practical knowledge, Plato
asks how far good is prudence ([Greek: phronaesis]), how far pleasure
([Greek: haedorhae]); and in the _Eudemian Ethics_ Aristotle asks the
same question, adding virtue ([Greek: harethae]) in order to correct
the Socratic confusion of virtue with prudence. Secondly, the
_Eudemian Ethics_, while not agreeing with Plato's _Republic_ that the
just can be happy by justice alone, does not assign to the external
goods of good fortune ([Greek: ehutuchia]) the prominence accorded to
them in the _Nicomachean Ethics_ as the necessary conditions of all
virtue, and the instruments of moral virtue. Thirdly, the emphasis of
the _Eudemian Ethics_ on the perfect virtue of gentlemanliness
([Greek: kalokhagathia]) is a decidedly old-fashioned trait, which
descended to Aristotle from the Greek notion of a gentleman who does
his duty to his state (cf. Herodotus i. 30, Thucydides iv. 40) and to
his God (Xenophon, _Symp_. iv. 49) through Plato, who in the _Gorgias_
(470 [Epsilon]) says that the gentleman is happy, and in the
_Republic_ (489 [Epsilon]) imputes to him the love of truth essential
to philosophy. Moreover, when Plato goes on (_ib._ 505 [Beta]) to
identify the form of good, without which nothing is good, with the
gentlemanly thing ([Greek: kalhon kai agathon]), without which any
possession is worthless, he inspired into the author of the _Eudemian
Ethics_ the very limit ([Greek: opos]) of good fortune and
gentlemanliness with which it concludes, only without Plato's
elevation of the good into the form of the good. In the _Nicomachean
Ethics_ the old notion, we gladly see, survives (cf. i. 8): virtuous
actions are gentlemanly actions, and happiness accordingly is being at
our best and noblest and pleasantest ([Greek: ariston kai kalliston
kai aediston]). But gentlemanliness is no longer called perfect
virtue, as in the _Eudemian Ethics_: its place has been taken by
justice, which is perfect virtue to one's neighbour, by prudence which
unites all the moral virtues, and by wisdom which is the highest
virtue. Accordingly, in the end the old ideal of gentlemanliness is
displaced by the new ideal of the speculative and practical life.
Lastly, the _Eudemian Ethics_ derives from Platonism a strong
theological bias, especially in its conclusion ([Eta] 14-15). The
opposition of divine good fortune according to impulse to that which
is contrary to impulse reminds us of Plato's point in the _Phaedrus_
that there is a divine as well as a diseased madness. The
determination of the limit of good fortune and of gentlemanliness by
looking to the ruler, God, who governs as the end for which prudence
gives its orders, and the conclusion that the best limit is the most
conducive to the service and contemplation of God, presents the Deity
and man's relation to him as a final and objective standard more
definitely in the _Eudemian_ than in the _Nicomachean Ethics_, which
only goes so far as to say that man's highest end is the speculative
wisdom which is divine, like God, dearest to God.
Because, then, it is very like, but more rudimentary and more
Platonic, we conclude that the _Eudemian_ is an earlier draft of the
_Nicomachean Ethics_, written by Aristotle when he was still in
process of transition from Plato's ethics to his own.
The _Magna Moralia_ contains similar evidence of being earlier than
the _Nicomachean Ethics_. It treats the same subjects, but always in a
more rudimentary manner; and its remarks are always such as would
precede rather than follow the masterly expositions of the
_Nicomachean Ethics_. This inferiority applies also to its treatment
not only of the early part (i. 1-33 corresponding to E.N. i.-iv.), but
also of the middle part (i. 34-11. 7 corresponding to E.N. v.-vii. =
E.E. [Delta]-[Zeta]). In dealing with justice, it does not make it
clear, as the _Nicomachean Ethics_ (Book v.) does, that even universal
justice is virtue towards another (M.M. i. 34, 1193 b 1-15), and it
omits altogether the division into distributive and corrective
justice. In dealing with what the _Nicomachean Ethics_ (Book vi.)
calls intellectual virtues, but the _Magna Moralia_ (i. 5, 35) virtues
of the rational part of the soul, and right reason, it distinguishes
(i. 35, 1196 b 34-36) science, prudence, intelligence, wisdom,
apprehension ([Greek: upolaepsis]), in a rough manner very inferior to
the classification of science, art, prudence, intelligence, wisdom,
all of which are coordinate states of attaining truth, in the
_Nicomachean Ethics_ (vi. 3). It distinguishes prudence ([Greek:
phronaesis]) and wisdom ([Greek: sophia]) as the respective virtues of
deliberative and scientific reason; and on the whole its account of
prudence (cf. M.M. i. 5) is more consistent than that of the _Eudemian
Ethics_. In these points it is a better preparation for the
_Nicomachean Ethics_. But it falls into the confusion of first saying
that praise is for moral virtues, and not for virtues of the reason,
whether prudence or wisdom (M.M. i. 5, 1185 b 8-12), and afterwards
arguing that prudence is a virtue, precisely because it is praised (i.
35, 1197 a 16-18). In dealing with continence and incontinence, the
same doubts and solutions occur as in the _Nicomachean Ethics_ (Book
vii. = E.E. [Zeta]), but sometimes confusing doubts and solutions
together, instead of first proposing all the doubts and then supplying
the solutions as in the _Nicomachean Ethics_. Such rudimentary and
imperfect sketches would be quite excusable in a first draft, but
inexcusable and incredible after the _Nicomachean Ethics_ had been
written.
It has another characteristic which points to its being an early work
of Aristotle, when he was still under the influence of Plato's style;
namely its approximation to dialogue. It asks direct questions (e.g.
[Greek: dia ti]; M.M. i. 1 repeatedly, 12; ii. 6, 7), incorporates
direct statements of others (e.g. [Greek: phaesi], i. 12, 13; ii. 3,
6, 7), alternates direct objections and answers (i. 34), and
introduces conversations between the author and others, expressed
interrogatively, indicatively and even imperatively ([Greek: all erei
moi, ta poia diasaphaeson hygieina estin]. i. 35, 1196 b 10; cf. ii.
10, 1208 a 20-22). The whole treatise inclines to run into dialogue.
It is also Platonic, like the _Endemian Ethics_, in making little of
external goods in the account of good fortune (ii. 8), and in
emphasizing the perfect virtue of gentlemanliness (ii. 9). Indeed, in
some respects it is more like the _Eudemian_, though in the main more
like the _Nicomachean Ethics_. In the first book, it has the Eudemian
distinction between prudence, virtue and pleasure (i. 3, 1184 b 5-6);
but does not make so much of it as the distinction between prudence
and wisdom blurred in the _Eudemian_ but defined in the _Nicomachean
Ethics_. In the second book, it runs parallel to the _Eudemian Ethics_
in placing good fortune and gentlemanliness (ii. 8-9), where the
_Nicomachean Ethics_ places the speculative and the practical life;
but it omits the theological element by denying that good fortune is
divine grace, and by submitting gentlemanliness to no standard but
that of right reason, when the irrational part of the soul does not
hinder the rational part, or intellect ([Greek: nous]), from doing its
work.
Because, then, the _Magna Moralia_ is very like the _Nicomachean
Ethics_, but more rudimentary, nearer to the Platonic dialogues in
style and. to a less degree in matter, and also like the _Eudemian
Ethics_, we conclude that it is also like that treatise in having been
written as an earlier draft of the _Nicomachean Ethics_ by Aristotle
himself.
The hypothesis that the _Eudemian Ethics_, and by consequence the
_Magna Moralia_, are later than Aristotle has arisen from a simple
misconception, continued in a Scholium attributed to Aspasius, who
lived in the 2nd century A.D. Nicomachean means "addressed to
Nicomachus," and Eudemian "addressed to Eudemus"; but, as Cicero
thought that the _Nicomachean Ethics_ was written by Nicomachus, so
the author of the Scholium thought that the _Eudemian Ethics_, at
least so far as the first account of pleasure goes, was written by
Eudemus. He only thought so, however, because Aristotle could not have
written both accounts of pleasure; and, taking for granted that
Aristotle had written the second account of pleasure in the
_Nicomachean Ethics_ (Book x.), he concluded that the first account
(Book vii.) was not the work of Aristotle, but of Eudemus (_Comm. in
Ar._ (Berlin) xix. p. 151). We have seen reason to reverse this
argument: Aristotle did write the first account in Book vii., because
it contains his usual theory; and, if we must choose, he did not write
the second account in Book x. In this way, too, we get a historical
development of the theory of pleasure: Plato and Speusippus said it is
generation (cf. Plato's _Philebus_): Aristotle said it is psychical
activity sometimes requiring bodily generation, sometimes not (E.N.
vii. = E.E. [zeta]): Aristotle, or some Aristotelian, afterwards said
that it is a supervening end completing an activity (E.N. x.).
Secondly, some modern commentators, starting from the false conclusion
that the definition of pleasure as activity (E.N. vii. = E.E. [zeta])
is by Eudemus, and supposing without proof that he was also author of
the first three books of the _Eudemian Ethics_, have further asserted
that these are a better introduction than the first four books of the
_Nicomachean Ethics_ to the books common to both treatises (E.N. Books
v.-vii.= E.E. Books [Delta]-[Zeta]), and have concluded that Eudemus
wrote these common books. But we have seen that Aristotle wrote the
first three books of the _Eudemian_ as an earlier draft of the
_Nicomachean Ethics_; so that, even so far as they form a better
introduction, this will not prove the common books to be by Eudemus.
Again, those first three books are a better introduction only in
details; whereas in regard to the all-important subject of prudence as
distinct from wisdom, they are so bad an introduction that the common
book which discusses that subject at large (E.N. Book vi. = E.E. Book
[Epsilon]) must be rather founded on the first four books of
Aristotle's _Nicomachean Ethics_. Further, as Aristotle wrote both the
first three Eudemian and the first four Nicomachean books, there is no
reason why sometimes one, sometimes the other, should not be the best
introduction to the common books by the same author. Finally, the
common books are so integral a part of the Aristotelian system of
philosophy that they cannot be disengaged from it: the book on justice
(E.N. v.) quotes and is quoted in the _Politics_ (cf. 1130 b 28, 1280
a 16, 1261 a 30); the book on intellectual virtues (E.N. vi.) quotes
(vi. 3) the _Posterior Analytics_, i. 2, and is quoted in the
_Metaphysics_ ([Alpha] 1); and we have seen that the book (E.N. vii.)
which defines pleasure as activity is simply stating an Aristotelian
commonplace. Thirdly, in order to prove that the _Eudemian Ethics_ was
by Eudemus, it is said that in its first part it contemplates that
there must be a limit ([Greek: oros]) for virtue as a mean (E.E.
[Beta] 5, 1222 b 7-8), in its middle part it criticizes the
_Nicomackean Ethics_ for not being clear about this limit (E.E.
[Epsilon] 1), and in the end it alone assigns this limit, in the
service and contemplation of God (E.E. [Eta] 15, 1249 b 16 seq.). This
argument is subtle, but over-subtle. The _Eudemian_ and the
_Nicomachean_ treatments of this subject do not really differ. In the
_Nicomachean_ as in the _Eudemian Ethics_ the limit above moral virtue
is right reason, or prudence, which is right reason on such matters;
and above prudence wisdom, for which prudence gives its orders; while
wisdom is the intelligence and science of the most venerable objects,
of the most divine, and of God. After this agreement, there is a shade
of difference. While the _Eudemian Ethics_ in a more theological vein
emphasizes God, the object of wisdom as the end for which prudence
gives its orders, the Nicomachean Ethics in a more humanizing spirit
emphasizes wisdom itself, the speculative activity, as that end, and
afterwards as the highest happiness, because activity of the divine
power of intellect, because an imitation of the activity of God,
because most dear to God. This is too fine a distinction to found a
difference of authorship. Beneath it, and behind the curious
hesitation which in dealing with mysteries Aristotle shows between the
divine and the human, his three moral treatises agree that wisdom is a
science of things divine, which the _Nicomachean Ethics_ (vi. 7)
defines as science and intelligence of the most venerable things, the
_Magna Moralia_ (i. 35) regards as that which is concerned with the
eternal and the divine, and the _Eudemian Ethics_ ([Eta] 15) elevates
into the service and contemplation of God.
Aristotle then wrote three moral treatises, which agree in the
fundamental doctrines that happiness requires external fortune, but is
activity of soul according to virtue, rising from morality through
prudence to wisdom, or that science of the divine which constitutes the
theology of his _Metaphysics_. Surely, the harmony of these three moral
gospels proves that Aristotle wrote them, and wrote the _Eudemian
Ethics_ and the _Magna Moralia_ as preludes to the Nicomachean Ethics.
When did he begin? We do not know; but there is a pathetic
suggestiveness in a passage in the _Magna Moralia_ (i. 35), where he
says, "Clever even a bad man is called; as Mentor was thought clever,
but prudent he was not." Mentor was the treacherous contriver of the
death of Hermias (345-344 B.C.). Was this passage written when Aristotle
was mourning for his friend?
4. _The Rhetoric to Alexander._--This is one of a series of works
emanating from Aristotle's early studies in rhetoric, beginning with the
_Gryllus_, continuing in the _Theodectea_ and the _Collection of Arts_,
all of which are lost except some fragments; while among the extant
Aristotelian writings as they stand we still possess the _Rhetoric to
Alexander_ ([Greek: Rhaetorikae pros Alexandron]) and the _Rhetoric_
([Greek: Techyn Rhaetorikae]). But the _Rhetoric to Alexander_ was
considered spurious by Erasmus, for the inadequate reasons that it has a
preface and is not mentioned in the list of Diogenes Laertius, and was
assigned by Petrus Victorius, in his preface to the _Rhetoric_, to
Anaximenes. It remained for Spengel to entitle the work _Anaximenis Ars
Rhetorica_ in his edition of 1847, and thus substitute for the name of
the philosopher Aristotle that of the sophist Anaximenes on his
title-page. We have therefore to ask, first who was the author, and
secondly what is the relation of the _Rhetoric to Alexander_ to the
_Rhetoric_, which nowadays alone passes for genuine.
After a dedicatory epistle to Alexander (chap, 1) the opening of the
treatise itself (chap. 2) is as follows:--"There are three genera of
political speeches; one deliberative, one declamatory, one forensic:
their species are seven; hortative, dissuasive, laudatory, vituperative,
accusatory, defensive, critical." This brief sentence is enough to prove
the work genuine, because it was Aristotle who first distinguished the
three genera (cf. _Rhet_. i. 3; Quintilian iii. 4, 1. 7, 1), by
separating the declamatory ([Greek: epideiktikon]) from the deliberative
([Greek: daempaegorikon, symbouleutikon]) and judicial ([Greek:
dikanikon]); whereas his rival Isocrates had considered that laudation
and vituperation, which Aristotle elevated into species of declamation,
run through every kind (Quintilian iv. 4), and Anaximenes recognized
only the deliberative and the judicial (Dionys. H. _de Isaeo_, 19). In
order, however, to impute the whole work to Anaximenes, Spengel took one
of the most inexcusable steps ever taken in the history of scholarship.
Without any manuscript authority he altered the very first words "three
genera" ([Greek: tria genae]) into "two genera" ([Greek: duo genae]),
and omitted the words "one declamatory" ([Greek: to de epideiktikon]).
Quintilian (iii. 4) imputes to Anaximenes two genera, deliberative and
judicial, and seven species, "hortandi, dehortandi, laudandi,
vituperandi, accusandi, defendendi, exquirendi, quod [Greek:
exetastikon] dicit." But the author of this rhetoric most certainly
recognized three genera ([Greek: tria genae]), since, besides the
deliberative and judicial, the declamatory genus constantly appears in
the work (chaps. 2 _init._, 4, 7, 18, 36, cf. [Greek: oyk agonos all
epideixeos eneka] 1440 b 13); and, if the terms for it are not always
the same, this is just what one would expect in a new discovery.
Moreover, he could recognize seven species in the _Rhetoric to
Alexander_, though he recognized only six in the _Rhetoric_, provided
the two works were not written at the same time; and as a matter of fact
even in the _Rhetoric to Alexander_ the seventh or critical species
([Greek: exetastikon]) is in process of disappearing (cf. chap. 37). As
then Anaximenes did not, but Aristotle did, recognize three genera, and
as Aristotle could as well as Anaximenes recognize seven species, the
evidence is overwhelming that the _Rhetoric to Alexander_ is the work
not of Anaximenes, but of Aristotle; on the condition that its date is
not that of Aristotle's confessedly genuine _Rhetoric_.
There is a second and even stronger evidence that the _Rhetoric to
Alexander_ is a genuine work of Aristotle. It divides (chap. 8)
evidences ([Greek: pisteis]) into two kinds (1) evidence from arguments,
actions and men ([Greek: ai men ex auton ton logon kai ton praxeon kai
ton anthropon]); (2) adventitious evidences ([Greek: ai d' epithetoi
tois legomenois kai tois prattomenois]). The former are immediately
enumerated as probabilities ([Greek: eikota]), examples ([Greek:
paradeigmara]), proofs ([Greek: tekmaeria]), considerations ([Greek:
enthomaemata]), maxims ([Greek: gnomai]), signs ([Greek: saemeia]),
refutations ([Greek: elenchoi]); the latter as opinion of the speaker
([Greek: doxa ton legontos]), witnesses ([Greek: martyriai]), tortures
([Greek: basanoi]), oaths ([Greek: orkoi]). It is confessed by Spengel
himself that these two kinds of evidences are the two kinds recognized
in Aristotle's _Rhetoric_ as (1) artificial ([Greek: entechnoi pisteis])
and (2) inartificial ([Greek: atechnoi pisteis]). Now, from the outset
of his _Rhetoric_ Aristotle himself claims to be the first to
distinguish between artificial evidences from arguments and other
evidences which he regards as mere additions; and he complains that the
composers of arts of speaking had neglected the former for the latter.
In particular, rhetoricians appeared to him to have neglected argument
in comparison with passion. No doubt, rational evidences had appeared in
books of rhetoric, as we see from Plato's _Phaedrus_, 266-267, where we
find proofs, probabilities, refutation and maxim, but mixed up with
other evidences. The point of Aristotle was to draw a line between
rational and other evidences, to insist on the former, and in fact to
found a logic of rhetoric. But if in the _Rhetoric to Alexander_, not
he, but Anaximenes, had already performed this great achievement,
Aristotle would have been the meanest of mankind; for the logic of
rhetoric would have been really the work of Anaximenes the sophist, but
falsely claimed by Aristotle the philosopher. As we cannot without a
tittle of evidence accept such a consequence, we conclude that
Aristotle formulated the distinction between argumentative and
adventitious, artificial and inartificial evidences, both in the
_Rhetoric to Alexander_ and in the _Rhetoric_; and that the former as
well as the latter is a genuine work of Aristotle, the founder of the
logic of rhetoric.
What is the relation between these two genuine Rhetorics? The last
event mentioned in the _Rhetoric to Alexander_ occurred in 340, the
last in the _Rhetoric_ is the common peace ([Greek: koinae eiraenae])
made between Alexander and the Greeks in 336 (_Rhet_. ii. 23, 1399 b
12). The former treatise (chap. 9), under the head of examples
([Greek: paradeigmata]), gives historical examples of the unexpected
in war for the years 403, 371, 358, concluding with the year 340, in
which the Corinthians, coming with nine triremes to the assistance of
the Syracusans, defeated the Carthaginians who were blockading
Syracuse with 150 ships. Spengel, indeed, tries to bring the latest
date in the book down to 330; but it is by absurdly supposing that the
author could not have got the commonplace, "one ought to criticize not
bitterly but gently," except from Demosthenes, _De Corona_ (§ 265). We
may take it then that the last date in the _Rhetoric to Alexander_ is
340; and by a curious coincidence 340 was the year when, on Philip's
marching against Byzantium, Alexander was left behind as regent and
keeper of the seal, and distinguished himself so greatly that Philip
was only too glad that the Macedonians called Alexander king
(Plutarch, _Alexander_, 9). It is possible then that Aristotle may
have written the dedication to Alexander about 340 and treated him as
if he were king in the dedicatory epistle. At the same time, as such
prefaces are often forgeries, not prejudicing the body of the
treatise, it does not really matter whether Aristotle actually
dedicated his work to Alexander in that epistle about that year or
not. If he did, then the _Rhetoric to Alexander_ in 340 was at least
four years prior to the _Rhetoric_, which was as late as 336. If he
did not, the question still remains, what is the internal relation
between these two genuine Rhetorics? It will turn out most important.
The relation between the two Rhetorics turns on their treatment of
rational, argumentative, artificial evidences. Each of them, the
probability (chap. 8), the example (chap. 9), the proof (chap. 10),
the consideration (chap, 11), the maxim (chap. 12), the sign (chap.
13), the refutation (chap. 14), though very like what it is in the
_Rhetoric_, receives in the _Rhetoric to Alexander_ a definition
slightly different from the definition in the _Rhetoric_, which it
must be remembered is also the definition in the _Prior Analytics_.
Strange as this point is, it is still stranger that not one of these
internal evidences is brought into relation with induction and
deduction. Example ([Greek: paradeigma]) is not called rhetorical
induction, and consideration ([Greek: enthymaema]) is not called
rhetorical syllogism, as they are in the _Rhetoric_, and in the
_Analytics_. Induction ([Greek: epagogae]) and syllogism ([Greek:
syllogismos]), the general forms of inference, do not occur in the
_Rhetoric to Alexander_. In fact, this interesting treatise contains a
rudimentary treatment of rational evidences in rhetoric and is
therefore earlier than the _Rhetoric_, which exhibits a developed
analysis of these rational evidences as special logical forms.
Together, the earlier and the later _Rhetoric_ show us the logic of
rhetoric in the making, going on about 340, the last date of the
_Rhetoric to Alexander_, and more developed in or after 336 B.C., the
last date of the _Rhetoric_.
Nor is this all: the earlier _Rhetoric to Alexander_ and the later
_Rhetoric_ show us logic itself in the making. We have already said
that Aristotle was primarily a metaphysician. He gradually became a
logician out of his previous studies: out of metaphysics, for with him
being is always the basis of thinking, and common principles, such as
that of contradiction, are axioms of things before axioms of thought,
while categories are primarily things signified by names; out of the
mathematics of the Pythagoreans and the Platonists, which taught him
the nature of demonstration; out of the physics, of which he imbibed
the first draughts from his father, which taught him induction from
sense and the modification of strict demonstration to suit facts; out
of the dialectic between man and man which provided him with beautiful
examples of inference in the Socratic dialogues of Xenophon and Plato;
out of the rhetoric addressed to large audiences, which with dialectic
called his attention to probable inferences; out of the grammar taught
with rhetoric and poetics which led him to the logic of the
proposition. We cannot write a history of the varied origin of logic,
beyond putting the rudimentary logic of the proposition in the _De
Interpretatione_ before the less rudimentary theory of categories as
significant names capable of becoming predicates in the _Categories_,
and before the maturer analysis of the syllogism in the _Analytics_.
But at any rate the process was gradual; and Aristotle was advanced in
metaphysics, mathematics, physics, dialectics, rhetoric and poetics,
before he became the founder of logic.
V. ORDER OF THE PHILOSOPHICAL WRITINGS
Some of Aristotle's philosophical writings then are earlier than others;
because they show more Platonic influence, and are more rudimentary;
e.g. the _Categories_ earlier than some parts of the _Metaphysics_,
because under the influence of Platonic forms it talks of inherent
attributes, and allows secondary substances which are universal; the _De
Interpretatione_ earlier than the _Analytics_, because in it the
Platonic analysis of the sentence into noun and verb is retained for the
proposition; the _Eudemian Ethics_ and the _Magna Moralia_ earlier than
the _Nicomachean Ethics_, because they are rudimentary sketches of it,
and the one written rather in the theological spirit, the other rather
in the dialectical style, of Plato; and the _Rhetoric to Alexander_
earlier than the _Rhetoric_, because it contains a rudimentary theory of
the rational evidences afterwards developed into a logic of rhetoric in
the _Rhetoric_ and _Analytics_.
It is tempting to think that we can carry out the chronological order of
the philosophical writings in detail. But in the gradual process of
composition, by which a work once begun was kept going with the rest,
although a work such as the _Politics_ (begun in 357) was begun early,
and some works more rudimentary came earlier than others, the general
body of writings was so kept together in Aristotle's library, and so
simultaneously elaborated and consolidated into a system that it soon
becomes impossible to put one before another.
Zeller, indeed, has attempted an exact order of succession:--
1. The logical treatises.
2. The _Physics, De Coelo, De Generatione et Corruptione,
Meteorologica_.
3. _Historia Animalium, De Anima, Parva Naturalia, De Partibus
Animalium, De Animalium Incessu, De Generatione Animalium_.
4. _Ethics_ and _Politics_.
5. _Poetics_ and _Rhetoric_.
6. _Metaphysics_ (unfinished).
But Zeller does not give enough weight either to the evidence of early
composition contained in the _Politics_ and _Meteorology_, or to the
evidence of subsequent contemporaneous composition contained in the
cross-references, e.g. between the _Physics_ and the _Metaphysics_. On
the other hand he gives too much weight to the references from one
book to another, which Aristotle could have entered into his
manuscripts at any time before his death. Moreover, the arrangement
sometimes breaks down: for example, though on the whole the logical
books are quoted without quoting the rest, the _De Interpretatione_
(chap. 1) quotes the _De Anima_, and therefore is falsely taken by
Zeller against its own internal evidence to be subsequent to it and
consequently to the other logical books. Again, the _Meteorologica_
(iii. 2, 372 b 9) quotes the _De Sensu_ (c. 3), and therefore, on
Zeller's arguments, ought to follow one of the _Parva Naturalia_.
Lastly, though the _Metaphysics_ often quotes the _Physics_, and is
therefore regarded as being subsequent, it is itself quoted in the
_Physics_ (i. 8, 191 b 29), and therefore ought to be regarded as
antecedent. Zeller tries to get over this difficulty of
cross-reference by detaching _Metaphysics_, Book [Delta], from the
rest and placing it before the _Physics_. But this violent and
arbitrary remedy is only partial. The truth is that the _Metaphysics_
both precedes and follows the _Physics_, because it had been all along
occupying Aristotle ever since he began to differ from Plato's
metaphysical views and indeed forms a kind of presupposed basis of his
whole system. So generally, the references backwards and forwards, and
the cross-references, are really evidences that Aristotle mainly wrote
his works not successively but simultaneously, and entered references
as and when he pleased, because he had not published them.
There are two kinds of quotations in Aristotle's extant works, the
quotation of another book, and the quotation of a historical fact.
While the former is useless to determine the sequence of books written
simultaneously, the latter is insufficient to determine a complete
chronological order. When Aristotle, e.g. in the _Politics_, quotes an
event as now ([Greek: nun]), he was writing about it at that time; and
when he quotes another event as lately ([Greek: neosti]) he was
writing about it shortly after that time; but he might have been
writing the rest of the _Politics_ both before and after either event.
When he quotes the last event mentioned in the book, e.g. in the
_Rhetoric_ (ii. 23, 1399 b 12) the "common peace" of Greece under
Alexander in 336, he was writing as late as that date, but he might
also have been writing the _Rhetoric_ both before it and after it.
When he quotes what persons used to say in the past, e.g. Plato and
Speusippus in the _Ethics_, Eudoxus and Callippus in the
_Metaphysics_, he was writing these passages after the deaths of these
persons; but he might have been also writing the _Ethics_ and the
_Metaphysics_ both beforehand and afterwards. Lastly, when he is
silent about a historical fact, the argument from silence is evidence
only when he could not have failed to mention it; as, for example, in
the _Constitution of Athens_, when he could not have failed to mention
quinqueremes and other facts after 325-324. But this is in a
historical work; whereas the argument from silence about historical
facts in a philosophical work can seldom apply.
The chronological order therefore is not sufficiently detailed to be
the real order of Aristotelian writings. Secondly, the traditional
order, which for nearly 2000 years has descended from the edition of
Andronicus to the Berlin edition, is satisfactory in details, but
unsatisfactory in system. It gives too much weight to Aristotle's
logic, and too little to his metaphysics, on account of two prejudices
of the commentators which led them to place both logic and physics
before metaphysics. Aristotle rightly used all the sciences of his
day, and especially his own physics, as a basis of his metaphysics.
For example, at the very outset he refers to the _Physics_ (ii. 2)for
his use of the four causes, material, efficient, formal and final, in
the _Metaphysics_ ([Alpha] 2). This and other applications of the
science of nature to the science of all being induced the commentators
to adopt this order, and entitle the science of being the _Sequel to
the Physics_ ([Greek: ta meta ta physica]). But Aristotle knew nothing
of this title, the first known use of which was by Nicolaus
Damascenus, a younger contemporary of Andronicus, the editor of the
Aristotelian writings, and Andronicus was probably the originator of
the title, and of the order. On the other hand, Aristotle entitles the
science of all being "Primary Philosophy" ([Greek: protae
philosophia]), and the science of physical being "Secondary
Philosophy" ([Greek: deutera philosophia]), which suggests that his
order is from Metaphysics to Physics, the reverse of his editor's
order from Physics to Metaphysics. Thus the traditional order puts
Physics before Metaphysics without Aristotle's authority. With some
more show of authority it puts Logic before Metaphysics. Aristotle, on
introducing the principle of contradiction (_Met._ [Gamma] 3), which
belongs to Metaphysics as an axiom of being, says that those who
attempt to discuss the question of accepting this axiom, do so on
account of their ignorance of _Analytics_, which they ought to know
beforehand ([Greek: proepistamenous]). He means that the logical
analysis of demonstration in the _Analytics_ would teach them
beforehand that there cannot be demonstration, though there must be
induction, of an axiom, or any other principle; whereas, if they are
not logically prepared for metaphysics, they will expect a
demonstration of the axiom, as Heraclitus, the Heraclitean Cratylus
and the Sophist Protagoras actually did,--and in vain. Acting on this
hint, not Aristotle but the Peripatetics inferred that all logic is an
instrument ([Greek: organon]) of all sciences; and by the time of
Andronicus, who was one of them and sometimes called "the eleventh
from Aristotle," the order, Logic-Physics-Metaphysics, had become
established pretty much as we have it now. It is, however, not the
real order for studying the philosophy of Aristotle, because there is
more Metaphysics in his Physics than Physics in his Metaphysics, and
more Metaphysics in his Logic than Logic in his Metaphysics. The
commentators themselves were doubtful about the order: Boethus
proposed to begin with Physics, and some of the Platonists with Ethics
or Mathematics; while Andronicus preferred to put Logic first as
Organon (_Scholia_, 25 b 34 seq.). None of the parties to the dispute
had the authority of Aristotle. What do we find in his works? Primary
philosophy, Metaphysics, the science of being, is the solid foundation
of all parts of his philosophical system; not only in the _Physics_,
but also in the _De Coelo_ (i. 8, 277 b 10), in the _De Generatione_
(i. 3, 318 a 6; ii. 10, 336 b 29), in the _De Anima_ (i. 1, 403 a 28,
cf. b 16), in the _De Partibus Animalium_ (i. 1, 641 a 35), in the
_Nicomachean Ethics_ (i. 6, 1096 b 30), in the _De Interpretatione_
(5, 17 a 14); and in short throughout his extant works. The reason is
that Aristotle was primarily a metaphysician half for and half against
Plato, occupied himself with metaphysics all his philosophical life,
made the science of things the universal basis of all sciences without
destroying their independence, and so gradually brought round
philosophy from universal forms to individual substances. The
traditional order of the Aristotelian writings, still continued in the
Berlin edition, beginning with the logical writings on page 1,
proceeding to the physical writings on page 184, and postponing the
Metaphysics to page 980, is not the real order of Aristotle's
philosophy.
The real order of Aristotle's philosophy is that of Aristotle's mind,
revealed in his writings, and by the general view of thinking, science,
philosophy and all learning therein contained. He classified thinking
(_Met._ [Epsilon] 1) and science (_Topics_, vi. 6) by the three
operations of speculation ([Greek: theoria]), practice ([Greek: praxis])
and production ([Greek: poiaesis]), and made the following
subdivisions:--
I. Speculative: about things; subdivided (_Met._ [Epsilon] 1; _De An._
i. 1) into:--
i. Primary Philosophy, Theology, also called Wisdom, about things
as things.
ii. Mathematical Philosophy, about quantitative things in the
abstract.
iii. Physical Philosophy, about things as changing, and therefore
about natural substances or bodies, composed of matter and
essence.
II. Practical or Political Philosophy, or philosophy of things human
(cf. E.N. x. 9-fin.): about human good; subdivided (E.N. vi.
8, cf. E.E. [Alpha] 8, 1218 b 13) into:--
i. Ethics, about the good of the individual.
ii. Economics, about the good of the family.
iii. Politics, about the general good of the state.
III. Productive, or Art ([Greek: technae]): about works produced;
subdivided (_Met._ A. 1, 981 b 17-20) into:--
i. Necessary ([Greek: pros tanagkaia]), e.g. medicine.
ii. Fine ([Greek: pros diagogaen]), e.g. poetry.
Aristotle calls all these investigations sciences ([Greek: epistaemai]):
but he also uses the term "sciences" in a narrower sense in consequence
of a classification of their objects, which pervades his writings, into
things necessary and things contingent, as follows.--
(A) The necessary ([Greek: to mae endechomenon allos echein]), what
must be; subdivided into:--
(1) Absolutely ([Greek: haplos]), e.g. the mathematical.
(2) Hypothetically ([Greek: ex hypotheseus]), e.g. matter necessary
as means to an end.
(B) The contingent ([Greek: to endechomenon allos echein]), what may
be; subdivided into:--
(1) The usual ([Greek: to hos epi to polu]) or natural ([Greek: to
physikon]), e.g. a man grows grey.
(2) The accidental ([Greek: to kata symbebaekos]), e.g. a man sits or
not.
Now, according to Aristotle, science in the narrow sense is concerned
only with the absolutely necessary (E.N. iii. 3), and in the
classification would stop at mathematics, which we still call exact
science: in the wide sense, on the other hand, it extends to the whole
of the necessary and to the usual contingent, but excludes the
accidental (_Met._ [Epsilon] 2), and would in the classification include
not only metaphysics and mathematics, but also physics, ethics,
economics, politics, necessary and fine art; or in short all
speculative, practical and productive thinking of a systematic kind.
Hence the _Posterior Analytics_, which is Aristotle's authoritative
logic of science, is of peculiar interest because, after beginning by
defining science as investigating necessary objects from necessary
principles (i. 4), it proceeds to say that it is either of the necessary
or of the usual though not of the accidental (i. 29), and to admit that
its principles are some necessary and some contingent (i. 32, 88 b 7).
Philosophy ([Greek: philosophia]) also is used by him in a similar
manner. Though occasionally he means by it primary philosophy (_Met._
[Gamma] 2-3, [Kappa] 3), more frequently he extends it to all three
speculative philosophies ([Epsilon] 1, 1026 a 18, [Greek: treis an eien
philosophiai theoraetikai, mathaematikae, physikae, theologikae]), and
to all three practical philosophies, as we see from the constant use of
the phrase "political philosopher" in the _Ethics_; and in short applies
it to all sciences except productive science or art. With him, as with
the Greeks generally, the problems of philosophy are the nature and
origin of being and of good: it is not as with too many of us a mere
science of mind.
Aristotle's view of thinking in science and philosophy is essentially
comprehensive; but it is not so wide as to become indefinite. According
to him, science at its widest selects a special subject, e.g. number in
arithmetic, magnitude in geometry, stars in astronomy, a man's good in
ethics; concentrates itself on the causes and appropriate principles of
its subject, especially the definition of the subject and its species by
their essences or formal causes; and after an inductive intelligence of
those principles proceeds by a deductive demonstration from definitions
to consequences: philosophy is simply a desire of this definite
knowledge of causes and effects. Beyond philosophy, not beyond science,
there is art; and beyond philosophy and science there is history, the
description of facts preparatory to philosophy, the investigation of
causes (cf. _Pr. An._ i. 30); and this may be natural history,
preparatory to natural philosophy, as in the _History of Animals_
preparatory to the _De Partibus Animalium_, or what we call civil
history, preparatory to political philosophy, as in the 158
Constitutions more or less preparatory to the _Politics_.
Wide as is all his knowledge of facts and causes, it does not appear to
Aristotle to be the whole of learning and the show of it. Beyond
knowledge lies opinion, beyond discovery disputation, beyond philosophy
and science dialectic between man and man, which was much practised by
the Greeks in the dialogues of Socrates, Plato, the Megarians and
Aristotle himself in his early manhood. With Plato, who thought that the
interrogation of man is the best instrument of truth, dialectic was
exaggerated into a universal science of everything that is. Aristotle,
on the other hand, learnt to distinguish dialectic ([Greek:
dialektikae]) from science ([Greek: epotaemae]); in that it has no
definite subject, else it would not ask questions (_Post. An._ i. 11, 77
a 31-33); in that for appropriate principles it substitutes the
probabilities of authority ([Greek: ta hendoxa]) which are the opinions
of all, or of the majority, or of the wise (_Top._ i. 1, 100 b 21-23);
and in that it is not like science a deduction from true and primary
principles of a definite subject to true consequences, but a deduction
from opinion to opinion, which may be true or false. Sophistry appeared
to him to be like it, except that it is a fallacious deduction either
from merely apparent probabilities in its matter or itself merely
apparently syllogistic in its form (cf. _Topics_, i. 1). Moreover, he
compared dialectic and sophistry, on account of their generality, with
primary philosophy in the _Metaphysics_ ([Gamma] 2, 1004 b 17-26); to
the effect that all three concern themselves with all things, but that
about everything metaphysics is scientific, dialectic tentative,
sophistry apparent, not real. He means that a sophist like Protagoras
will teach superficially anything as wisdom for money; and that even a
dialectician like Plato will write a dialogue, such as the _Republic_,
nominally about justice, but really about all things from the generality
of the form of good, instead of from appropriate moral principles; but
that a primary philosopher selects as a definite subject all things as
such without interfering with the special sciences of different things
each in its kind (_Met._ [Gamma] 1), and investigates the axioms or
common principles of things as things (_ib._ 3), without pretending,
like Plato, to deduce from any common principle the special principles
of each science (_Post. An._ i. 9, 32). Aristotle at once maintains the
primacy of metaphysics and vindicates the independence of the special
sciences. He is at the same time the only Greek philosopher who clearly
discriminated discovery and disputation, science and dialectic, the
knowledge of a definite subject from its appropriate principles and the
discussion of anything whatever from opinions and authority. On one side
he places science and philosophy, on the other dialectic and sophistry.
Such is the great mind of Aristotle manifested in the large map of
learning, by which we have now to determine the order of his extant
philosophical writings, with a view to studying them in their real
order, which is neither chronological nor traditional, but philosophical
and scientific. Turning over the pages of the Berlin edition, but
passing over works which are perhaps spurious, we should put first and
foremost speculative philosophy, and therein the primary philosophy of
his _Metaphysics_ (980 a 21-1093 b 29); then the secondary philosophy of
his _Physics_, followed by his other physical works, general and
biological, including among the latter the _Historia Animalium_ as
preparatory to the _De Partibus Animalium_, and the _De Anima_ and
_Parva Naturalia_, which he called "physical" but we call
"psychological" (184 a 10-967 b 27); next, the practical philosophy of
the _Ethics_, including the _Eudemian Ethics_ and the _Magna Moralia_ as
earlier and the _Nicomachean Ethics_ as later (1094-1249 b 25), and of
the _Politics_ (1252-1342), with the addition of the newly discovered
_Athenian Constitution_ as ancillary to it; finally, the productive
science, or art, of the _Rhetoric_, including the earlier _Rhetoric to
Alexander_ and the later _Rhetorical Art_, and of the _Poetics_, which
was unfinished (1354-end). This is the real order of Aristotle's system,
based on his own theory and classification of sciences.
But what has become of Logic, with which the traditional order of
Andronicus begins Aristotle's works (1-148 b 8)? So far from coming
first, Logic comes nowhere in his classification of science. Aristotle
was the founder of Logic; because, though others, and especially Plato,
had made occasional remarks about reason ([Greek: logos]), Aristotle was
the first to conceive it as a definite subject of investigation. As he
says at the end of the _Sophistical Elenchi_ on the syllogism, he had no
predecessor, but took pains and laboured a long time in investigating
it. Nobody, not even Plato, had discovered that the process of deduction
is a combination of premisses ([Greek: syllogomos]) to produce a new
conclusion. Aristotle, who made this great discovery, must have had
great difficulty in developing the new investigation of reasoning
processes out of dialectic, rhetoric, poetics, grammar, metaphysics,
mathematics, physics and ethics; and in disengaging it from other kinds
of learning. He got so far as gradually to write short discourses and
long treatises, which we, not he, now arrange in the order of the
_Categories_ or names; the _De Interpretatione_ on propositions; the
_Analytics_, _Prior_ on syllogism, _Posterior_ on scientific syllogism;
the _Topics_ on dialectical syllogism; the _Sophistici Elenchi_ on
eristical or sophistical syllogism; and, except that he had hardly a
logic of induction, he covered the ground. But after all this original
research he got no further. First, he did not combine all these works
into a system. He may have laid out the sequence of syllogisms from the
_Analytics_ onwards; but how about the _Categories_ and the _De
Interpretatione_? Secondly, he made no division of logic. In the
_Categories_ he distinguished names and propositions for the sake of the
classification of names; in the _De Interpretatione_ he distinguished
nouns and verbs from sentences with a view to the enunciative sentence:
in the _Analytics_ he analysed the syllogism into premisses and
premisses into terms and copula, for the purpose of syllogism. But he
never called any of these a division of all logic. Thirdly, he had no
one name for logic. In the _Posterior Analytics_ (i. 22, 84 a 7-8) he
distinguishes two modes of investigation, analytically ([Greek:
analytikos]) and logically ([Greek: logikos]). But "analytical" means
scientific inference from appropriate principles, and "logical" means
dialectical inference from general considerations; and the former gives
its name to the _Analytics_, the latter suits the _Topics_, while
neither analytic nor logic is a name for all the works afterwards called
logic. Fourthly, and consequently, he gave no place to any science
embracing the whole of those works in his classification of science, but
merely threw out the hint that we should know analytics before
questioning the acceptance of the axioms of being (_Met._ [Gamma] 3).
It is a commentator's blunder to suppose that the founder of logic
elaborated it into a system, and then applied it to the sciences. He
really left the Peripatetics to combine his scattered discourses and
treatises into a system, to call it logic, and logic _Organon_, and to
put it first as the instrument of sciences; and it was the Stoics who
first called logic a science, and assigned it the first place in their
triple classification of science into logic, physics, ethics. Would
Aristotle have consented? Would he not rather have given the first place
to primary philosophy?
Dialectic was distinguished from science by Aristotle. Is logic, then,
according to him, not science but dialectic? The word logically
([Greek: logikos]) means the same as dialectically ([Greek:
dialektikos]). But the general discussion of opinions, signified by
both words, is only a subordinate part of Aristotle's profound
investigation of the whole process of reasoning. The _Analytics_, the
most important part, so far from being dialectic or logic in that
narrow sense, is called by him not logic but analytic science ([Greek:
analytickae elistaemae], _Rhet._ i. 4, 1359 b 10; cf, 1356 b 9, 1357 a
30, b 25); and in the _Metaphysics_ he evidently refers to it as "the
science which considers demonstration and science," which he
distinguishes from the three speculative sciences, mathematics,
physics and primary philosophy (Met. [Kappa] 1, 1059 b 9-21). The
_Analytics_ then, which from the beginning claims to deal with
science, is a science of sciences, without however forming any part of
the classification. On the other hand, it does not follow that
Aristotle would have regarded the _Topics_, which he calls "the
investigation" and "the investigation of dialectic" ([Greek: hae
pralmateia], _Top_, i. 1, [Greek: hae pralmateia hae peri taen
dialektikaen], Pr. _An._ i. 30, 46 a 30), or the _De Interpretatione_,
which he calls "the present theory" ([Greek: taes nun theorias], _De
Int._ 6, 17 a 7), as science. In fact, as to the _Categories_ as well
as the _De Interpretatione_, we are at a complete loss. But about the
_Topics_ we may venture to make the suggestion that, as in describing
consciousness Aristotle says we perceive that we perceive, and
understand that we understand, and as he calls _Analytics_ a science
of sciences, so he might have called the _Topics_ a dialectical
investigation of dialectic. Now, this suggestion derives support from
his own description of the allied art of Rhetoric. "Rhetoric is
counterpart to dialectic" is the first sentence of the _Rhetoric_; and
the reason is that both are concerned with common objects of no
definite science. Afterwards dialectic and rhetoric are said to differ
from other arts in taking either side of a question (i. 1, 1355 a
33-35); rhetoric, since its artificial evidences involve characters,
passions and reasoning, is called a kind of offshoot of dialectic and
morals, and a copy of dialectic, because neither is a science of
anything definite, but both faculties ([Greek: dynameis]) of providing
arguments (i. 2, 1356 a 33); and, since rhetorical arguments are
examples and enthymemes analysed in the _Analytics_, rhetoric is
finally regarded as a compound of analytic science and of morals,
while it is like dialectical and sophistic arguments (i. 4, 1359 b
2-17).
As then Aristotle himself regarded rhetoric as partly science and
partly dialectic, perhaps he would have said that his works on
reasoning are some science and others not, and that, while the
investigation of syllogism with a view to scientific syllogism in the
_Analytics_ is analytic science, the investigation of dialectical
syllogism, in the _Topics_, with its abuse, eristical syllogism, in
the _Sophistici Elenchi_, is dialectic. At any rate, these
miscellaneous works on reasoning have no right to stand first in
Aristotle's writings under any one name, logic or _Organon_. As he
neither put them together, nor on any one definite plan, we are left
to convenience; and the most convenient place is with the psychology
of the _De Anima_.
As for dialectic itself, it would have been represented by Aristotle's
early dialogues, had they not been lost except a few fragments. But
none of his extant writings is so much dialectic, like a Platonic
dialogue. They contain however many relics of dialectic. The
_Rhetoric_ is declared by him to be partly dialectic. The _Topics_ is
at least an investigation of dialectic, which has had an immense
influence on the method of argument. The _Magna Moralia_ almost runs
into dialogue. Besides, all the extant works, though apparently
didactic, are full of dialectical matter in the way of opinions
[Greek: legomena], difficulties and doubts ([Greek:
aporaemata],[Greek: aporiai]), solutions ([Greek: luseis]), and of
dialectical style in the way of conversational expressions. It is
probable also that the "extraneous discourses" ([Greek: oi exoterikoi
logoi]) sometimes mentioned in them here mean dialectical discussions
of a subject from opinions extraneous to its nature, as opposed to
scientific deduction from its appropriate principles. From the eight
passages, which refer to the extraneous discourses, we find (1) that
Platonic forms were made by them matters of common talk ([Greek:
tethrulaetai], _Met._ [Mu] 1, 1076a 28); (2) that time was made by
them matter of doubts, which in this case are Aristotle's own doubts
(_Phys._ iv. 10, 217 b 31-218 a 30); (3) that the discussions of
Platonic forms in them and in philosophical discourses were different
(E.E. i. 8, 1217 b 22); (4) that the ordinary distinction between
goods of mind, body and estate is one which we make ([Greek:
diaironmetha]) in them (E.E. ii. 1, 1218 b 34); (5) that in them
appeared the division of soul into irrational and rational, used by
Aristotle (E.N. i. 13, 1102 a 26), and attributed to Plato; (6) that
the distinction between action and production accepted by Aristotle
appeared in them (E.N. vi. 4, 1140 a 3); (7) that a distinction
between certain kinds of rule is one which we make often ([Greek:
diorizometha] ... [Greek: pollakis]) in them (_Pol._ 16, 1278 b 31);
(8) that a discussion about the best life, used by Aristotle, was made
in them (_Pol._ [Eta] 1, 1323 a 22). On the whole, the interpretation
which best suits all the passages is that extraneous discourses mean
any extra-scientific dialectical discussions, oral or written,
occurring in dialogues by Plato, or by Aristotle, or by anybody else,
or in ordinary conversation, on any subject under the sun.
Among all the eight passages mentioned above, the most valuable is
that from the _Eudemian Ethics_ ([Alpha] 8), which discriminates
extraneous discourses and philosophical ([Greek: kai en tois
ezoterikois logois kai en tois kata philosophian], 1217 b 22-23); and
it is preceded ([Alpha] 6, 1216 b 35-37 a 17), by a similar
distinction between foreign discourses ([Greek: allotrioi logoi]) and
discourses appropriate to the thing ([Greek: oikeioi logoi tou
pragmatos]), which marks even better the opposition intended between
dialectic and philosophy. Now, as in all eight passages Aristotle
speaks, somewhat disparagingly, of "even ([Greek: kai]) extraneous
discourses," and as these include his own early dialogues, they must
be taken to mean that though he might quote them, he no longer wished
to be judged by his early views, and therefore drew a strong line of
demarcation between his early dialogues and the mature treatises of
his later philosophical system. Now, both were in the hands of his
readers in the time of Andronicus. Therefore his contemporary, Cicero,
who knew the early dialogues on _Philosophy_, the _Eudemus_ and the
_Protrepticus_, and also among the mature scientific writings the
_Topics_, _Rhetoric_, _Politics_, _Physics_ and _De Coelo_, to some
extent, was justified by Aristotle's example and precept in drawing
the line between two kinds of books, one written popularly, called
exoteric, the other more accurately (Cic. _De Finibus_, v. 5). But
there was no doubt a tendency to extend the term "exoteric" from the
dialectical to the more popular of the scientific writings of
Aristotle, to make a new distinction between exoteric and acroamatic
or esoteric, and even to make out that Aristotle was in the habit of
teaching both exoterically and acroamatically day by day as head of
the Peripatetic school at Athens. Aulus Gellius in the 2nd century
A.D. supplies the best proof of this growth of tradition in his
_Noctes Atticae_ (xx. 5). He says that Aristotle (1) divided his
_commentationes_ and arts taught to his pupils into [Greek: exoterika]
and [Greek: akroatika]; (2) taught the latter in the morning walk
([Greek: eothinon peripaton]), the former in the evening walk ([Greek:
deilinon peripaton]); (3) divided his books in the same manner; (4)
defended himself against Alexander's letter, complaining that it was
not right to his pupils to have published his acroamatic works, by
replying in a letter that they were published and not published,
because they are intelligible only to those who heard them. Gellius
then quotes this correspondence, also given by Plutarch, and quotes it
_ex Andronici philosophi libro_. The answer to the first three points
is that Aristotle did not make any distinction between exoteric and
acroamatic, and was not likely to have any longer taught his exoteric
dialogues when he was teaching his mature philosophy at Athens, but
may have alternated the teaching of the latter between the more
abstruse and the more popular parts which had gradually come to be
called "exoteric." As regards the last point, the authority of
Andronicus proves that he at all events did not exaggerate his own
share in publishing Aristotle's works; but it does not prove either
that this correspondence between Alexander and Aristotle took place,
or that Aristotle called his philosophical writings acroamatic, or
that he had published them wholesale to the world.
The literary career of Aristotle falls into three periods, (1) The early
period; when he was writing and publishing exoteric dialogues, but also
tending to write didactic works, and beginning his scientific writings,
e.g. the _Politics_ in 357, the _Meteorologica_ in 356. (2) The immature
period; when he was continuing his didactic and scientific works, and
composing first drafts, e.g. the _Categories_, the _Eudemian Ethics_,
the _Magna Moralia_, the _Rhetoric to Alexander_. (3) The mature period;
when he was finishing his scientific works, completing his system, and
not publishing it but teaching it in the Peripatetic school; when he
would teach not his early dialogues, nor his immature writings and first
drafts, but mature works, e.g. the _Metaphysics_, the _Nicomachean
Ethics_, the _Rhetoric_; and above all teach his whole system as far as
possible in the real order of his classification of science.
VI. THE ARISTOTELIAN PHILOSOPHY
We have now (1) sketched the life of Aristotle as a reader and a writer
from early manhood; (2) have watched him as a Platonist, partly
imitating but gradually emancipating himself from his master to form a
philosophy of his own; (3) have traced the gradual composition of his
writings from Plato's time onwards; (4) have distinguished earlier, more
Platonic and rudimentary, from later, more independent and mature,
writings; (5) have founded the real order of his writings, not on
chronology, nor on tradition, but on his classification of science and
learning. It remains to answer the final question:--What is the
Aristotelian philosophy, which its author gradually formed with so much
labour? Here we have only room for its spirit, which we shall try to
give as if he were himself speaking to us, as head of the Peripatetic
school at Athens, and holding no longer the early views of his
dialogues, or the immature views of such treatises as the _Categories_,
but only his mature views, such as he expresses in the _Metaphysics_.
Aristotle was primarily a metaphysician, a philosopher of things, who
uses the objective method of proceeding from being to thinking. We shall
begin therefore with that primary philosophy which is the real basis of
his philosophy, and proceed in the order of his classification of
science to give his chief doctrines on:--
(1) Speculative philosophy, metaphysical and physical, including his
psychology, and with it his logic.
(2) Practical philosophy, ethics and politics.
(3) Productive science, or art.
_Things are substances_ ([Greek: ousiai]), each of which is a separate
individual ([Greek: choriston tode ti, kath ekaston]) and is variously
affected as quantified, qualified, related, active, passive and so
forth, in categories of things which are attributes ([Greek:
sumbebaekota]), different from the category of substance, but real only
as predicates belonging to some substance, and are in fact only the
substance itself affected ([Greek: auto peponthos]). The essence of each
substance, being what it is ([Greek: to tiest, to ti aen einai]), is
that substance; e.g. this rational animal, Socrates. Substances are so
similar that the individuals of a species are even the same in essence
or substance, e.g. Callias and Socrates differ in matter but are the
same in essence, as rational animals. The universal ([Greek: to
katholoy]) is real only as one predicate belonging to many individual
substances: it is therefore not a substance. There are then no separate
universal forms, as Plato supposed. There are attributes and universals,
real as belonging to individual substances, whose being is their being.
The mind, especially in mathematics, abstracts numbers, motions,
relations, causes, essences, ends, kinds; and it over-abstracts things
mentally separate into things really separate. But reality consists only
of individual substances, numerous, moving, related, active as efficient
causes, passive as material causes, essences as formal causes, ends as
final causes, and in classes which are real universals only as real
predicates of individual substances. Such is Aristotle's realism of
individuals and universals, contained in his primary philosophy, as
expressed in the _Metaphysics_, especially in Book Z, his authoritative
pronouncement on being and substance.
The individual substances, of which the universe is composed, fall into
three great irreducible kinds: nature, God, man.
I. Nature.--The obvious substances are natural substances or bodies
([Greek: physikai ousiai, somata]), e.g. animals, plants, water, earth,
moon, sun, stars. Each natural substance is a compound ([Greek:
syntheton, synthetae, ousia]) of essence and matter; its essence
([Greek: eldos, morphae, to ti esti, to ti aen einai]) being its actual
substance, its matter ([Greek: ulae]) not; its essence being
determinate, its matter not; its essence being immateriate, its matter
conjoined with the essence; its essence being one in all individuals of
a species, its matter different in each individual; its essence being
cause of uniformity, its matter cause of accident. At the same time,
matter is not nothing, but something, which, though not substance, is
potentially substance; and it is either proximate to the substance, or
primary; proximate, as a substance which is potentially different, e.g.
wood potentially a table; primary, as an indeterminate something which
is a substratum capable of becoming natural substances, of which it is
always one; and it is primarily the matter of earth, water, air, fire,
the four simple bodies ([Greek: apla somata]) with natural rectilineal
motions in the terrestrial world (_De Gen. et Cor_. ii. I seq.); while
aether ([Greek: aithaer]) is a fifth simple body, with natural circular
motion, being the element of the stars ([Greek: to ton astron
stoicheion]) in the celestial world. Each natural substance is a formal
cause, as being what it is; a material cause, as having passive power to
be changed; an efficient cause, as having active power to change, by
communicating the selfsame essence into different matter so as to
produce therein a homogeneous effect in the same species; and a final
cause, as an end to be realized. Moreover, though each natural substance
is corruptible ([Greek: phtharton]), species is eternal ([Greek:
aidion]), because there was always some individual of it to continue its
original essence (expressed by the imperfect tense in [Greek: to ti aen
einai]), which is ungenerated and incorruptible; the natural world
therefore is eternal; and nature is for ever aiming at an eternal
propagation, by efficient acting on matter, of essence as end. For even
nature does nothing in vain, but aims at final causes, which she
uniformly realizes, except so far as matter by its spontaneity ([Greek:
apo tou automatou]) causes accidental effects; and the ends of nature
are no form of good, nor even the good of man, but the essences of
natural substances themselves, and, above them all, the good God
Himself. Such is Aristotle's natural realism, pervading his metaphysical
and physical writings.
II. _God._--Nature is but one kind of being ([Greek: en gar ti genos tou
ontos ae physis], _Met._ [Gamma] 3, 1005 a 34). Above all natural
substances, the objects of natural science, there stands a supernatural
substance, the object of metaphysics as theology. Nature's boundary is
the outer sphere of the fixed stars, which is eternally moved day after
day in a uniform circle round the earth. Now, an actual cause is
required for an actual effect. Therefore, there must be a prime mover of
that prime movable, and equally eternal and uniform. That prime mover is
God, who is not the creator, but the mover directly of the heavens, and
indirectly through the planets of sublunary substances. But God is no
mechanical mover. He moves as motive ([Greek: kinei de os eromenon],
_Met._ [Lambda] 7, 1072 b 3); He is the efficient only as the final
cause of nature. For God is a living being, eternal, very good ([Greek:
zoov aision ariston], _ib._ 1072 b 29). While nature aims at Him as
design, as an end, a motive, a final cause, God's occupation ([Greek:
diagogae]) is intelligence ([Greek: noaesis]); and since essence, not
indeed in all being, but in being understood, becomes identical with
intelligence, God in understanding essence is understanding Himself; and
in short, God's intelligence is at once intelligence of Himself, of
essence and of intelligence,--[Greek: kai estin ae noaesis noaeseos
noaesis] (_Met._ [Lambda] 7, 1074 b 34). But at the same time the
essence of good exists not only in God and God's intelligence on the one
hand, but also on the other hand on a declining scale in nature, as both
in a general and in his army; but rather in God, and more in some parts
of nature than in others. Thus even God is a substance, a separate
individual, whose differentiating essence is to be a living being,
eternal and very good; He is however the only substance whose essence is
entirely without matter and unconjoined with matter; and therefore He is
a substance, not because He has or is a substratum beneath attributes,
but wholly because He is a separate individual, different both from
nature and men, yet the final good of the whole universe. Such is
Aristotle's theological realism without materialism and the origin of
all spiritualistic realism, contained in his _Metaphysics_ ([Lambda]
6-end).
III. _Man._--There is a third kind of substance, combining something
both of the natural and of the divine: we men are that privileged
species. Each man is a substance, like any other, only because he is a
separate individual. Like any natural substance, he is composed of
matter and immateriate essence. But natural substances are inorganic and
organic; and a man is an organic substance composed of an organic body
([Greek: organikon soma]) as matter, and a soul ([Greek: psychae]) as
essence, which is the primary actuality of an organic body capable of
life ([Greek: zoae]). Still a man is not the only organism; and every
organism has a soul, whose immediate organ is the spirit ([Greek:
pneuma]), a body which--analogous to a body diviner than the four
so-called elements, namely the aether, the element of the stars--gives
to the organism its non-terrestrial vital heat, whether it be a plant or
an animal. In an ascending scale, a plant is an organism with a
nutritive soul; an animal is a higher organism with a nutritive,
sensitive, orectic and locomotive soul; a man is the highest organism
with a nutritive, sensitive, orectic, locomotive and rational soul. What
differentiates man from other natural and organic substances, and
approximates him to a supernatural substance, God, is reason ([Greek:
logos]), or intellect ([Greek: nous]). Now, though only one of the
powers of the soul, intellect alone of these powers has no bodily organ;
it alone is immortal: it alone is divine. While the soul is propagated,
like any other essence, by the efficient, which is the seed, to the
matter, which is the germ, of the embryo man, intellect alone enters
from without ([Greek: thurathen]), and is alone divine ([Greek: theion],
not [Greek: theos]), because its activity communicates with no bodily
activity (_De Gen._ ii. 3, 736-737). A man then is a third kind of
substance, like a natural substance in bodily matter, like a
supernatural substance in divine reason or intellect. Such is
Aristotle's dual, or rather triple, realism, continued in his _De Anima_
and other biological writings, especially _De Generatione Animalium_,
ii.
There are three points about a man's life which both connect him with,
and distinguish him from, God. God's occupation is speculative; man's is
speculation, practice and production.
I. _Speculation_ ([Greek: theoria]).--Since things are individuals,
and there is nothing, and nothing universal, beyond them, there are
two kinds of knowledge ([Greek: gnosis]), sense ([Greek: aisthaesis])
of individuals, intellect ([Greek: nous]) of universals. Both powers
know by being passively receptive of essence propagated by an
efficient cause; but, while in sense the efficient cause is an
external object ([Greek: exothen]), in intelligence it is active
intellect ([Greek: nous to poiein]) propagating its essence in passive
intellect ([Greek: nous pathaetikos]). Nevertheless, without sense
there is no knowledge. Sense receives from the external world an
essence, e.g. of white, which is really universal as well as
individual, but apprehends it only as individual, e.g. this white
substance: intellect thereupon discovers the universal essence but
only in the individuals of sense. This intellectual discovery requires
sensation and retention of sensation; so that sense ([Greek:
aisthaesis]) receives impressions, imagination ([Greek: phantasia])
retains them as images, intellect ([Greek: nous]) generalizes the
universal, and, when it is intelligence of essence, is always true.
This is the origin of knowledge, psychologically regarded (in the _De
Anima_). Logically regarded, the origin of all teaching and learning
of an intellectual kind is a process of induction ([Greek: epagogae])
from particulars to universal, and of syllogism ([Greek: syllogismos])
from universal to further particulars; induction, whenever it starts
from sense, becomes the origin of scientific knowledge ([Greek:
epiostaemae]); while there is also a third process of example ([Greek:
paradeigma]) from particular to particular, which produces only
persuasion. In acquiring scientific knowledge, syllogism cannot start
from universals without induction, nor induction acquire universals
without sense. At the same time, there are three species of syllogism,
scientific, dialectical and eristical or sophistical; and in
consequence there are different ways of acquiring premisses. In order
to acquire the knowledge of the true and primary principles of
scientific knowledge, and especially the intelligence of the
universal essence of the subject, which is always true, the process of
knowledge consists of (1) sense ([Greek: aisthaesis]), which receives
the essence as individual, (2) memory ([Greek: mnaemae]), which is a
retention of sensible impression, (3) experience ([Greek: empeiria]),
which consists of a number of similar memories, (4) induction ([Greek:
epagogae]), which infers the universal as a fact ([Greek: to oti]),
(5) intellect ([Greek: nous]), which apprehends the principle ([Greek:
archae]); because it is a true apprehension that the universal induced
is the very essence and formal cause of the subject: thereupon,
scientific syllogism ([Greek: epistaemonikos syllogismos]), making the
definition ([Greek: horismos]) of this essence the middle term
([Greek: to meson]), becomes a demonstration ([Greek: apodeixis]) of
the consequences which follow from the essence in the conclusion. Such
then is science. In order to acquire the probabilities ([Greek: ta
endoxa]) of opinion ([Greek: doxa]), which are the premisses of
dialectical syllogism, the process is still induction, as in science,
but dialectical induction by interrogation from the opinions of the
answerers until the universal is conceded: thereupon the dialectical
syllogism ([Greek: dialektikos syllogismos]) deduces consequent
opinions in the conclusion. Nor does the process of acquiring the
premisses of eristical syllogism, which is fallacious either in its
premisses or in its process, differ, except that, when the premisses
are fallacious, the dialectical interrogations must be such as to
cause this fallacy. Hence, as science and dialectic are different, so
scientific induction and syllogism must be distinguished from
dialectical induction and syllogism. Dialectic is useful, for
exercise, for conversation and for philosophical sciences, where by
being critical it has a road to principles. But it is by a different
process of sense, memory, experience, induction, intelligence,
syllogism, that science becomes knowledge of real causes, of real
effects, and especially of real essences from which follow real
consequences, not beyond, but belonging to real substances. So can we
men, not, as Plato thought, by having in our souls universal
principles innate but forgotten, but by acquiring universal principles
from sense, which is the origin of knowledge, arrive at judgments
which are true, and true because they agree with the things which we
know by sense, by inference and by science. Such is Aristotle's
psychological and logical realism, contained in the _De Anima_ and
logical treatises.
2. _Practice_ ([Greek: praxis]).--In this natural world of real
substances, human good is not an imitation of a supernatural universal
form of the good, but is human happiness; and this good is the same
both of the individual as a part and of the state as a whole. Ethics
then is a kind of Politics. But in Ethics a man's individual good is
his own happiness; and his happiness is no mere state, but an activity
of soul according to virtue in a mature life, requiring as conditions
moderate bodily and external goods of fortune; his virtue is (1) moral
virtue, which is acquired by habituation, and is a purposive habit of
performing actions in the mean determined by right reason or prudence;
requiring him, not to exclude, but to moderate his desires; and (2)
intellectual virtue, which is either prudence of practical, or wisdom
of speculative intellect; and his happiness is a kind of ascending
scale of virtuous activities, in which moral virtue is limited by
prudence, and prudence by wisdom; so that the speculative life of
wisdom is the happiest and most divine, and the practical life of
prudence and moral virtue secondary and human. Good fortune in
moderation is also required as a condition of his happiness. Must we
then, on account of misfortunes, look with Solon at the end, and call
no man happy till he is dead? Or is this altogether absurd for us who
say that happiness is an activity? Virtuous activities determine
happiness, and a virtuous man is happy in this life, in spite of
misfortunes unless they be too great; while after death he will not
feel the misfortunes of the living so much as to change his happiness.
Still, for perfect happiness a man should prefer the speculative life
of divine intellect, and immortalize ([Greek: athanatizein]) as far as
possible. For intellect is what mainly makes a man what he is, and is
divine and immortal.
To turn from Ethics to Politics, the good of the individual on a small
scale becomes on a large scale the good of the citizen and the state,
whose end should be no far-off form of good, and no mere guarantee of
rights, but the happiness of virtuous action, the life according to
virtue, which is the general good of the citizen. Hence, the citizen
of the best state is he who has the power and the purpose to be
governed and govern for the sake of the life according to virtue.
A right government is one which aims at the general good, whereas any
government which aims at its own good is a deviation. Hence
governments are to be arranged from best to worst in the following
order:--
I. Right governments ([Greek: orthai politeiai]), aiming at the
general good:--
i. Monarchy, of one excelling in virtue:
ii. Aristocracy, of a class excelling in virtue:
iii. Commonwealth, of the majority excelling in virtue.
II. Deviations ([Greek: parekbaseis]), aiming at the good of the
government:--
i. Democracy, aiming at the good of the majority:
ii. Oligarchy, aiming at the good of the few:
iii. Tyranny, aiming at the good of one.
Such is Aristotle's practical philosophy, contained in his matured
_Nicomachean Ethics_, and his unfinished _Politics_.
3. _Production_ ([Greek: poiaesis]).--Production differs from practice
in being an activity ([Greek: enirgeia]; e.g. building) which is
always a means to a work ([Greek: ergon]; e.g. a house) beyond itself.
Productive science, or art, is an intellectual habit of true reasoning
from appropriate principles, acquired from experiences, and applied to
the production of the work which is the end of the art. All the arts
are therefore at once rational and productive. They are either for
necessity (e.g. medicine) or for occupation (e.g. poetry), the former
being inferior to the latter. Rhetoric is a faculty on any subject of
investigating what may be persuasive ([Greek: pithanon]), which is the
work of no other art; its means are artificial and inartificial
evidences ([Greek: pisteis]), and, among artificial evidences,
especially the logical arguments of example and enthymeme. Poetry is
the art of producing representations; (1) in words, rhythm and harmony
([Greek: harmonia], "harmony" in the original sense); (2) of men like
ourselves, or better as in tragedy, or worse as in comedy; (3) by
means of narrative as in epic, or by action as in the drama. The cause
of poetry is man's instinct of representation and his love of
representations caused by the pleasure of learning. Comedy is
representation of men inferior in being ludicrous: epic is like
tragedy a representation of superior men, but by means of narrative
and unlimited in time: tragedy is a representation of an action
superior and complete, in a day if possible, by means of action, and
accomplishing by pity and fear the purgation of such passions
(_Poetics_, 1449 b 24). Music is a part of moral education; and for
this end we should use the most moral harmonies. But music has also
other ends and uses, and on the whole four; namely amusement, virtue,
occupation and purgation of the affections; for some men are liable
more than others to pity and fear and enthusiasm, but from sacred
melodies we see them, when they have heard those which act
orgiastically on the soul, becoming settled by a kind of medicine and
purgation ([Greek: katharsis]), and being relieved with pleasure.
Finally, art is not morality, because its end is always a work of art,
not virtuous action: on the other hand, art is subordinate to
morality, because all the ends of art are but means to the end of
life, and therefore a work of art which offends against morality is
opposed to the happiness and the good of man. Such is Aristotle's
productive science or art, contained in his _Rhetoric_ and _Poetics_,
compared with his _Ethics_ and _Politics_.
Aristotle, even in this sketch of his system, shows himself to be the
philosopher of facts, who can best of all men bear criticism; and indeed
it must be confessed that he retained many errors of Platonism and laid
himself open to the following objections. Two substances, being
individuals, e.g. Socrates and Callias, are in no way the same, but only
similar, even in essence, e.g. Socrates is one rational animal, Callias
another. A universal, e.g. the species man, is not predicate of many
individuals ([Greek: en kata pollon], _Post. An._ i. II), but a whole
number of similar individuals, e.g. all men; and not a whole species,
but only an individual, is a predicate of such individual, e.g. Socrates
is a man, not all men, and one white thing, not all white things.
Consequently, a species or genus is not a substance, as Aristotle says
it is in the _Categories_ (inconsistently with his own doctrine of
substances), but a whole number of substances, e.g. all men, all
animals. Similarly, the universal essence of a species is not one and
the same as each individual essence, but is the whole number of similar
individual essences of the similar individuals of the species, e.g. all
rational animals. Consequently, the universal essence of a species of
substances is not one and the same eternal essence in all the
individuals of a species but only similar, and is not substance as
Aristotle calls it in the _Metaphysics_, inconsistently with his own
doctrine of substance, but is a whole number of similar substances, e.g.
all rational animals which are what all men are. Hence again, the
natural world of species and essences is not eternal, but only endures
as long as there are individual substances. Hence, moreover, a natural
substance or body as an efficient cause or force causes an effect on
another, not by propagating one eternal essence of a species into the
matter of the other, but so far as we really understand force, by their
reciprocally preventing one another from occupying the same place at the
same moment on account of the mutual resistance of any two bodies. The
essence of a natural substance, e.g. wood, is not immateriate, but is
the whole body as what it is. The matter of a natural substance is not a
primary matter which is one indeterminate substratum of all natural
substances, but is only one body as able to be changed by a force which
is another substance able to change it, e.g. a seed becoming wood, wood
becoming coal, &c. A natural substance or body, therefore, is not a
heterogeneous compound of essence and matter, but is essence as what it
is, matter as able passively to be changed, force as able actively to
change. The simple bodies which are the matter of the rest are not
terrestrial earth, water, air, fire, and a different celestial aether,
but whatever elementary bodies natural science, starting anew from
mechanics and chemistry, may determine to be the matter of all other
bodies whatever. Nature does not aim at God as end, but God, thinking
and willing ends, produces and acts on nature. Soul is not an
immateriate essence of an organic body capable, but an immateriate
conscious substance within an organic body. Sensation is not the
reception of the selfsame essence of an external body, but one's
perception of one's sentient organism as affected, and especially of its
organs resisting one another, e.g. one's lips, hands, &c., preventing
one another from occupying the same place at the same moment within
one's organism. Intelligence does not differ from sense by having no
bodily organ, but the nervous system is the bodily organ of both.
Intelligence is not active intellect propagating universal essence in
passive intellect, but only logical inference starting from sense, and
both requiring nervous body and conscious soul. It is not always a true
apprehension of essence, but often, especially in physical matter, such
as sound or heat or light, takes superficial effects to be the essence
of the thing. Aristotle did not altogether solve the question, What is,
and scarcely solved at all the question, How do we know the external
world?
We might continue to object. But at bottom there remains the fundamental
position of Aristotelianism, that all things are substances, individuals
separate though related; that some things are attributes, real only as
being some individual substance somehow affected, or, as we should say,
modified or determined; and that without individual substances there is
nothing, and nothing universal apart from individuals. There remains too
the consequence that there are different substances, separate from but
related to one another; and these substances of three irreducible kinds,
natural, supernatural, human. Aristotelianism has to be considered
against the philosophy which preceded it and against the philosophy
which has since followed it. Platonism preceded it, and was the
metaphysical doctrine that all things are supernatural--forms, gods,
souls. Idealism has since followed it, and is the metaphysical doctrine
that all things are mind and states of mind. Aristotelianism intervenes
between ancient Platonism and modern Idealism, and is the metaphysical
doctrine that all things are substances, natural and supernatural and
human. It is a philosophy of substantial things, standing as a _via
media_ between a philosophy of the supernatural and a philosophy of
mind. There are three alternatives, which may be put as questions which
every thinker must ask himself. Are the things which surround me in what
I call the environment,--the men, the animals, the plants, the ground,
the stones, the water, the air, the moon, the sun, the stars and
God--are they shadows, unsubstantial things, as formerly Platonism made
all things to be except the supernatural world of forms, gods and souls?
Or are they, as modern Idealism says, mind and states of mind? Or are
they really substances separate from, though related to, myself, who am
also a substance? The Aristotelian answer is--"Yes, all things are
substances, but not all supernatural, nor all mental; for some are
natural substances, or bodies"; and by that answer Aristotelianism
stands or falls.
LITERATURE.--The Aristotelian philosophy is to be studied first in
Aristotle's works, which are the best commentaries on one another; the
best complete edition is the Berlin edition (1831-1870), by Bekker and
Brandis, in which also are the fragments collected by V. Rose, the
scholia collected by Brandis, and the index compiled by Bonitz. After
reading the remains of the Peripatetic school, the Greek commentators
should be further studied in this edition. The Latin commentators, the
Arabians and the schoolmen show how Aristotle has been the chief
author of modern culture; while the vindication of modern independence
comes out in his critics, the greatest of whom were Roger and Francis
Bacon. Since the modern discovery of the science of motion by Galileo
which changed natural science, and the modern revolution of philosophy
by Descartes which changed metaphysics, the study of Aristotle has
become less universal; but it did not die out, and received a fresh
stimulus especially from Julius Pacius, who going back through G.
Zabarella to the Arabians, and himself gifted with great logical
powers, always deserves study in his editions of the _Organon_ and the
_Physics_ and in his _Doctrinae Peripateticae_. In more recent times,
as part of the growing conviction of the essentiality of everything
Greek, Aristotle has received marked attention. In France there are
the works of Cousin (1835), Félix Ravaisson, who wrote on the
_Metaphysics_ (1837-1846), and Barthélemy St Hilaire, who translated
the _Organon_ and other works (1844 seq.). In Germany there has been a
host of commentaries, among which we may mention the _Organon_ edited
(1844-1846) by F. Th. Waitz (not so well as by Pacius), the _De Anima_
edited (1833) by F.A. Trendelenburg and later by A. Torstrik, the
_Historia Animalium_ by H. Aubert and F. Wimmer (1868), the _Ethics_
by K.L. Michelet (1827), the _Metaphysics_ by A. Schwegler (1847) and
(best of all) by H. Bonitz (1848), who is the most faithful of all
commentators, because to great industry and acumen he adds the rare
gift of confessing when he does not understand, and when he does not
know what Aristotle might have thought. With Aristotle's works before
one, with the _Index Aristotelicus_, and the edition and translation
of the _Metaphysics_ by Bonitz on one side, and Zeller's _Die
Philosophie der Griechen_, ii. 2, "Aristoteles" (trans. by Costelloe
and Muirhead), on the other side, one can go a considerable way
towards understanding the foundations of Aristotelianism.
In England scholars tend to take up certain parts of Aristotle's
philosophy. Grote indeed intended to write a general account of
Aristotle like that of Plato; but his _Aristotle_ went little further
than the logical writings. From Cambridge we have J.W. Blakesley's
_Life of Aristotle_, E.M. Cope's _Rhetoric_, Dr Henry Jackson's
_Nicomachean Ethics_, v., S.H. Butcher's _Poetics_, Hicks's _De
Anima_, J.E. Sandys's _Athenian Constitution_, Jebb's _Rhetoric_ (ed.
Sandys). Oxford in particular, since the beginning of the 19th
century, has kept alive the study of Aristotle. E. Cardwell in his
edition of the _Nicomachean Ethics_ (1828) had the wisdom to found his
text on the Laurentian Manuscript (Kb); E. Poste wrote translations of
the _Posterior Analytics_ and _Sophistici Elenchi_; R. Congreve edited
the _Politics_; A. Grant edited the _Nicomachean Ethics_; E. Wallace
translated and annotated the _De Anima_; B. Jowett translated the
_Politics_; W.L. Newman has edited the _Politics_ in four volumes; Dr
Ogle has translated the _De Partibus Animalium_, with notes; R. Shute
wrote a _History of the Aristotelian Writings_; Professor J.A.
Stewart has written _Notes on the Nicomachean Ethics_; Professor J.
Burnet has issued an annotated edition of the _Nicomachean Ethics_,
and W.D. Ross has translated the _Metaphysics_. All these are, or
were, Oxford men; and it remains to mention two others: I. Bywater,
who as an Aristotelian scholar has done much for the improvement of
Bekker's text, especially of the _Nicomachean Ethics_ and the
_Poetics_; and F.G. Kenyon, who has the proud distinction of having
been the first modern editor of the [Greek: Athaenaion politeia].
(T. Ca.)
ARISTOXENUS, of Tarentum (4th century B.C.), a Greek peripatetic
philosopher, and writer on music and rhythm. He was taught first by his
father Spintharus, a pupil of Socrates, and later by the Pythagoreans,
Lamprus of Erythrae and Xenophilus, from whom he learned the theory of
music. Finally he studied under Aristotle at Athens, and was deeply
annoyed, it is said, when Theophrastus was appointed head of the school
on Aristotle's death. His writings, said to have numbered four hundred
and fifty-three, were in the style of Aristotle, and dealt with
philosophy, ethics and music. The empirical tendency of his thought is
shown in his theory that the soul is related to the body as harmony to
the parts of a musical instrument. We have no evidence as to the method
by which he deduced this theory (cf. T. Gomperz, _Greek Thinkers_, Eng.
trans. 1905, vol. iii. p. 43). In music he held that the notes of the
scale are to be judged, not as the Pythagoreans held, by mathematical
ratio, but by the ear. The only work of his that has come down to us is
the three books of the _Elements of Harmony_ ([Greek: rythmika
stoicheia]), an incomplete musical treatise. Grenfell and Hunt's
_Oxyrhynchus Papyri_ (vol. i., 1898) contains a five-column fragment of
a treatise on metre, probably this treatise of Aristoxenus.
The best edition is by Paul Marquard, with German translation and full
commentary, _Die harmonischen Fragmente des Aristoxenus_ (Berlin,
1868). The fragments are also given in C.W. Müller, _Frag. Hist.
Graec._, ii. 269 sqq.; and R. Westphal, _Melik und Rhythmik d. klass.
Hellenenthums_ (2nd vol. edited by F. Saran, Leipzig, 1893). Eng.
trans. by H.S. Macran (Oxford, 1902). See also W.L. Mahne, _Diatribe
de Aristoxeno_ (Amsterdam, 1793); B. Brill, _Aristoxenus' rhythmische
und metrische Messungen_ (1871); R. Westphal, _Griechische Rhythmik
und Harmonik_ (Leipzig, 1867); L. Laloy, _Aristoxène de Tarente et la
musique de l'antiquité_ (Paris, 1904); See PERIPATETICS, PYTHAGORAS
(_Music_) and art. "Greek Music" in Grove's _Dict. of Music_ (1904).
For the Oxyrhynchus fragment see _Classical Review_ (January 1898),
and C. van Jan in Bursian's _Jahresbericht_, civ. (1901).
ARISUGAWA, the name of one of the royal families of Japan, going back to
the seventh son of the mikado Go-Yozei (d. 1638). After the revolution
of 1868, when the mikado Mutsu-hito was restored, his uncle, Prince
Taruhito Arisugawa (1835-1895), became commander-in-chief, and in 1875
president of the senate. After his suppression of the Satsuma rebellion
he was made a field-marshal, and he was chief of the staff in the war
with China (1894-95). His younger brother, Prince Takehito Arisugawa (b.
1862), was from 1879 to 1882 in the British navy, serving in the Channel
Squadron, and studied at the Naval College, Greenwich. In the
Chino-Japanese War of 1894-95 he was in command of a cruiser, and
subsequently became admiral-superintendent at Yokosuka. Prince Arisugawa
represented Japan in England together with Marquis Ito at the Diamond
Jubilee (1897), and in 1905 was again received there as the king's
guest.
ARITHMETIC (Gr. [Greek: arithmaetikae], sc. [Greek: technae], the art of
counting, from [Greek: arithmos], number), the art of dealing with
numerical quantities in their numerical relations.
1. Arithmetic is usually divided into _Abstract Arithmetic_ and
_Concrete Arithmetic_, the former dealing with numbers and the latter
with concrete objects. This distinction, however, might be misleading.
In stating that the sum of 11d. and 9d. is 1s. 8d. we do not mean that
nine pennies when added to eleven pennies produce a shilling and eight
pennies. The sum of money corresponding to 11d. may in fact be made up
of coins in several different ways, so that the symbol "11d." cannot be
taken as denoting any definite concrete objects. The arithmetical fact
is that 11 and 9 may be regrouped as 12 and 8, and the statement "11d. +
9d. = 1s. 8d." is only an arithmetical statement in so far as each of
the three expressions denotes a numerical quantity (§ 11).
2. The various stages in the study of arithmetic may be arranged in
different ways, and the arrangement adopted must be influenced by the
purpose in view. There are three main purposes, the practical, the
educational, and the scientific; i.e. the subject may be studied with a
view to technical skill in dealing with the arithmetical problems that
arise in actual life, or for the sake of its general influence on mental
development, or as an elementary stage in mathematical study.
3. The practical aspect is an important one. The daily activities of the
great mass of the adult population, in countries where commodities are
sold at definite prices for definite quantities, include calculations
which have often to be performed rapidly, on data orally given, and
leading in general to results which can only be approximate; and almost
every branch of manufacture or commerce has its own range of
applications of arithmetic. Arithmetic as a school subject has been
largely regarded from this point of view.
4. From the educational point of view, the value of arithmetic has
usually been regarded as consisting in the stress it lays on accuracy.
This aspect of the matter, however, belongs mainly to the period when
arithmetic was studied almost entirely for commercial purposes; and even
then accuracy was not found always to harmonize with actuality. The
development of physical science has tended to emphasize an exactly
opposite aspect, viz. the impossibility, outside a certain limited range
of subjects, of ever obtaining absolute accuracy, and the consequent
importance of not wasting time in attempting to obtain results beyond a
certain degree of approximation.
5. As a branch of mathematics, arithmetic may be treated logically,
psychologically, or historically. All these aspects are of importance to
the teacher: the logical, in order that he may know the end which he
seeks to attain; the psychological, that he may know how best to attain
this end; and the historical, for the light that history throws on
psychology,
The logical arrangement of the subject is not the best for elementary
study. The division into abstract and concrete, for instance, is
logical, if the former is taken as relating to number and the latter to
numerical quantity (§ 11). But the result of a rigid application of this
principle would be that the calculation of the cost of 3 lb. of tea at
2s. a lb. would be deferred until after the study of logarithms. The
psychological treatment recognizes the fact that the concrete precedes
the abstract and that the abstract is based on the concrete; and it also
recognizes the futility of attempting a strictly continuous development
of the subject.
On the other hand, logical analysis is necessary if the subject is to be
understood. As an illustration, we may take the elementary processes of
addition, subtraction, multiplication and division. These are still
called in text-books the "four simple rules"; but this name ignores
certain essential differences. (i) If we consider that we are dealing
with numerical quantities, we must recognize the fact that, while
addition and subtraction might in the first instance be limited to such
quantities, multiplication and division necessarily introduce the idea
of pure number. (ii) If on the other hand we regard ourselves as dealing
with pure number throughout, then, as multiplication is continued
addition, we ought to include in our classification involution as
continued multiplication. Or we might say that, since multiplication is
a form of addition, and division a form of subtraction, there are really
only two fundamental processes, viz. addition and subtraction. (iii) The
inclusion of the four processes under one general head fails to indicate
the essential difference between addition and multiplication, as direct
processes, on the one hand, and subtraction and division, as inverse
processes, on the other (§ 59).
6. The present article deals mainly with the principles of the subject,
for which a logical arrangement is on the whole the more convenient. It
is not suggested that this is the proper order to be adopted by the
teacher.
I. NUMBER
7. _Ordinal and Cardinal Numbers._--One of the primary distinctions in
the use of number is between ordinal and cardinal numbers, or rather
between the ordinal and the cardinal aspects of number. The usual
statement is that _one, two, three_, ... are cardinal numbers, and
_first, second, third_, ... are ordinal numbers. This, however, is an
incomplete statement; the words one, two, three, ... and the
corresponding symbols 1, 2, 3, ... or I, II, III, ... are used sometimes
as ordinals, i.e. to denote the place of an individual in a series, and
sometimes as cardinals, i.e. to denote the total number since the
commencement of the series.
On the whole, the ordinal use is perhaps the more common. Thus "100" on
a page of a book does not mean that the page is 100 times the page
numbered 1, but merely that it is the page after 99. Even in commercial
transactions, in dealing with sums of money, the statement of an amount
often has reference to the last item added rather than to a total; and
geometrical measurements are practically ordinal (§ 26).
For ordinal purposes we use, as symbols, not only figures, such as 1, 2,
3, ... but also letters, as a, b, c, ... Thus the pages of a book may be
numbered 1, 2, 3, ... and the chapters I, II, III, ... but the sheets
are lettered A, B, C, ... Figures and letters may even be used in
combination; thus 16 may be followed by 16a and 16b, and these by 17,
and in such a case the ordinal 100 does not correspond with the total
(cardinal) number up to this point.
Arithmetic is supposed to deal with cardinal, not with ordinal numbers;
but it will be found that actual numeration, beyond about three or four,
is based on the ordinal aspect of number, and that a scientific
treatment of the subject usually requires a return to this fundamental
basis.
One difference between the treatment of ordinal and of cardinal numbers
may be noted. Where a number is expressed in terms of various
denominations, a cardinal number usually begins with the largest
denomination, and an ordinal number with the smallest. Thus we speak of
one thousand eight hundred and seventy-six, and represent it by
MDCCCLXXVI or 1876; but we should speak of the third day of August 1876,
and represent it by 3. 8. 1876. It might appear as if the writing of
1876 was an exception to this rule; but in reality 1876, when used in
this way, is partly cardinal and partly ordinal, the first three figures
being cardinal and the last ordinal. To make the year completely
ordinal, we should have to describe it as the 6th year of the 8th decade
of the 8th century of the 2nd millennium; i.e. we should represent the
date by 3. 8. 6. 8. 9. 2, the total number of years, months and days
completed being 1875. 7. 2.
In using an ordinal we direct our attention to a term of a series, while
in using a cardinal we direct our attention to the interval between two
terms. The total number in the series is the sum of the two cardinal
numbers obtained by counting up to any interval from the beginning and
from the end respectively; but if we take the ordinal numbers from the
beginning and from the end we count one term twice over. Hence, if there
are 365 days in a year, the 100th day from the beginning is the 266th,
not the 265th, from the end.
8. _Meaning of Names of Numbers._--What do we mean by any particular
number, e.g. by _seven_, or by _two hundred and fifty-three_? We can
define _two_ as _one and one_, and _three_ as _one and one and one_; but
we obviously cannot continue this method for ever. For the definition of
large numbers we may employ either of two methods, which will be called
the _grouping_ method and the _counting_ method.
(i) _Method of Grouping._--The first method consists in defining the
first few numbers, and forming larger numbers by groups or aggregates,
formed partly by multiplication and partly by addition. Thus, on the
denary system (§ 16) we can give independent definitions to the numbers
up to ten, and then regard (e.g.) fifty-three as a composite number made
up of five tens and three ones. Or, on the quinary-binary system, we
need only give independent definitions to the numbers up to five; the
numbers _six, seven_, ... can then be regarded as _five and one, five
and two_, ..., a fresh series being started when we get to _five and
five_ or _ten._ The grouping method introduces multiplication into the
definition of large numbers; but this, from the teacher's point of view,
is not now such a serious objection as it was in the days when children
were introduced to millions and billions before they had any idea of
elementary arithmetical processes.
(ii) _Method of Counting._--The second method consists in taking a
series of names or symbols for the first few numbers, and then repeating
these according to a regular system for successive numbers, so that each
number is defined by reference to the number immediately preceding it in
the series. Thus _two_ still means _one and one_, but _three_ means _two
and one_, not _one and one and one._ Similarly _two hundred and
fifty-three_ does not mean two hundreds, five tens and three ones, but
_one_ more than _two hundred and fifty-two_; and the number which is
called one hundred is not defined as ten tens, but as one more than
ninety-nine.
9. _Concrete and Abstract Numbers._--Number is concrete or abstract
according as it does or does not relate to particular objects. On the
whole, the grouping method refers mainly to concrete numbers and the
counting method to abstract numbers. If we sort objects into groups of
ten, and find that there are five groups of ten with three over, we
regard the five and the three as names for the actual sets of groups or
of individuals. The three, for instance, are regarded as a whole when we
name them _three._ If, however, we count these three as one, two, three,
then the number of times we count is an abstract number. Thus number in
the abstract is the number of times that the act of counting is
performed in any particular case. This, however, is a description, not a
definition, and we still want a definition for "number" in the phrase
"number of times."
10. _Definition of "Number."_--Suppose we fix on a certain sequence of
names "one," "two," "three," ..., or symbols such as 1, 2, 3, ...; this
sequence being always the same. If we take a set of concrete objects,
and name them in succession "one," "two," "three," ..., naming each once
and once only, we shall not get beyond a certain name, e.g. "six." Then,
in saying that the number of objects is six, what we mean is that the
name of the last object named is six. We therefore only require a
definite law for the formation of the successive names or symbols. The
symbols 1, 2, ... 9, 10, ..., for instance, are formed according to a
definite law; and in giving 253 as the _number_ of a set of objects we
mean that if we attach to them the symbols 1, 2, 3, ... in succession,
according to this law, the symbol attached to the last object will be
253. If we say that this act of attaching a symbol has been performed
253 times, then 253 is an _abstract_ (or _pure_) _number._
Underlying this definition is a certain assumption, viz. that if we take
the objects in a different order, the last symbol attached will still be
253. This, in an elementary treatment of the subject, must be regarded
as axiomatic; but it is really a simple case of mathematical induction.
(See ALGEBRA.) If we take two objects A and B, it is obvious that
whether we take them as A, B, or as B, A, we shall in each case get the
sequence 1, 2. Suppose this were true for, say, eight objects, marked 1
to 8. Then, if we introduce another object anywhere in the series, all
those coming after it will be displaced so that each will have the mark
formerly attached to the next following; and the last will therefore be
9 instead of 8. This is true, whatever the arrangement of the original
objects may be, and wherever the new one is introduced; and therefore,
if the theorem is true for 8, it is true for 9. But it is true for 2;
therefore it is true for 3; therefore for 4, and so on.
11. _Numerical Quantities._--If the term _number_ is confined to number
in the abstract, then number in the concrete may be described as
_numerical quantity_. Thus £3 denotes £1 taken 3 times. The £1 is termed
the _unit._ A numerical quantity, therefore, represents a certain unit,
taken a certain number of times. If we take £3 twice, we get £6; and if
we take 3s. twice, we get 6s., i.e. 6 times 1s. Thus arithmetical
processes deal with numerical quantities by dealing with numbers,
provided the unit is the same throughout. If we retain the unit, the
arithmetic is concrete; if we ignore it, the arithmetic is abstract. But
in the latter case it must always be understood that there is some unit
concerned, and the results have no meaning until the unit is
reintroduced.
II. NOTATION, NUMERATION AND NUMBER-IDEATION
12. _Terms used._--The representation of numbers by spoken sounds is
called _numeration_; their representation by written signs is called
_notation_. The systems adopted for numeration and for notation do not
always agree with one another; nor do they always correspond with the
idea which the numbers subjectively present. This latter presentation
may, in the absence of any accepted term, be called _number-ideation_;
this word covering not only the perception or recognition of particular
numbers, but also the formation of a number-concept.
13. _Notation of Numbers._--The system which is now almost universally
in use amongst civilized nations for representing cardinal numbers is
the Hindu, sometimes incorrectly called the Arabic, system. The
essential features which distinguish this from other systems are (1) the
limitation of the number of different symbols, only ten being used,
however large the number to be represented may be; (2) the use of the
_zero_ to indicate the absence of number; and (3) the principle of local
value, by which a symbol in effect represents different numbers,
according to its position. The symbols denoting a number are called its
_digits_.
A brief account of the development of the system will be found under
NUMERAL. Here we are concerned with the principle, the explanation of
which is different according as we proceed on the grouping or the
counting system.
(i) On the grouping system we may in the first instance consider that we
have separate symbols for numbers from "one" to "nine," but that when we
reach ten objects we put them in a group and denote this group by the
symbol used for "one," but printed in a different type or written of a
different size or (in teaching) of a different colour. Similarly when we
get to ten tens we denote them by a new representation of the figure
denoting one. Thus we may have:
ones 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
tens 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
hundreds,\ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
&c. / &c. &c.
On this principle 24 would represent twenty-four, 24 two hundred and
forty, and 24 two hundred and four. To prevent confusion the _zero_ or
"nought" is introduced, so that the successive figures, beginning from
the right, may represent ones, tens, hundreds, ... We then have, e.g.,
240 to denote two hundreds and four tens; and we may now adopt a uniform
type for all the figures, writing this 240.
1 2 3 .. .. .. .. 8 9 10 1 2 3 .. .. .. ..
o o o .. .. .. .. o o o o o o .. .. .. ..
(ii) On the counting system we may consider that we have a series of
objects (represented in the adjoining diagram by dots), and that we
attach to these objects in succession the symbols 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7,
8, 9, 0, repeating this series indefinitely. There is as yet no
distinction between the first object marked 1 and the second object
marked 1. We can, however, attach to the 0's the same symbols, 1, 2, ...
0 in succession, in a separate column, repeating the series
indefinitely; then do the same with every 0 of this new series; and so
on. Any particular object is then defined completely by the combination
of the symbols last written down in each series; and this combination of
symbols can equally be used to denote the number of objects up to and
including the last one (§ 10).
In writing down a number in excess of 1000 it is (except where the
number represents a particular year) usual in England and America to
group the figures in sets of three, starting from the right, and to mark
off the sets by commas. On the continent of Europe the figures are taken
in sets of three, but are merely spaced, the comma being used at the end
of a number to denote the commencement of a decimal.
The zero, called "nought," is of course a different thing from the
letter O of the alphabet, but there may be a historical connexion
between them (§ 79). It is perhaps interesting to note that the
latter-day telephone operator calls 1907 "nineteen O seven" instead of
"nineteen nought seven."
14. _Direction of the Number-Series._--There is no settled convention as
to the direction in which the series of symbols denoting the successive
numbers one, two, three, ... is to be written.
(i) If the numbers were written down in succession, they would naturally
proceed from left to right, thus:--1, 2, 3,... This system, however,
would require that in passing to "double figures" the figure denoting
tens should be written either above or below the figure denoting ones,
e.g.
1
1, 2, ..., 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, ... or 1, 2, ..., 8, 9, 0, 1, 2, ...
1
The placing of the tens-figure to the left of the ones-figure will not
seem natural unless the number-series runs either up or down.
(ii) In writing down any particular number, the successive powers of ten
are written from right to left, e.g. 5,462,198 is
(6) (5) (4) (3) (2) (1) (0)
5 4 6 2 1 9 8
the small figures in brackets indicating the successive powers. On the
other hand, in writing decimals, the sequence (of negative powers) is
from left to right.
(iii) In making out lists, schedules, mathematical tables (e.g. a
multiplication-table), statistical tables, &c., the numbers are written
vertically downwards. In the case of lists and schedules the numbers are
only ordinals; but in the case of mathematical or statistical tables
they are usually regarded as cardinals, though, when they represent
values of a continuous quantity, they must be regarded as ordinals (§§
26, 93).
(iv) In graphic representation measurements are usually made upwards;
the adoption of this direction resting on certain deeply rooted ideas (§
23).
200
50
3
---
253
===
This question of direction is of importance in reference to the
development of useful number-forms (§ 23); and the existence of the two
methods mentioned under (iii) and (iv) above produces confusion in
comparing numerical tabulation with graphical representation. It is
generally accepted that the horizontal direction of increase, where a
horizontal direction is necessary, should be from left to right; but
uniformity as regards vertical direction could only be attained either
by printing mathematical tables upwards or by taking "downwards,"
instead of "upwards," as the "positive" direction for graphical
purposes. The downwards direction will be taken in this article as the
normal one for succession of numbers (e.g. in multiplication), and,
where the arrangement is horizontal, it is to be understood that this is
for convenience of printing. It should be noticed that, in writing the
components of a number 253 as 200, 50 and 3, each component beneath the
next larger one, we are really adopting the downwards principle, since
the figures which make up 253 will on this principle be successively 2,
5 and 3 (§ 13 (ii)).
15. _Roman Numerals._--Although the Roman numerals are no longer in use
for representing cardinal numbers, except in certain special cases (e.g.
clock-faces, milestones and chemists' prescriptions), they are still
used for ordinals.
The system differs completely from the Hindu system. There are no single
symbols for two, three, &c.; but numbers are represented by combinations
of symbols for one, five, ten, fifty, one hundred, five hundred, &c.,
the numbers which have single symbols, viz. I, V, X, L, C, D, M,
proceeding by multiples of five and two alternately. Thus 1878 is
MDCCCLXXVIII, i.e. thousand five-hundred hundred hundred hundred fifty
ten ten five one one one.
The system is therefore essentially a cardinal and grouping one, i.e. it
represents a number as the sum of sets of other numbers. It is therefore
remarkable that it should now only be used for ordinal purposes, while
the Hindu system, which is ordinal in its nature, since a single series
is constantly repeated, is used almost exclusively for cardinal numbers.
This fact seems to illustrate the truth that the counting principle is
the fundamental one, to which the interpretation of grouped numbers must
ultimately be referred.
The normal process of writing the larger numbers on the left is in
certain cases modified in the Roman system by writing a number in front
of a larger one to denote subtraction. Thus _four_, originally written
IIII, was later written IV. This may have been due to one or both of two
causes; a primitive tendency to refer numbers, in numeration, to the
nearest large number (§ 24 (iv)), and the difficulty of perceiving the
number of a group of objects beyond about three (§ 22). Similarly IX, XL
and XC were written for nine, forty and ninety respectively. These,
however, were later developments.
16. _Scales of Notation._--In the Hindu system the numbering proceeds by
tens, tens of tens, &c.; thus the figure in the fifth place, counting
from the right, denotes the product of the corresponding number by four
tens in succession. The notation is then said to be in the _scale_ of
which ten is the _base_, or in the _denary scale._ The Roman system,
except for the use of symbols for five, fifty, &c., is also in the
denary scale, though expressed in a different way. The introduction of
these other symbols produces a compound scale, which may be called a
_quinary-binary_, or, less correctly, a _quinary-denary_ scale.
The figures used in the Hindu notation might be used to express numbers
in any other scale than the denary, provided new symbols were introduced
if the base of the scale exceeded ten. Thus 1878 in the quinary-binary
scale would be 1131213, and 1828 would be 1130213; the meaning of these
is seen at once by comparison with MDCCCLXXVIII and MDCCCXXVIII.
Similarly the number which in the denary scale is 215 would in the
quaternary scale (base 4) be 3113, being equal to 3·4·4·4 + 1·4·4 + 1·4
+ 3.
The use of the denary scale in notation is due to its use in numeration
(§ 18); this again being due (as exemplified by the use of the word
_digit_) to the primitive use of the fingers for counting. If mankind
had had six fingers on each hand and six toes on each foot, we should be
using a _duodenary scale_ (base twelve), which would have been far more
convenient.
17. _Notation of Numerical Quantities._--Over a large part of the
civilized world the introduction of the metric system (§ 118) has caused
the notation of all numerical quantities to be in the denary scale. In
Great Britain and her colonies, however, and in the United States, other
systems of notation still survive, though there is none which is
consistently in one scale, other than the denary. The method is to form
quantities into groups, and these again into larger groups; but the
number of groups making one of the next largest groups varies as we
proceed along the scale. The successive groups or units thus formed are
called _denominations._ Thus twelve pennies make a shilling, and twenty
shillings a pound, while the penny is itself divided into four farthings
(or two halfpennies). There are, therefore, four denominations, the
bases for conversion of one denomination into the next being
successively four (or two), twelve and twenty. Within each denomination,
however, the denary notation is employed exclusively, e.g. "twelve
shillings" is denoted by 12s.
The diversity of scales appears to be due mainly to four causes: (i) the
tendency to group into scores (§ 20); (ii) the tendency to subdivide
into twelve; (in) the tendency to subdivide into two or four, with
repetitions, making subdivision into sixteen or sixty-four; and (iv) the
independent adoption of different units for measuring the same kind of
magnitude.
Where there is a division into sixteen parts, a binary scale may be
formed by dividing into groups of two, four or eight. Thus the weights
ordinarily in use for measuring from ¼ oz. up to 2 lb. give the basis
for a binary scale up to not more than eight figures, only 0 and 1 being
used. The points of the compass might similarly be expressed by numbers
in a binary scale; but the numbers would be ordinal, and the expressions
would be analogous to those of decimals rather than to those of whole
numbers.
In order to apply arithmetical processes to a quantity expressed in two
or more denominations, we must first express it in terms of a single
denomination by means of a varying scale of notation. Thus £254, 13S.
6d. may be written
(20) (12)
£254 " 13s. " 6d.;
each of the numbers in brackets indicating the number of units in one
denomination that go to form a unit in the next higher denomination. To
express the quantity in terms of £, it ought to be written
(20) (12)
£254 " 13 " 6;
this would mean £254 13(6/12)/20 or £(254 + 13/20 + 6/(20·12)), and
therefore would involve a fractional number.
A quantity expressed in two or more denominations is usually called a
_compound number_ or _compound quantity_. The former term is obviously
incorrect, since a quantity is not a number; and the latter is not very
suggestive. For agreement with the terminology of fractional numbers (§
62) we shall describe such a quantity as a _mixed quantity_. The letters
or symbols descriptive of each denomination are visually placed after or
(in actual calculations) above the figures denoting the numbers of the
corresponding units; but in a few cases, e.g. in the case of £, the
symbol is placed before the figures. There would be great convenience in
a general adoption of this latter method; the combination of the two
methods in such an expression as £123, 16s. 4½d. is especially awkward.
18. _Numeration._--The names of numbers are almost wholly based on the
denary scale; thus eighteen means eight and ten, and twenty-four means
twice ten and four. The words _eleven_ and _twelve_ have been supposed
to suggest etymologically a denary basis (see, however, NUMERAL).
Two exceptions, however, may be noted.
(i) The use of _dozen, gross_ (= dozen dozen), and _great gross_ (=
dozen gross) indicates an attempt at a duodenary basis. But the system
has never spread; and the word "dozen" itself is based on the denary
scale.
(ii) The _score_ (twenty) has been used as a basis, but to an even more
limited extent. There is no essential difference, however, between this
and the denary basis. As the latter is due to finger-reckoning, so the
use of the fingers and the toes produced a vigesimal scale. Examples of
this are given in § 20; it is worthy of notice that the vigesimal (or,
rather, quinary-quaternary) system was used by the Mayas of Yucatan, and
also, in a more perfect form, by the Nahuatl (Aztecs) of Mexico.
The number ten having been taken as the basis of numeration, there are
various methods that might consistently be adopted for naming large
numbers.
(i) We might merely name the figures contained in the number. This
method is often adopted in practical life, even as regards mixed
quantities; thus £57,593, 16s. 4d. would be read as _five seven, five
nine three, sixteen and four pence._
(ii) The word _ten_ might be introduced, e.g. 593 would be _five ten ten
ninety_ (= nine ten) _and three._
(iii) Names might be given to the successive powers of ten, up to the
point to which numeration of ones is likely to go. Partial applications
of this method are found in many languages.
(iv) A compromise between the last two methods would be to have names
for the series of numbers, beginning with ten, each of which is the
"square" of the preceding one. This would in effect be analysing numbers
into components of the form a. 10^b where a is less than 10, and the
index b is expressed in the binary scale, e.g. 7,000,000 would be
7 · 10^4 · 10², and 700,000 would be 7 · 10^4 · 10^1.
The British method is a mixture of the last two, but with an index-scale
which is partly ternary and partly binary. There are separate names for
ten, ten times ten (= _hundred_), and ten times ten times ten
(= _thousand_); but the next single name is _million_, representing a
thousand times a thousand. The next name is _billion_, which in Great
Britain properly means a million million, and in the United States (as
in France) a thousand million.
19. _Discrepancies between Numeration and Notation._--Although
numeration and notation are both ostensibly on the denary system, they
are not always exactly parallel. The following are a few of the
discrepancies.
(i) A set of written symbols is sometimes read in more than one way,
while on the other hand two different sets of symbols (at any rate if
denoting numerical quantities) may be read in the same way. Thus 1820
might be read as _one thousand eight hundred and twenty_ if it
represented a number of men, but it would be read as _eighteen hundred
and twenty_ if it represented a year of the Christian era; while 1s. 6d.
and 18d. might both be read as _eighteenpence_. As regards the first of
these two examples, however, it would be more correct to write 1,820 for
the former of the two meanings (cf. § 13).
(ii) The symbols 11 and 12 are read as _eleven_ and _twelve_, not
(except in elementary teaching) as _ten-one_ and _ten-two_.
(iii) The names of the numbers next following these, up to 19 inclusive,
only faintly suggest a _ten_. This difficulty is not always recognized
by teachers, who forget that they themselves had to be told that
_eighteen_ means _eight-and-ten_.
(iv) Even beyond twenty, up to a hundred, the word _ten_ is not used in
numeration, e.g. we say _thirty-four_, not _three ten four_.
(v) The rule that the greater number comes first is not universally
observed in numeration. It is not observed, for instance, in the names
of numbers from 13 to 19; nor was it in the names from which _eleven_
and _twelve_ are derived. Beyond twenty it is usually, but not always,
observed; we sometimes instead of _twenty-four_ say _four and twenty_.
(This latter is the universal system in German, up to 100, and for any
portion of 100 in numbers beyond 100.)
20. _Other Methods of Numeration and Notation._--It is only possible
here to make a brief mention of systems other than those now ordinarily
in use.
(i) _Vigesimal Scale._--The system of counting by twenties instead of by
tens has existed in many countries; and, though there is no
corresponding notation, it still exhibits itself in the names of
numbers. This is the case, for instance, in the Celtic languages; and
the Breton or Gaulish names have affected the Latin system, so that the
French names for some numbers are on the vigesimal system. This system
also appears in the Danish numerals. In English the use of the word
_score_ to represent twenty--e.g. in "threescore and ten" for
seventy--is superimposed on the denary system, and has never formed an
essential part of the language. The word, like _dozen_ and _couple_, is
still in use, but rather in a vague than in a precise sense.
(ii) _Roman System._--The Roman notation has been explained above (§
15). Though convenient for exhibiting the composition of any particular
number, it was inconvenient for purposes of calculation; and in fact
calculation was entirely (or almost entirely) performed by means of the
abacus (q.v.). The numeration was in the denary scale, so that it did
not agree absolutely with the notation. The principle of subtraction
from a higher number, which appeared in notation, also appeared in
numeration, but not for exactly the same numbers or in exactly the same
way; thus XVIII was two-from-twenty, and the next number was
one-from-twenty, but it was written XIX, not IXX.
(iii) _Other Systems of Antiquity._--The Egyptian notation was purely
denary, the only separate signs being those for 1, 10, 100, &c. The
ordinary notation of the Babylonians was denary, but they also used a
sexagesimal scale, i.e. a scale whose base was 60. The Hebrews had a
notation containing separate signs (the letters of the alphabet) for
numbers from 1 to 10, then for multiples of 10 up to 100, and then for
multiples of 100 up to 400, and later up to 1000.
The earliest Greek system of notation was similar to the Roman, except
that the symbols for 50, 500, &c., were more complicated. Later, a
system similar to the Hebrew was adopted, and extended by reproducing
the first nine symbols of the series, preceded by accents, to denote
multiplication by 1000.
On the island of Ceylon there still exists, or existed till recently, a
system which combines some of the characteristics of the later Greek (or
Semitic) and the modern European notation; and it is conjectured that
this was the original Hindu system.
For a further account of the above systems see NUMERAL, and the
authorities quoted at the end of the present article.
21. _The Number-Concept._--It is probable that very few people have any
definite mental presentation of individual numbers (i.e. numbers
proceeding by differences of _one_) beyond 100, or at any rate beyond
144. Larger numbers are grasped by forming numbers into groups or by
treating some large number as a unit. A person would appreciate the
difference between 93,000,000 m. and 94,000,000 m. as the distance of
the centre of the sun from the centre of the earth at a particular
moment; but he certainly would not appreciate the relative difference
between 93,000,000 m. and 93,000,001 m. In order to get an idea of
93,000,000, he must take a million as his unit. Similarly, in the metric
system he cannot mentally compare two units, one of which is 1000 times
the other. The metre and the kilometre, for instance, or the metre and
the millimetre, are not directly comparable; but the metre can be
conceived as containing 100 centimetres.
On the other hand, it would seem that, for most educated people, sixteen
and seventeen or twenty-six and twenty-seven, and even eighty-six and
eighty-seven, are single numbers, just as six and seven are, and are not
made up of groups of tens and ones. In other words, the denary scale,
though adopted in notation and in numeration, does not arise in the
corresponding mental concept until we get beyond 100.
Again, in the use of decimals, it is unusual to give less than two
figures. Thus 3.142 or 3.14 would be quite intelligible; but 3.1 does
not convey such a good idea to most people as either 3(1/10) or 3.10,
i.e. as an expression denoting a fraction or a percentage.
There appears therefore to be a tendency to use some larger number than
ten as a basis for grouping into new units or for subdivision into
parts. The Babylonians adopted 60 for both these purposes, thus giving
us the sexagesimal division of angles and of time.
This view is supported, not only by the intelligibility of percentages
to ordinary persons, but also by the tendency, noted above (§ 19), to
group years into centuries, and to avoid the use of thousands. Thus 1876
is not 1 thousand, 8 hundred, 7 tens and 6, but 18 hundred and 76, each
of the numbers 18 and 76 being named as if it were a single number. It
is also in accordance with what is so far known about number-forms (§
23).
If there is this tendency to adopt 100 as a basis instead of 10, the
teaching of decimals might sometimes be simplified by proceeding from
percentages to percentages of percentages, i.e. by commencing with
_centesimals_ instead of with _decimals._
22. _Perception of Number._--In using material objects as a basis for
developing the number-concept, it must be remembered that it is only
when there are a few objects that their number can be perceived without
either counting or the performance of some arithmetical process such as
addition. If four coins are laid on a table, close together, they can
(by most adults) be seen to be four, without counting; but seven coins
have to be separated mentally into two groups, the numbers of which are
added, or one group has to be seen and the remaining objects counted,
before the number is known to be seven.
The actual limit of the number that can be "seen"--i.e. seen without
counting or adding--depends for any individual on the shape and
arrangement of the objects, but under similar conditions it is not the
same for all individuals. It has been suggested that as many as six
objects can be seen at once; but this is probably only the case with few
people, and with them only when the objects have a certain geometrical
arrangement. The limit for most adults, under favourable conditions, is
about four. Under certain conditions it is less; thus IIII, the old
Roman notation for _four_, is difficult to distinguish from III, and
this may have been the main reason for replacing it by IV (§ 15).
In the case of young children the limit is probably two. That this was
also the limit in the case of primitive races, and that the
classification of things was into one, two and many, before any definite
process of counting (e.g. by the fingers) came to be adopted, is clear
from the use of the "dual number" in language, and from the way in which
the names for three and four are often based on those for one and two.
With the individual, as with the race, the limit of the number that can
be seen gradually increases up to four or five.
The statement that a number of objects can be seen to be three or four
is not to be taken as implying that there is a simultaneous perception
of all the objects. The attention may be directed in succession to the
different objects, so that the perception is rhythmical; the distinctive
rhythm thus aiding the perception of the particular number.
In consequence of this limitation of the power of perception of number,
it is practically impossible to use a pure denary scale in elementary
number-teaching. If a quinary-binary system (such as would naturally fit
in with counting on the fingers) is not adopted, teachers unconsciously
resort to a binary-quinary system. This is commonly done where cubes are
used; thus seven is represented by three pairs of cubes, with a single
cube at the top.
23. _Visualization of the Series._--A striking fact, in reference to
ideas of number, is the existence of number-forms, i.e. of definite
arrangements, on an imagined plane or in space, of the mental
representations of the successive numbers from 1 onwards. The proportion
of persons in whom number-forms exist has been variously estimated; but
there is reason to believe that the forms arise at a very early stage of
childhood, and that they did at some time exist in many individuals who
have afterwards forgotten them. Those persons who possess them are also
apt to make spatial arrangements of days of the week or the month,
months of the year, the letters of the alphabet, &c.; and it is
practically certain that only children would make such arrangements of
letters of the alphabet. The forms seem to result from a general
tendency to visualization as an aid to memory; the letter-forms may in
the first instance be quite as frequent as the number-forms, but they
vanish in early childhood, being of no practical value, while the
number-forms continue as an aid to arithmetical work.
The forms are varied, and have few points in common; but the following
tendencies are indicated.
(i) In the majority of cases the numbers lie on a continuous (but
possibly zigzag) line.
(ii) There is nearly always (at any rate in English cases) a break in
direction at 12. From 1 to 12 the numbers sometimes lie in the
circumference of a circle, an arrangement obviously suggested by a
clock-face; in these cases the series usually mounts upwards from 12. In
a large number of cases, however, the direction is steadily upwards from
1 to 12, then changing. In some cases the initial direction is from
right to left or from left to right; but there are very few in which it
is downwards.
(iii) The multiples of 10 are usually strongly marked; but special
stress is also laid on other important numbers, e.g. the multiples of
12.
(iv) The series sometimes goes up to very high numbers, but sometimes
stops at 100, or even earlier. It is not stated, in most cases, whether
all the numbers within the limits of the series have definite positions,
or whether there are only certain numbers which form an essential part
of the figure, while others only exist potentially. Probably the latter
is almost universally the case.
These forms are developed spontaneously, without suggestion from
outside. The possibility of replacing them by a standard form, which
could be utilized for performing arithmetical operations, is worthy of
consideration; some of the difficulties in the way of standardization
have already been indicated (§ 14). The general tendency to prefer an
upward direction is important; and our current phraseology suggests that
this is the direction which increase is naturally regarded as taking.
Thus we speak of counting _up_ to a certain number; and similarly
mathematicians speak of _high_ and _ascending_ powers, while engineers
speak of high pressure, high speed, high power, &c. This tendency is
probably aided by the use of bricks or cubes in elementary
number-teaching.
24. _Primitive Ideas of Number._--The names of numbers give an idea of
the way in which the idea of number has developed. Where civilization is
at all advanced, there are usually certain names, the origin of which
cannot be traced; but, as we go farther back, these become fewer, and
the names are found to be composed on certain systems. The systems are
varied, and it is impossible to lay down any absolute laws, but the
following seem to be the main conclusions.
(i) Amongst some of the lowest tribes, as (with a few exceptions)
amongst animals, the only differentiation is between one and many, or
between one, two and many, or between one, two, three and many. As it
becomes necessary to use higher but still small numbers, they are formed
by combinations of one and two, or perhaps of three with one or two.
Thus many of the Australasian and South American tribes use only one and
two; seven, for instance, would be two two two one.
(ii) Beyond ten, and in many cases beyond five, the names have reference
to the use of the fingers, and sometimes of the toes, for counting; and
the scale may be quinary, denary or vigesimal, according as one hand,
the pair of hands, or the hands and feet, are taken as the new unit.
_Five_ may be signified by the word for hand; and either _ten_ or
_twenty_ by the word for _man_. Or the words signifying these numbers
may have reference to the completion of some act of counting. Between
five and ten; or beyond ten, the names may be due to combinations, e.g.
16 may be 10 + 5 + 1; or they may be the actual names of the fingers
last counted.
(iii) There are a few, but only a few, cases in which the number 6 or 8
is named as twice 3 or twice 4; and there are also a few cases in which
7, 8 and 9 are named as 6 + 1, 6 + 2 and 6 + 3. In the large majority of
cases the numbers 6, 7, 8 and 9 are 5 + 1, 5 + 2, 5 + 3 and 5 + 4, being
named either directly from their composition in this way or as the
fingers on the second hand.
(iv) There is a certain tendency to name 4, 9, 14 and 19 as being one
short of 5, 10, 15 and 20 respectively; the principle being thus the
same as that of the Roman IV, IX, &c. It is possible that at an early
stage the number of the fingers on one hand or on the two hands together
was only thought of vaguely as a large number in comparison with 2 or 3,
and that the number did not attain definiteness until it was linked up
with the smaller by insertion of the intermediate ones; and the linking
up might take place in both directions.
(v) In a few cases the names of certain small numbers are the names of
objects which present these numbers in some conspicuous way. Thus the
word used by the Abipones to denote 5 was the name of a certain hide of
five colours. It has been suggested that names of this kind may have
been the origin of the numeral words of different races; but it is
improbable that direct visual perception would lead to a name for a
number unless a name based on a process of counting had previously been
given to it.
25. _Growth of the Number-Concept._--The general principle that the
development of the individual follows the development of the race holds
good to a certain extent in the case of the number-concept, but it is
modified by the existence of language dealing with concepts which are
beyond the reach of the child, and also, of course, by the direct
attempts at instruction. One result is the formation of a number-series
as a mere succession of names without any corresponding ideas of number;
the series not being necessarily correct.
When numbering begins, the names of the successive numbers are attached
to the individual objects; thus the numbers are originally ordinal, not
cardinal.
The conception of number as cardinal, i.e. as something belonging to a
group of objects as a whole, is a comparatively late one, and does not
arise until the idea of a whole consisting of its parts has been formed.
This is the _quantitative_ aspect of number.
The development from the name-series to the quantitative conception is
aided by the numbering of material objects and the performance of
elementary processes of comparison, addition, &c., with them. It may
also be aided, to a certain extent, by the tendency to find rhythms in
sequences of sounds. This tendency is common in adults as well as in
children; the strokes of a clock may, for instance, be grouped into
fours, and thus eleven is represented as two fours and three.
Finger-counting is of course natural to children, and leads to grouping
into fives, and ultimately to an understanding of the denary system of
notation.
1 2 3
o o o ...
FIG. 1.
1 2 3 1 2 3
o o o ... o I o II o III ...
I \___/ / /
\____/ \_________/ /
II \__________________/
\_____________/
III
FIG. 2. FIG. 3.
26. _Representation of Geometrical Magnitude by Number._--The
application of arithmetical methods to geometrical measurement presents
some difficulty. In reality there is a transition from a cardinal to an
ordinal system, but to an ordinal system which does not agree with the
original ordinal system from which the cardinal system was derived. To
see this, we may represent ordinal numbers by the ordinary numerals 1,
2, 3, ... and cardinal numbers by the Roman I, II, III, ... Then in the
earliest stage each object counted is indivisible; either we are
counting it as a whole, or we are not counting it at all. The symbols 1,
2, 3, ... then refer to the individual objects, as in fig. 1; this is
the primary ordinal stage. Figs. 2 and 3 represent the cardinal stage;
fig. 2 showing how the I, II, III, ... denote the successively larger
groups of objects, while fig. 3 shows how the name II of the whole is
determined by the name 2 of the last one counted.
When now we pass to geometrical measurement, each "one" is a thing which
is itself divisible, and it cannot be said that at any moment we are
counting it; it is only when one is completed that we can count it. The
names 1, 2, 3, ... for the individual objects cease to have an
intelligible meaning, and measurement is effected by the cardinal
numbers I, II, III, ..., as in fig. 4. These cardinal numbers have now,
however, come to denote individual points in the line of measurement,
i.e. the points of separation of the individual units of length. The
point III in fig. 4 does not include the point II in the same way that
the number III includes the number II in fig. 2, and the points must
therefore be denoted by the ordinal numbers 1, 2, 3, ... as in fig. 5,
the zero 0 falling into its natural place immediately before the
commencement of the first unit.
1 2 3 _____ _____ _____
_____ _____ _____ ... 0 1 2 3 ...
I II III
\____/ / / FIG. 5
\____________/ /
\_____________________/
FIG. 4
Thus, while arithmetical numbering refers to units, geometrical
numbering does not refer to units but to the intervals between units.
III. ARITHMETIC OF INTEGRAL NUMBERS
(i.) _Preliminary_
27. _Equality and Identity._--There is a certain difference between the
use of words referring to equality and identity in arithmetic and in
algebra respectively; what is an _equality_ in the former becoming an
_identity_ in the latter. Thus the statement that 4 times 3 is equal to
3 times 4, or, in abbreviated form, 4 × 3 = 3 × 4 (§ 28), is a statement
not of identity but of equality; i.e. 4 × 3 and 3 × 4 mean different
things, but the operations which they denote produce the same result.
But in algebra a × b = b × a is called an identity, in the sense that it
is true whatever a and b may be; while n × X = A is called an equation,
as being true, when n and A are given, for one value only of X.
Similarly the numbers represented by 6/12 and ½ are not identical, but
are equal.
28. _Symbols of Operation._--The failure to observe the distinction
between an identity and an equality often leads to loose reasoning; and
in order to prevent this it is important that definite meanings should
be attached to all symbols of operation, and especially to those which
represent elementary operations. The symbols - and ÷ mean respectively
that the first quantity mentioned is to be reduced or divided by the
second; but there is some vagueness about + and ×. In the present
article a + b will mean that a is taken first, and b added to it; but a
× b will mean that b is taken first, and is then multiplied by a. In the
case of numbers the × may be replaced by a dot; thus 4·3 means 4 times
3. When it is necessary to write the multiplicand before the multiplier,
the symbol [×] will be used, so that b [×] a will mean the same as a ×
b.
29. _Axioms._--There are certain statements that are sometimes regarded
as axiomatic; e.g. that if equals are added to equals the results are
equal, or that if A is greater than B then A + X is greater than B + X.
Such statements, however, are capable of logical proof, and are
generalizations of results obtained empirically at an elementary stage;
they therefore belong more properly to the laws of arithmetic (§ 58).
(ii.) _Sums and Differences._
30. _Addition and Subtraction._--_Addition_ is the process of expressing
(in numeration or notation) a whole, the parts of which have already
been expressed; while, if a whole has been expressed and also a part or
parts, _subtraction_ is the process of expressing the remainder.
Except with very small numbers, addition and subtraction, on the
grouping system, involve analysis and rearrangement. Thus the sum of 8
and 7 cannot be expressed as ones; we can either form the whole, and
regroup it as 10 and 5, or we can split up the 7 into 2 and 5, and add
the 2 to the 8 to form 10, thus getting 8 + 7 = 8 + (2 + 5) = (8 + 2) +
5 = 10 + 5 = 15. For larger numbers the rearrangement is more extensive;
thus 24 + 31 = (20 + 4) + (30 + 1) = (20 + 30) + (4 + 1) = 50 + 5 = 55,
the process being still more complicated when the ones together make
more than ten. Similarly we cannot subtract 8 from 15, if 15 means 1 ten
+ 5 ones; we must either write 15 - 8 = (10 + 5) - 8 = (10 - 8) + 5 = 2
+ 5 = 7, or else resolve the 15 into an inexpressible number of ones,
and then subtract 8 of them, leaving 7.
Numerical quantities, to be added or subtracted, must be in the same
denomination; we cannot, for instance, add 55 shillings and 100 pence,
any more than we can add 3 yards and 2 metres.
31. _Relative Position in the Series._--The above method of dealing with
addition and subtraction is synthetic, and is appropriate to the
grouping method of dealing with number. We commence with processes, and
see what they lead to; and thus get an idea of sums and differences. If
we adopted the counting method, we should proceed in a different way,
our method being analytic.
One number is less or greater than another, according as the symbol (or
ordinal) of the former comes earlier or later than that of the latter in
the number-series. Thus (writing ordinals in light type, and cardinals
in heavy type) 9 comes after 4, and therefore 9 is greater than 4. To
find how much greater, we compare two series, in one of which we go up
to 9, while in the other we stop at 4 and then recommence our counting.
The series are shown below, the numbers being placed horizontally for
convenience of printing, instead of vertically (§ 14):--
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5
This exhibits 9 as the sum of 4 and 5; it being understood that the sum
of 4 and 5 means that we add 5 to 4. That this gives the same result as
adding 4 to 5 may be seen by reckoning the series backwards.
It is convenient to introduce the zero; thus
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0 1 2 3 4 5
indicates that after getting to 4 we make a fresh start from 4 as our
zero.
To subtract, we may proceed in either of two ways. The subtraction of 4
from 9 may mean either "What has to be added to 4 in order to make up a
total of 9," or "To what has 4 to be added in order to make up a total
of 9." For the former meaning we count forwards, till we get to 4, and
then make a new count, parallel with the continuation of the old series,
and see at what number we arrive when we get to 9. This corresponds to
the concrete method, in which we have 9 objects, take away 4 of them,
and recount the remainder. The alternative method is to retrace the
steps of addition, i.e. to count backwards, treating 9 of one (the
standard) series as corresponding with 4 of the other, and finding which
number of the former corresponds with 0 of the latter. This is a more
advanced method, which leads easily to the idea of negative quantities,
if the subtraction is such that we have to go behind the 0 of the
standard series.
32. _Mixed Quantities._--The application of the above principles, and of
similar principles with regard to multiplication and division, to
numerical quantities expressed in any of the diverse British
denominations, presents no theoretical difficulty if the successive
denominations are regarded as constituting a varying scale of notation
(§ 17). Thus the expression 2 ft. 3 in. implies that in counting inches
we use 0 to eleven instead of 0 to 9 as our first repeating series, so
that we put down 1 for the next denomination when we get to twelve
instead of when we get to ten. Similarly 3 yds. 2 ft. means
yds. 0 1 2 3
ft. 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2 0 1 2
The practical difficulty, of course, is that the addition of two numbers
produces different results according to the scale in which we are for
the moment proceeding; thus the sum of 9 and 8 is 17, 15, 13 or 11
according as we are dealing with shillings, pence, pounds (avoirdupois)
or ounces. The difficulty may be minimized by using the notation
explained in § 17.
(iii.) _Multiples, Submultiples and Quotients._
33. _Multiplication_ and _Division_ are the names given to certain
numerical processes which have to be performed in order to find the
result of certain arithmetical operations. Each process may arise out of
either of two distinct operations; but the terminology is based on the
processes, not on the operations to which they belong, and the latter
are not always clearly understood.
34. _Repetition and Subdivision._--_Multiplication_ occurs when a
certain number or numerical quantity is treated as a _unit_ (§ 11), and
is taken a certain _number_ of times. It therefore arises in one or
other of two ways, according as the unit or the number exists first in
consciousness. If pennies are arranged in groups of five, the total
amounts arranged are successively once 5d., twice 5d., three times 5d.,
...; which are written 1 × 5d., 2 × 5d., 3 × 5d., ... (§ 28). This
process is _repetition_, and the quantities 1 × 5d., 2 × 5d., 3 × 5d.,
... are the successive _multiples_ of 5d. If, on the other hand, we have
a sum of 5s., and treat a shilling as being equivalent to twelve pence,
the 5s. is equivalent to 5 × 12d.; here the multiplication arises out of
a _subdivision_ of the original unit 1s. into 12d.
Although multiplication may arise in either of these two ways, the
actual process in each case is performed by commencing with the unit and
taking it the necessary number of times. In the above case of
subdivision, for instance, each of the 5 shillings is separately
converted into pence, so that we do in fact find in succession once
12d., twice 12d., ...; i.e. we find the multiples of 12d. up to 5
times.
The result of the multiplication is called the _product_ of the unit by
the number of times it is taken.
35. _Diagram of Multiplication._--The process of multiplication is
performed in order to obtain such results as the following:--
If 1 boy receives 7 apples,
then 3 boys receive 21 apples;
or
If 1s. is equivalent to 12d.,
then 5s. is equivalent to 60d.
The essential portions of these statements, from the arithmetical point
of view, may be exhibited in the form of the diagrams A and B:--
A B
+--------+-----------+ +-----+------+
| 1 boy | 7 apples | | 1s. | 12d. |
+--------+-----------+ +-----+------+
| 3 boys | 21 apples | | 5s. | 60d. |
+--------+-----------+ +-----+------+
or more briefly, as in C or C' and D or D':--
C C' D D'
+---+-----------+ | +---+------+ |
| 1 | 7 apples | | 7 apples | 1 | 12d. | | 12d.
+---+-----------+ ---+----------- +---+------+ ---+------
| 3 | 21 apples | 3 | 21 apples | 5 | 60d. | 5 | 60d.
+---+-----------+ | +---+------+ |
the general arrangement of the diagram being as shown in E or E':--
E E'
+--------+---------+ |
| 1 | Unit | | Unit
+--------+---------+ --------+---------
| Number | Product | Number | Product
+--------+---------+ |
Multiplication is therefore equivalent to completion of the diagram by
entry of the product.
36. _Multiple-Tables._--The diagram C or D of § 35 is part of a complete
table giving the successive multiples of the particular unit. If we take
several different units, and write down their successive multiples in
parallel columns, preceded by the number-series, we obtain a
_multiple-table_ such as the following:--
+---+---+----+----+----------+---------------+-------+-----
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 9 | 1s. 5d. | 3 yds. 2 ft. | 17359 | ...
+---+---+----+----+----------+---------------+-------+-----
| 2 | 2 | 4 | 18 | 2s. 10d. | 7 yds. 1 ft. | 34718 | ...
+---+---+----+----+----------+---------------+-------+-----
| 3 | 3 | 6 | 27 | 4s. 3d. | 11 yds. 0 ft. | 52077 | ...
+---+---+----+----+----------+---------------+-------+-----
| 4 | 4 | 8 | 36 | 5s. 8d. | 14 yds. 2 ft. | 69436 | ...
+---+---+----+----+----------+---------------+-------+-----
| 5 | 5 | 10 | 45 | 7s. 1d. | 16 yds. 1 ft. | 86795 | ...
+---+---+----+----+----------+---------------+-------+-----
| . | . | . | . | . | . | . | ...
| . | . | . | . | . | . | . | ...
| . | . | . | . | . | . | . | ...
| . | . | . | . | . | . | . | ...
It is to be considered that each column may extend downwards
indefinitely.
37. _Successive Multiplication._--In multiplication by repetition the
unit is itself usually a multiple of some other unit, i.e. it is a
product which is taken as a new unit. When this new unit has been
multiplied by a number, we can again take the product as a unit for the
purpose of another multiplication; and so on indefinitely. Similarly
where multiplication has arisen out of the subdivision of a unit into
smaller units, we can again subdivide these smaller units. Thus we get
successive multiplication; but it represents quite different operations
according as it is due to repetition, in the sense of § 34, or to
subdivision, and these operations will be exhibited by different
diagrams. Of the two diagrams below, A exhibits the successive
multiplication of £3 by 20, 12 and 4, and B the successive reduction of
£3 to shillings, pence and farthings. The principle on which the
diagrams are constructed is obvious from § 35. It should be noticed that
in multiplying £3 by 20 we find the value of 20.3, but that in reducing
£3 to shillings, since each £ becomes 20s., we find the value of 3.20.
A B
+----+-------+ +-------+--------+
| 1 | £3 | | 1d. | 4f. |
+-----+----+-------+ +------+-------+--------+
| 1 | 20 | £60 | | 1s. | 12d. | |
+---+-----+----+-------+ +----+------+-------+--------+
| 1 | 12 | | £720 | | £1 | 20s. | | |
+---+-----+----+-------+ +----+------+-------+--------+
| 4 | | | £2880 | | £3 | 60s. | 720d. | 2880f. |
+---+-----+----+-------+ +----+------+-------+--------+
38. _Submultiples._--The relation of a unit to its successive multiples
as shown in a multiple-table is expressed by saying that it is a
submultiple of the multiples, the successive submultiples being
_one-half, one-third, one-fourth_, ... Thus, in the diagram of § 36, 1s.
5d. is one-half of 2s. 10d., one-third of 4s. 3d., one-fourth of 5s.
8d., ...; these being written "½ of 2s. 10d.," "1/3 of 4s. 3d.," "¼ of
5s. 8d,"...
The relation of submultiple is the converse of that of multiple; thus if
a is 1/5 of b, then b is 5 times a. The determination of a submultiple
is therefore equivalent to completion of the diagram E or E' of § 35 by
entry of the unit, when the number of times it is taken, and the
product, are given. The operation is the converse of repetition; it is
usually called _partition_, as representing division into a number of
equal shares.
39. _Quotients._--The converse of subdivision is the formation of units
into groups, each constituting a larger unit; the number of the groups
so formed out of a definite number of the original units is called a
_quotient_. The determination of a quotient is equivalent to completion
of the diagram by entry of the number when the unit and the product are
given. There is no satisfactory name for the operation, as distinguished
from partition; it is sometimes called measuring, but this implies an
equality in the original units, which is not an essential feature of the
operation.
40. _Division._--From the commutative law for multiplication, which
shows that 3 × 4d. = 4 × 3d. = 12d., it follows that the number of pence
in one-fourth of 12d. is equal to the quotient when 12 pence are formed
into units of 4d.; each of these numbers being said to be obtained by
_dividing_ 12 by 4. The term _division_ is therefore used in text-books
to describe the two processes described in §§ 38 and 39; the product
mentioned in § 34 is the _dividend_, the number or the unit, whichever
is given, is called the _divisor_, and the unit or number which is to be
found is called the _quotient_. The symbol ÷ is used to denote both
kinds of division; thus A ÷ n denotes the unit, n of which make up A,
and A ÷ B denotes the number of times that B has to be taken to make up
A. In the present article this confusion is avoided by writing the
former as 1/n of A.
Methods of division are considered later (§§ 106-108).
41. _Diagrams of Division._--Since we write from left to right or
downwards, it may be convenient for division to interchange the rows or
the columns of the multiplication-diagram. Thus the uncompleted diagram
for partition is F or G, while for measuring it is usually H; the vacant
compartment being for the unit in F or G, and for the number in H. In
some cases it may be convenient in measuring to show both the units, as
in K.
F G H K
+--------+---------+ +--------+---------+ +---------+---+ +------+-----+
| 1 | | | Number | Product | | Unit | 1 | | 12d. | 1s. |
+--------+---------+ +--------+---------+ +---------+---+ +------+-----+
| Number | Product | | 1 | | | Product | | | 60d. | |
+--------+---------+ +--------+---------+ +---------+---+ +------+-----+
42. _Successive Division_ may be performed as the converse of successive
multiplication. The diagrams A and B below are the converse (with a
slight alteration) of the corresponding diagrams in § 37; A
representing the determination of 1/20 of 1/12 of ¼ of 2880 farthings,
and B the conversion of 2880 farthings into £.
A B
+---+--------+ +------+----+
| 4 | 2880f. | | 20s. | £1 |
+----+---+--------+ +-------+------+----+
| 12 | 1 | 720f. | | 12d. | 1s. | |
+----+----+---+--------+ +--------+-------+------+----+
| 20 | 1 | | 60f. | | 4f. | 1d. | | |
+----+----+---+--------+ +--------+-------+------+----+
| 1 | | | 3f. | | 2880f. | 720d. | 60s. | £3 |
+----+----+---+--------+ +--------+-------+------+----+
(iv.) _Properties of Numbers._
(A) Properties not depending on the Scale of Notation.
43. _Powers, Roots and Logarithms._--The standard series 1, 2, 3, ... is
obtained by successive additions of 1 to the number last found. If
instead of commencing with 1 and making successive additions of 1 we
commence with any number such as 3 and make successive multiplications
by 3, we get a series 3, 9, 27, ... as shown below the line in the
margin. The first member of the series is 3; the second is the product
of two numbers, each equal to 3; the third is the product of three
numbers, each equal to 3; and so on. These are written 3^1 (or 3), 3²,
3³, 3^4, ... where n^p denotes the product of p numbers, each equal to
n. If we write n^p = N, then, if any two of the three numbers n, p, N
are known, the third is determinate. If we know n and p, p is called the
_index_, and n, n², ... n^p are called the _first power, second power,
... pth power_ of n, the series itself being called the _power-series_.
The _second power_ and _third power_ are usually called the _square_ and
_cube_ respectively. If we know p and N, n is called the _pth root_ of
N, so that n is the _second_ (or _square_) _root_ of n², the _third_
(or _cube_) _root_ of n³, the _fourth root_ of n^4, ... If we know n
and N, then p is the _logarithm_ of N to _base_ n.
0 1 = 3^0 n^0
------------------
1 3 = 3^1 n^1
2 9 = 3² n²
3 27 = 3³ n³
4 81 = 3^4 n^4
: : : :
: : : :
The calculation of powers (i.e. of N when n and p are given) is
_involution_; the calculation of roots (i.e. of n when p and N are
given) is _evolution_; the calculation of logarithms (i.e. of p when n
and N are given) has no special name.
Involution is a direct process, consisting of successive
multiplications; the other two are inverse processes. The calculation of
a logarithm can be performed by successive divisions; evolution requires
special methods.
The above definitions of logarithms, &c., relate to cases in which n and
p are whole numbers, and are generalized later.
44. _Law of Indices._--If we multiply n^p by n^q, we multiply the
product of p n's by the product of q n's, and the result is therefore
n^(p + q). Similarly, if we divide n^p by n^q, where q is less than p,
the result is n^(p - q). Thus multiplication and division in the
power-series correspond to addition and subtraction in the index-series,
and vice versa.
If we divide n^p by n^p, the quotient is of course 1. This should be
written n^0. Thus we may make the power-series commence with 1, if we
make the index-series commence with 0. The added terms are shown above
the line in the diagram in § 43.
45. _Factors, Primes and Prime Factors._--If we take the successive
multiples of 2, 3, ... as in § 36, and place each multiple opposite the
same number in the original series, we get an arrangement as in the
adjoining diagram. If any number N occurs in the vertical series
commencing with a number n (other than 1) then n is said to be a
_factor_ of N. Thus 2, 3 and 6 are factors of 6; and 2, 3, 4, 6 and 12
are factors of 12.
1 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
2 2 .. .. .. .. .. ..
3 .. 3 .. .. .. .. ..
4 4 .. 4 .. .. .. ..
5 .. .. .. 5 .. .. ..
6 6 6 .. .. 6 .. ..
7 .. .. .. .. .. 7 ..
8 8 .. 8 .. .. .. 8
9 .. 9 .. .. .. .. ..
10 10 .. .. 10 .. .. ..
11 .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
12 12 12 12 .. 12 .. ..
: : : : : : : :
: : : : : : : :
A number (other than 1) which has no factor except itself is called a
_prime number_, or, more briefly, a _prime_. Thus 2, 3, 5, 7 and 11 are
primes, for each of these occurs twice only in the table. A number
(other than 1) which is not a prime number is called a _composite_
number.
If a number is a factor of another number, it is a factor of any
multiple of that number. Hence, if a number has factors, one at least of
these must be a prime. Thus 12 has 6 for a factor; but 6 is not a prime,
one of its factors being 2; and therefore 2 must also be a factor of 12.
Dividing 12 by 2, we get a submultiple 6, which again has a prime 2 as a
factor. Thus any number which is not itself a prime is the product of
several factors, each of which is a prime, e.g. 12 is the product of 2,
2 and 3. These are called _prime factors_.
The following are the most important properties of numbers in reference
to factors:--
(i) If a number is a factor of another number, it is a factor of any
multiple of that number.
(ii) If a number is a factor of two numbers, it is a factor of their sum
or (if they are unequal) of their difference. (The words in brackets are
inserted to avoid the difficulty, at this stage, of saying that every
number is a factor of 0, though it is of course true that 0·n = 0,
whatever n may be.)
(iii) A number can be resolved into prime factors in one way only, no
account being taken of their relative order. Thus 12 = 2 × 2 × 3 = 2 × 3
× 2 = 3 × 2 × 2, but this is regarded as one way only. If any prime
occurs more than once, it is usual to write the number of times of
occurrence as an index; thus 144 = 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 × 3 × 3 = 2^4 · 3².
The number 1 is usually included amongst the primes; but, if this is
done, the last paragraph requires modification, since 144 could be
expressed as 1 · 2^4 · 3², or as 1² · 2^4 · 3², or as 1^p · 2^4 · 3²,
where p might be anything.
If two numbers have no factor in common (except 1) each is said to be
_prime to_ the other.
The multiples of 2 (including 1·2) are called _even_ numbers; other
numbers are _odd_ numbers.
46. _Greatest Common Divisor._--If we resolve two numbers into their
prime factors, we can find their _Greatest Common Divisor_ or _Highest
Common Factor_ (written G.C.D. or G.C.F. or H.C.F.), i.e. the greatest
number which is a factor of both. Thus 144 = 2^4 · 3², and 756 = 2² ·
3³ · 7, and therefore the G.C.D. of 144 and 756 is 2² · 3² = 36. If we
require the G.C.D. of two numbers, and cannot resolve them into their
prime factors, we use a process described in the text-books. The process
depends on (ii) of § 45, in the extended form that, if x is a factor of
a and b, it is a factor of pa - qb, where p and q are any integers.
The G.C.D. of three or more numbers is found in the same way.
47. _Least Common Multiple._--The _Least Common Multiple_, or L.C.M., of
two numbers, is the least number of which they are both factors. Thus,
since 144 = 2^4 · 3², and 756 = 2² · 3³ · 7, the L.C.M. of 144 and 756
is 2^4 · 3³ · 7. It is clear, from comparison with the last paragraph,
that the product of the G.C.D. and the L.C.M. of two numbers is equal to
the product of the numbers themselves. This gives a rule for finding the
L.C.M. of two numbers. But we cannot apply it to finding the L.C.M. of
three or more numbers; if we cannot resolve the numbers into their prime
factors, we must find the L.C.M. of the first two, then the L.C.M. of
this and the next number, and so on.
(B) Properties depending on the Scale of Notation.
48. _Tests of Divisibility._--The following are the principal rules for
testing whether particular numbers are factors of a given number. The
number is divisible--
(i) by 10 if it ends in 0;
(ii) by 5 if it ends in 0 or 5;
(iii) by 2 if the last digit is even;
(iv) by 4 if the number made up of the last two digits is divisible by 4;
(v) by 8 if the number made up of the last three digits is divisible by 8;
(vi) by 9 if the sum of the digits is divisible by 9;
(vii) by 3 if the sum of the digits is divisible by 3;
(viii) by 11 if the difference between the sum of the 1st, 3rd, 5th, ...
digits and the sum of the 2nd, 4th, 6th, ... is zero or divisible by
11.
(ix) To find whether a number is divisible by 7, 11 or 13, arrange the
number in groups of three figures, beginning from the end, treat each
group as a separate number, and then find the difference between the sum
of the 1st, 3rd, ... of these numbers and the sum of the 2nd, 4th, ...
Then, if this difference is zero or is divisible by 7, 11 or 13, the
original number is also so divisible; and conversely. For example, 31521
gives 521 - 31 = 490, and therefore is divisible by 7, but not by 11 or
13.
49. _Casting out Nines_ is a process based on (vi) of the last
paragraph. The remainder when a number is divided by 9 is equal to the
remainder when the sum of its digits is divided by 9. Also, if the
remainders when two numbers are divided by 9 are respectively a and b,
the remainder when their product is divided by 9 is the same as the
remainder when a·b is divided by 9. This gives a rule for testing
multiplication, which is found in most text-books. It is doubtful,
however, whether such a rule, giving a test which is necessarily
incomplete, is of much educational value.
(v.) _Relative Magnitude._
50. _Fractions._--A _fraction_ of a quantity is a submultiple, or a
multiple of a submultiple, of that quantity. Thus, since 3 × 1s. 5d. =
4s. 3d., 1s. 5d. may be denoted by 1/3 of 4s. 3d.; and any multiple of
1s. 5d., denoted by n × 1s. 5d., may also be denoted by n/3 of 4s. 3d.
We therefore use "n/a of A" to mean that we find a quantity X such that
a × X = A, and then multiply X by n.
It must be noted (i) that this is a definition of "n/a of," not a
definition of "n/a," and (ii) that it is not necessary that n should be
less than a.
51. _Subdivision of Submultiple._--By 5/7 of A we mean 5 times the unit,
7 times which is A. If we regard this unit as being 4 times a lesser
unit, then A is 7·4 times this lesser unit, and 5/7 of A is 5·4 times
the lesser unit. Hence 5/7 of A is equal to (5·4)/(7·4) of A; and,
conversely, (5·4)/(7·4) of A is equal to 5/7 of A. Similarly each of
these is equal to (5·3)/(7·3) of A. Hence the value of a fraction is not
altered by substituting for the numerator and denominator the
corresponding numbers in any other column of a multiple-table (§ 36). If
we write (5·4)/(7·4) in the form (4·5)/(4·7) we may say that the value
of a fraction is not altered by multiplying or dividing the numerator
and denominator by any number.
52. _Fraction of a Fraction._--To find 11/4 of 5/7 of A we must convert
5/7 of A into 4 times some unit. This is done by the preceding
paragraph. For 5/7 of A = (5·4)/(7·4) of A = (4·5)/(7·4) of A; i.e. it
is 4 times a unit which is itself 5 times another unit, 7·4 times, which
is A. Hence, taking the former unit 11 times instead of 4 times,
11/4 of 5/7 of A = (11·5)/(7·4) of A
A fraction of a fraction is sometimes called a _compound fraction._
53. _Comparison, Addition and Subtraction of Fractions._--The quantities
¾ of A and 5/7 of A are expressed in terms of different units. To
compare them, or to add or subtract them, we must express them in terms
of the same unit. Thus, taking 1/28 of A as the unit, we have (§ 51)
¾ of A = 21/28 of A; 5/7 of A = 20/28 of A.
Hence the former is greater than the latter; their sum is 41/28 of A;
and their difference is 1/28 of A.
Thus the fractions must be reduced to a _common denominator_. This
denominator must, if the fractions are in their lowest terms (§ 54), be
a multiple of each of the denominators; it is usually most convenient
that it should be their L.C.M. (§ 47).
54. _Fraction in its Lowest Terms._--A fraction is said to be _in its
lowest terms_ when its numerator and denominator have no common factor;
or to be reduced to its lowest terms when it is replaced by such a
fraction. Thus 8/22 of A is said to be reduced to its lowest terms when
it is replaced by 4/11 of A. It is important always to bear in mind that
4/11 of A is not the _same_ as 8/22 of A, though it is _equal_ to it.
+------+-----------+
| 1 | 7d. |
+------+-----------+
| 10 | 5s.10d. |
+------+-----------+
| 24 | 14s. |
+------+-----------+
55. _Diagram of Fractional Relation._--To find 10/24 of 14s. we have to
take 10 of the units, 24 of which make up 14s. Hence the required amount
will, in the multiple-table of § 36, be opposite 10 in the column in
which the amount opposite 24 is 14s.; the quantity at the head of this
column, representing the unit, will be found to be 7d. The elements of
the multiple-table with which we are concerned are shown in the diagram
in the margin. This diagram serves equally for the two statements that
(i) 10/24 of 14s. is 5s. 10d., (ii) 24/10 of 5s. 10d. is 14s. The two
statements are in fact merely different aspects of a single relation,
considered in the next section.
A
+------+-----------+
| 10 | 5s. 10d. |
+------+-----------+
| 24 | 14s. |
+------+-----------+
B
+------+-----------+
| 5 | 5s. 10d. |
+------+-----------+
| 12 | 14s. |
+------+-----------+
56. _Ratio._--If we omit the two upper compartments of the diagram in
the last section, we obtain the diagram A. This diagram exhibits a
relation between the two amounts 5s. 10d. and 14s. on the one hand, and
the numbers 10 and 24 of the standard series on the other, which is
expressed by saying that 5s. 10d. is to 14s. in the _ratio_ of 10 to 24,
or that 14s. is to 5s. 10d. in the ratio of 24 to 10. If we had taken
1s. 2d. instead of 7d. as the unit for the second column, we should have
obtained the diagram B. Thus we must regard the ratio of a to b as being
the same as the ratio of c to d, if the fractions a/b and c/d are equal.
For this reason the ratio of a to b is sometimes written a/b, but the
more correct method is to write it a:b.
If two quantities or numbers P and Q are to each other in the ratio of p
to q, it is clear from the diagram that p times Q = q times P, so that Q
= q/p of P.
57. _Proportion._--If from any two columns in the table of § 36 we
remove the numbers or quantities in any two rows, we get a diagram such
as that here shown. The pair of compartments on either side may, as
here, contain numerical quantities, or may contain numbers. But the two
pairs of compartments will correspond to a single pair of numbers, e.g.
2 and 6, in the standard series, so that, denoting them by M, N and P, Q
respectively, M will be to N in the same ratio that P is to Q.
+----------+---------------+
| 2s. 10d. | 7 yds. 1 ft. |
+----------+---------------+
| 8s. 6d. | 22 yds. |
+----------+---------------+
This is expressed by saying that M is to N as P to Q, the relation being
written M : N :: P : Q; the four quantities are then said to be _in
proportion_ or to be _proportionals_.
+---+---+
| M | P |
+---+---+
| N | Q |
+---+---+
This is the most general expression of the relative magnitude of two
quantities; i.e. the relation expressed by proportion includes the
relations expressed by multiple, submultiple, fraction and ratio.
If M and N are respectively m and n times a unit, and P and Q are
respectively p and q times a unit, then the quantities are in proportion
if mq = np; and conversely.
IV. LAWS OF ARITHMETIC
58. _Laws of Arithmetic._--The arithmetical processes which we have
considered in reference to positive integral numbers are subject to the
following laws:--
(i) _Equalities and Inequalities._--The following are sometimes called
_Axioms_ (§ 29), but their truth should be proved, even if at an early
stage it is assumed. The symbols ">" and "<" mean respectively "is
greater than" and "is less than." The numbers represented by a, b, c, x
and m are all supposed to be positive.
(a) If a = b, and b = c. then a = c;
(b) If a = b, then a + x = b + x, and a - x = b - x;
(c) If a > b, then a + x > b + x, and a - x > b - x;
(d) If a < b, then a + b < b + x, and a - x < b - x;
(e) If a = b, then ma = mb, and a ÷ m = b ÷ m;
(f) If a > b, then ma > mb, and a ÷ m > b ÷ m;
(g) If a < b, then ma < mb, and a ÷ m < b ÷ m.
(ii) _Associative Law for Additions and Subtractions._--This law
includes the _rule of signs_, that a - (b - c) = a - b + c; and it
states that, subject to this, successive operations of addition or
subtraction may be grouped in sets in any way; e.g. a - b + c + d + e -
f = a - (b - c) + (d + e - f).
(iii) _Commutative Law for Additions and Subtractions_, that additions
and subtractions may be performed in any order; e.g. a - b + c + d = a +
c - b + d = a - b + c - b.
(iv) _Associative Law for Multiplications and Divisions._--This law
includes a rule, similar to the rule of signs, to the effect that
a÷(b÷c) = a ÷ b [×] c; and it states that, subject to this, successive
operations of multiplication or division may be grouped in sets in any
way; e.g. a b [×] c [×] d [×] e ÷ f = a ÷ (b ÷ c) [×] (d [×] e ÷ f).
(v) _Commutative Law for Multiplications and Divisions_, that
multiplications and divisions may be performed in any order: e.g. a ÷ b
[×] c [×] d = a [×] c ÷ b [×] d = a [×] d [×] c ÷ b.
(vi) _Distributive Law_, that multiplications and divisions may be
distributed over additions and subtractions, e.g. that m(a + b - c) =
m·a + m·b - m·c, or that (a + b - c) ÷ n = (a ÷ n) + (b ÷ n) + (c ÷ n).
In the case of (ii), (iii) and (vi), the letters a, b, c, ... may denote
either numbers or numerical quantities, while m and n denote numbers; in
the case of (iv) and (v) the letters denote numbers only.
59. _Results of Inverse Operations._--Addition, multiplication and
involution are direct processes; and, if we start with positive
integers, we continue with positive integers throughout. But, in
attempting the inverse processes of subtraction, division, and either
evolution or determination of index, the data may be such that a process
cannot be performed. We can, however, denote the result of the process
by a symbol, and deal with this symbol according to the laws of
arithmetic. In this way we arrive at (i) negative numbers, (ii)
fractional numbers, (iii) surds, (iv) logarithms (in the ordinary sense
of the word).
60. _Simple Formulae._--The following are some simple formulae which
follow from the laws stated in § 58.
(i) (a + b + c + ...)(p + q + r + ...) = (ap + aq + ar + ...) + (bp + bq
+ br + ...) + (cp + cq + cr + ...)+ ...; i.e. the product of two or more
numbers, each of which consists of two or more parts, is the sum of the
products of each part of the one with each part of the other.
(ii) (a + b)(a - b) = a² - b²; i.e. the product of the sum and the
difference of two numbers is equal to the difference of their squares.
(iii) (a + b)² = a² + 2ab + b² = a² + (2a + b)b.
V. NEGATIVE NUMBERS
61. _Negative Numbers_ may be regarded as resulting from the commutative
law for addition and subtraction. According to this law, 10 + 3 + 6 - 7
= 10 + 3 - 7 + 6 = 3 + 6 - 7 + 10 = &c. But, if we write the expression
as 3 - 7 + 6 + 10, this means that we must first subtract 7 from 3. This
cannot be done; but the result of the subtraction, if it could be done,
is something which, when 6 is added to it, becomes 3 - 7 + 6 = 3 + 6 - 7
= 2. The result of 3 - 7 is the same as that of 0 - 4; and we may write
it "-4," and call it a _negative number_, if by this we mean something
possessing the property that -4 + 4 = 0.
This, of course, is unintelligible on the grouping system of treating
number; on the counting system it merely means that we count backwards
from 0, just as we might count inches backwards from a point marked 0 on
a scale. It should be remembered that the counting is performed with
something as unit. If this unit is A, then what we are really
considering is -4A; and this means, not that A is multiplied by -4, but
that A is multiplied by 4, and the product is taken negatively. It would
therefore be better, in some ways, to retain the unit throughout, and to
describe -4A as a _negative quantity_, in order to avoid confusion with
the "negative numbers" with which operations are performed in formal
algebra.
The positive quantity or number obtained from a negative quantity or
number by omitting the "-" is called its _numerical value_.
VI. FRACTIONAL AND DECIMAL NUMBERS
62. _Fractional Numbers._--According to the definition in § 50 the
quantity denoted by 3/6 of A is made up of a number, 3, and a unit,
which is one-sixth of A. Similarly p/n of A, q/n of A, r/n of A, ...
mean quantities which are respectively p times, q times r times, ... the
unit, n of which make up A. Thus any arithmetical processes which can be
applied to the numbers p, q, r, ... can be applied to p/n, q/n, r/n, ...,
the denominator n remaining unaltered.
If we denote the unit 1/n of A by X, then A is n times X, and p/n of n
times X is p times X; i.e. p/n of n times is p times.
Hence, so long as the denominator remains unaltered, we can deal with
performed on the numerators. The expressions p/n, q/n, r/n, ... are then
_fractional numbers_, their relation to ordinary or _integral_ numbers
being that p/n times n times is equal to p times.
This relation is of exactly the same kind as the relation of the
successive digits in numbers expressed in a scale of notation whose base
is n. Hence we can treat the fractional numbers which have any one
denominator as constituting a number-series, as shown in the adjoining
diagram. The result of taking 13 sixths of A is then seen to be the same
as the result of taking twice A and one-sixth of A, so that we may
regard 13/6 as being equal to 2(1/6). A fractional number is called a
_proper fraction_ or an _improper fraction_ according as the numerator
is or is not less than the denominator; and an expression such as 2(1/6)
is called a mixed number. An improper fraction is therefore equal either
to an integer or to a mixed number. It will be seen from § 17 that a
mixed number corresponds with what is there called a _mixed quantity_.
Thus £3, 17s. is a mixed quantity, being expressed in pounds and
shillings; to express it in terms of pounds only we must write it
£3(17/20).
Ones. Sixths.
0 0
1
2
3
4
5
1 0
1
2
3
4
5
2 0
1
:
:
63. _Fractional Numbers with different Denominators._--If we divided the
unit into halves, and these new units into thirds, we should get sixths
of the original unit, as shown in A; while, if we divided the unit into
thirds, and these new units into halves, we should again get sixths, but
as shown in B. The series of halves in the one case, and of thirds in
the other, are entirely different series of fractional numbers, but we
can compare them by putting each in its proper position in relation to
the series of sixths. Thus 3/2 is equal to 9/6, and 5/3 is equal to
10/6, and conversely; in other words, any fractional number is
equivalent to the fractional number obtained by multiplying or dividing
the numerator and denominator by any integer. We can thus find
fractional numbers equivalent to the sum or difference of any two
fractional numbers. The process is the same as that of finding the sum
or difference of 3 sixpences and 5 fourpences; we cannot subtract 3
sixpenny-bits from 5 fourpenny-bits, but we can express each as an
equivalent number of pence, and then perform the subtraction. Generally,
to find the sum or difference of two or more fractional numbers, we must
replace them by other fractional numbers having the same denominator; it
is usually most convenient to take as this denominator the L.C.M. of the
original fractional numbers (cf. § 53).
A B
Ones. Halves. Sixths. Ones. Thirds. Sixths.
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1
2 1 0
1 0 1
1 2 0
2 1
1 0 0 1 0 0
: :
: :
64. _Complex Fractions._--A fraction (or fractional number), the
numerator or denominator of which is a fractional number, is called a
_complex_ fraction (or fractional number), to distinguish it from a
_simple_ fraction, which is a fraction having integers for numerator and
denominator. Thus 5(2/3)/11(1/3) of A means that we take a unit X such
that 11(1/3) times X is equal to A, and then take 5(2/3) times X. To
simplify this, we take a new unit Y, which is 1/3 of X. Then A is 34
times Y, and 5(2/3)/11(1/3) of A is 17 times Y, i.e. it is ½ of A.
65. _Multiplication of Fractional Numbers._--To multiply 8/3 by 5/7 is
to take 5/7 times 8/3. It has already been explained (§ 62) that 5/7
times is an operation such that 5/7 times 7 times is equal to 5 times.
Hence we must express 8/3, which itself means 8/3 times, as being 7
times something. This is done by multiplying both numerator and
denominator by 7; i.e. 8/3 is equal to (7·8)/(7·3), which is the same
thing as 7 times 8/(7·3). Hence 5/7 times 8/3 = 5/7 times 7 times
8/(7·3) = 5 times 8/(7·3) = (5·8)/(7·3). The rule for multiplying a
fractional number by a fractional number is therefore the same as the
rule for finding a fraction of a fraction.
66. _Division of Fractional Numbers._--To divide 8/3 by 5/7 is to find a
number (i.e. a fractional number) x such that 5/7 times x is equal to
8/3. But 7/5 times 5/7 times x is, by the last section, equal to x.
Hence x is equal to 7/5 times 8/3. Thus to divide by a fractional number
we must multiply by the number obtained by interchanging the numerator
and the denominator, i.e. by the _reciprocal_ of the original number.
If we divide 1 by 5/7 we obtain, by this rule, 7/5. Thus the reciprocal
of a number may be defined as the number obtained by dividing 1 by it.
This definition applies whether the original number is integral or
fractional.
By means of the present and the preceding sections the rule given in §
63 can be extended to the statement that a fractional number is equal to
the number obtained by multiplying its numerator and its denominator by
any fractional number.
67. _Negative Fractional Numbers._--We can obtain negative fractional
numbers in the same way that we obtain negative integral numbers; thus
-(5/7) or -(5/7)A means that 5/7 or (5/7)A is taken negatively.
68. _Genesis of Fractional Numbers._--A fractional number may be
regarded as the result of a measuring division (§ 39) which cannot be
performed exactly. Thus we cannot divide 3 in. by 11 in. exactly, i.e.
we cannot express 3 in. as an integral multiple of 11 in.; but, by
extending the meaning of "times" as in § 62, we can say that 3 in. is
3/11 times 11 in., and therefore call 3/11 the quotient when 3 in. is
divided by 11 in. Hence, if p and n are numbers, p/n is sometimes
regarded as denoting the result of dividing p by n, whether p and n are
integral or fractional (mixed numbers being included in fractional).
The idea and properties of a fractional number having been explained, we
may now call it, for brevity, a _fraction_. Thus "2/3 of A" no longer
means two of the units, three of which make up A; it means that A is
multiplied by the fraction 2/3, i.e. it means the same thing as "2/3
times A."
69. _Percentage._--In order to deal, by way of comparison or addition or
subtraction, with fractions which have different denominators, it is
necessary to reduce them to a common denominator. To avoid this
difficulty, in practical life, it is usual to confine our operations to
fractions which have a certain standard denominator. Thus (§ 79) the
Romans reckoned in twelfths, and the Babylonians in sixtieths; the
former method supplied a basis for division by 2, 3, 4, 6 or 12, and the
latter for division by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, 30, or 60. The
modern method is to deal with fractions which have 100 as denominator;
such fractions are called _percentages_. They only apply accurately to
divisions by 2, 4, 5, 10, 20, 25 or 50; but they have the convenience of
fitting in with the denary scale of notation, and they can be extended
to other divisions by using a mixed number as numerator. One-fortieth,
for instance, can be expressed as (2½)/100, which is called 2½ _per
cent._, and usually written 2½%. Similarly 3(1/3)% is equal to
one-thirtieth.
If the numerator is a multiple of 5, the fraction represents twentieths.
This is convenient, e.g. for expressing _rates in the pound_; thus 15%
denotes the process of taking 3s. for every £1, i.e. a rate of 3s. in
the £.
In applications to money "per cent." sometimes means "per £100." Thus
"£3, 17s. 6d. per cent." is really the complex fraction
17(6/12)
3 -------
20
------------ .
100
70. _Decimal Notation of Percentage._--An integral percentage, i.e. a
simple fraction with 100 for denominator, can be expressed by writing
the two figures of the numerator (or, if there is only one figure, this
figure preceded by 0) with a dot or "point" before them; thus .76 means
76%, or 76/100. If there is an integral number to be taken as well as a
percentage, this number is written in front of the point; thus 23.76 × A
means 23 times A, with 76% of A. We might therefore denote 76% by 0.76.
If as our unit we take X = 1/100 of A = 1% of A, the above quantity
might equally be written 2376 X = 2376/100 of A; i.e. 23.76 × A is equal
to 2376% of A.
71. _Approximate Expression by Percentage._--When a fraction cannot be
expressed by an integral percentage, it can be so expressed
approximately, by taking the _nearest_ integer to the numerator of an
equal fraction having 100 for its denominator. Thus 1/7 = 14(2/7)/100,
so that 1/7 is approximately equal to 14%; and 2/7 = 28(4/7)/100, which
is approximately equal to 29%. The difference between this approximate
percentage and the true value is less than ½%, i.e. is less than 1/200.
If the numerator of the fraction consists of an integer and ½--e.g. in
the case of 3/8 = (37½)/100--it is uncertain whether we should take the
next lowest or the next highest integer. It is best in such cases to
retain the ½; thus we can write 3/8 = 37½ % = .37½.
72. _Addition and Subtraction of Percentages._--The sum or difference of
two percentages is expressed by the sum or difference of the numbers
expressing the two percentages.
73. _Percentage of a Percentage._--Since 37% of 1 is expressed by 0.37,
37% of 1% (i.e. of 0.01) might similarly be expressed by 0.00.37. The
second point, however, is omitted, so that we write it 0.0037 or .0037,
this expression meaning 37/100 of 1/100 = 37/10000.
On the same principle, since 37% of 45% is equal to 37/100 of 45/100 =
1665/10000 = 16/100 + (65/100 of 1/100), we can express it by .1665; and
3% of 2% can be expressed by .0006. Hence, to find a percentage of a
percentage, we multiply the two numbers, put 0's in front if necessary
to make up four figures (not counting fractions), and prefix the point.
74. _Decimal Fractions._--The percentage-notation can be extended to any
fraction which has any power of 10 for its denominator. Thus 153/1000
can be written .153 and 15300/100000 can be written .15300. These two
fractions are equal to each other, and also to .1530. A fraction written
in this way is called a _decimal fraction_; or we might define a decimal
fraction as a fraction having a power of 10 for its denominator, there
being a special notation for writing such fractions.
A mixed number, the fractional part of which is a decimal fraction, is
expressed by writing the integral part in front of the point, which is
called the _decimal point_. Thus 27(1530/10000) can be written
27.1530. This number, expressed in terms of the fraction 1/10000 or
.0001, would be 271530. Hence the successive figures after the decimal
point have the same relation to each other and to the figures before the
point as if the point did not exist. The point merely indicates the
_denomination_ in which the number is expressed: the above number,
expressed in terms of 1/16, would be 271.530, but expressed in terms of
100 it would be .271530.
Fractions other than decimal fractions are usually called _vulgar
fractions_.
75. _Decimal Numbers._--Instead of regarding the .153 in 27.153 as
meaning 153/1000, we may regard the different figures in the expression
as denoting numbers in the successive orders of submultiples of 1 on a
denary scale. Thus, on the grouping system, 27.153 will mean 2.10 + 7 +
1/10 + 5/10² + 3/10³, while on the counting system it will mean the
result of counting through the tens to 2, then through the ones to 7,
then through tenths to 1, and so on. A number made up in this way may be
called a _decimal number_, or, more briefly, a _decimal_. It will be
seen that the definition includes integral numbers.
76. _Sums and Differences of Decimals._--To add or subtract decimals, we
must reduce them to the same denomination, i.e. if one has more figures
after the decimal point than the other, we must add sufficient 0's to
the latter to make the numbers of figures equal. Thus, to add 5.413 to
3.8, we must write the latter as 3.800. Or we may treat the former as
the sum of 5.4 and .013, and recombine the .013 with the sum of 3.8 and
5.4.
77. _Product of Decimals._--To multiply two decimals exactly, we
multiply them as if the point were absent, and then insert it so that
the number of figures after the point in the product shall be equal to
the sum of the numbers of figures after the points in the original
decimals.
In actual practice, however, decimals only represent approximations, and
the process has to be modified (§ 111).
78. _Division by Decimal._--To divide one decimal by another, we must
reduce them to the same denomination, as explained in § 76, and then
omit the decimal points. Thus 5.413 ÷ 3.8 = (5413/1000) ÷ (3800/1000) =
5413 ÷ 3800.
79. _Historical Development of Fractions and Decimals._--The fractions
used in ancient times were mainly of two kinds: unit-fractions, i.e.
fractions representing aliquot parts (§ 103), and fractions with a
definite denominator.
The Egyptians as a rule used only unit-fractions, other fractions being
expressed as the sum of unit-fractions. The only known exception was the
use of 2/3 as a single fraction. Except in the case of 2/3 and ½, the
fraction was expressed by the denominator, with a special symbol above
it.
The Babylonians expressed numbers less than 1 by the numerator of a
fraction with denominator 60; the numerator only being written. The
choice of 60 appears to have been connected with the reckoning of the
year as 360 days; it is perpetuated in the present subdivision of
angles.
The Greeks originally used unit-fractions, like the Egyptians; later
they introduced the sexagesimal fractions of the Babylonians, extending
the system to four or more successive subdivisions of the unit
representing a degree. They also, but apparently still later and only
occasionally, used fractions of the modern kind. In the sexagesimal
system the numerators of the successive fractions (the denominators of
which were the successive powers of 60) were followed by ', ", "', "",
the denominator not being written. This notation survives in reference
to the minute (') and second (") of angular measurement, and has been
extended, by analogy, to the foot (') and inch ("). Since [xi]
represented 60, and [omicron] was the next letter, the latter appears to
have been used to denote absence of one of the fractions; but it is not
clear that our present sign for zero was actually derived from this. In
the case of fractions of the more general kind, the numerator was
written first with ', and then the denominator, followed by ", was
written twice. A different method was used by Diophantus, accents being
omitted, and the denominator being written above and to the right of the
numerator.
The Romans commonly used fractions with denominator 12; these were
described as _unciae_ (ounces), being twelfths of the _as_ (pound).
The modern system of placing the numerator above the denominator is due
to the Hindus; but the dividing line is a later invention. Various
systems were tried before the present notation came to be generally
accepted. Under one system, for instance, the continued sum 4/5 + 1/(7 ×
5) + 3/(8 × 7 × 5) would be denoted by (3 1 4)/(8 7 5); this is somewhat
similar in principle to a decimal notation, but with digits taken in the
reverse order.
Hindu treatises on arithmetic show the use of fractions, containing a
power of 10 as denominator, as early as the beginning of the 6th century
A.D. There was, however, no development in the direction of decimals in
the modern sense, and the Arabs, by whom the Hindu notation of integers
was brought to Europe, mainly used the sexagesimal division in the ' "
"' notation. Even where the decimal notation would seem to arise
naturally, as in the case of approximate extraction of a square root,
the portion which might have been expressed as a decimal was converted
into sexagesimal fractions. It was not until A.D. 1585 that a decimal
notation was published by Simon Stevinus of Bruges. It is worthy of
notice that the invention of this notation appears to have been due to
practical needs, being required for the purpose of computation of
compound interest. The present decimal notation, which is a development
of that of Stevinus, was first used in 1617 by H. Briggs, the computer
of logarithms.
80. _Fractions of Concrete Quantities._--The British systems of coinage,
weights, lengths, &c., afford many examples of the use of fractions.
These may be divided into three classes, as follows:--
(i) The fraction of a concrete quantity may itself not exist as a
concrete quantity, but be represented by a token. Thus, if we take a
shilling as a unit, we may divide it into 12 or 48 smaller units; but
corresponding coins are not really portions of a shilling, but objects
which help us in counting. Similarly we may take the farthing as a unit,
and invent smaller units, represented either by tokens or by no material
objects at all. Ten marks, for instance, might be taken as equivalent to
a farthing; but 13 marks are not equivalent to anything except one
farthing and three out of the ten acts of counting required to arrive at
another farthing.
(ii) In the second class of cases the fraction of the unit quantity is a
quantity of the same kind, but cannot be determined with absolute
exactness. Weights come in this class. The ounce, for instance, is
one-sixteenth of the pound, but it is impossible to find 16 objects such
that their weights shall be exactly equal and that the sum of their
weights shall be exactly equal to the weight of the standard pound.
(iii) Finally, there are the cases of linear measurement, where it is
theoretically possible to find, by geometrical methods, an exact
submultiple of a given unit, but both the unit and the submultiple are
not really concrete objects, but are spatial relations embodied in
objects.
Of these three classes, the first is the least abstract and the last the
most abstract. The first only involves number and counting. The second
involves the idea of _equality_ as a necessary characteristic of the
units or subunits that are used. The third involves also the idea of
_continuity_ and therefore of unlimited subdivision. In weighing an
object with ounce-weights the fact that it weighs more than 1 lb. 3 oz.
but less than 1 lb. 4 oz. does not of itself suggest the necessity or
possibility of subdivision of the ounce for purposes of greater
accuracy. But in measuring a distance we may find that it is "between"
two distances differing by a unit of the lowest denomination used, and a
subdivision of this unit follows naturally.
VII. APPROXIMATION
81. _Approximate Character of Numbers._--The numbers (integral or
decimal) by which we represent the results of arithmetical operations
are often only approximately correct. All numbers, for instance, which
represent physical measurements, are limited in their accuracy not only
by our powers of measurement but also by the accuracy of the measure we
use as our unit. Also most fractions cannot be expressed exactly as
decimals; and this is also the case for surds and logarithms, as well as
for the numbers expressing certain ratios which arise out of geometrical
relations. Even where numbers are supposed to be exact, calculations
based on them can often only be approximate. We might, for instance,
calculate the exact cost of 3 lb. 5 oz. of meat at 9½ d. a lb., but
there are no coins in which we could pay this exact amount.
When the result of any arithmetical operation or operations is
represented approximately but not exactly by a number, the excess
(positive or negative) of this number over the number which would
express the result exactly is called the _error_.
82. _Degree of Accuracy._--There are three principal ways of expressing
the degree of accuracy of any number, i.e. the extent to which it is
equal to the number it is intended to represent.
(i) A number can be _correct to_ so many _places of decimals_. This
means (cf. § 71) that the number differs from the true value by less
than one-half of the unit represented by 1 in the last place of
decimals. For instance, .143 represents 1/7 correct to 3 places of
decimals, since it differs from it by less than .0005. The final figure,
in a case like this, is said to be _corrected_.
This method is not good for comparative purposes. Thus .143 and 14.286
represent respectively 1/7 and 100/7 to the same number of places of
decimals, but the latter is obviously more exact than the former.
(ii) A number can be correct to so many _significant figures_. The
significant figures of a number are those which commence with the first
figure other than zero in the number; thus the significant figures of
13.027 and of .00013027 are the same.
This is the usual method; but the relative accuracy of two numbers
expressed to the same number of significant figures depends to a certain
extent on the magnitude of the first figure. Thus .14286 and .85714
represent 1/7 and 6/7 correct to 5 significant figures; but the latter
is relatively more accurate than the former. For the former shows only
that 1/7 lies between .142855 and .142865, or, as it is better
expressed, between .14285½ and .14286½; but the latter shows that 6/7
lies between .85713½ and .85714½, and therefore that 1/7 lies between
.14285-7/12 and .14285-9/12.
In either of the above cases, and generally in any case where a number
is known to be within a certain limit on each side of the stated value,
the _limit of error_ is expressed by the sign ±. Thus the former of the
above two statements would give 1/7 = .14286 ± .000005. It should be
observed that the numerical value of the error is to be subtracted from
or added to the stated value according as the error is positive or
negative.
(iii) The limit of error can be expressed as a fraction of the number as
stated. Thus 1/7 = .143 ± .0005 can be written 1/7 = 143(1 ± 1/286).
83. _Accuracy after Arithmetical Operations._--If the numbers which are
the subject of operations are not all exact, the accuracy of the result
requires special investigation in each case.
Additions and subtractions are simple. If, for instance, the values of a
and b, correct to two places of decimals, are 3.58 and 1.34, then 2.24,
as the value of a-b, is not necessarily correct to two places. The limit
of error of each being ±.005, the limit of error of their sum or
difference is ±.01.
For multiplication we make use of the formula (§ 60 (i)) (a' ±
[alpha])(b' ± [beta]) = a'b' + [alpha][beta] ± (a'[beta] + b'[alpha]).
If a' and b' are the stated values, and ±[alpha] and ±[beta] the
respective limits of error, we ought strictly to take a'b' +
[alpha][beta] as the product, with a limit of error ±(a'[beta] +
b'[alpha]). In practice, however, both [alpha][beta] and a certain
portion of a'b' are small in comparison with a'[beta] and b'[alpha], and
we therefore replace a'b' + [alpha][beta] by an approximate value, and
increase the limit of error so as to cover the further error thus
introduced. In the case of the two numbers given in the last paragraph,
the product lies between 3.575 × 1.335 = 4.772625 and 3.585 × 1.345 =
4.821825. We might take the product as (3.58 × 1.34) + (.005)² =
4.797225, the limits of error being ±.005(3.58 + 1.34) = ±.0246; but it
is more convenient to write it in such a form as 4.797 ± .025 or 4.80 ±
.03.
If the number of decimal places to which a result is to be accurate is
determined beforehand, it is usually not necessary in the actual working
to go to more than two or three places beyond this. At the close of the
work the extra figures are dropped, the last figure which remains being
corrected (§ 82 (i)) if necessary.
VIII. SURDS AND LOGARITHMS
84. _Roots and Surds._--The pth root of a number (§ 43) may, if the
number is an integer, be found by expressing it in terms of its prime
factors; or, if it is not an integer, by expressing it as a fraction in
its lowest terms, and finding the pth roots of the numerator and of the
denominator separately. Thus to find the cube root of 1728, we write it
in the form 2^6 · 3³, and find that its cube root is 2² · 3 = 12; or, to
find the cube root of 1.728, we write it as 1728/1000 = 216/125 = (2³ ·
3³)/5³, and find that the cube root is (2·3)/5 = 1.2. Similarly the cube
root of 2197 is 13. But we cannot find any number whose cube is 2000.
It is, however, possible to find a number whose cube shall approximate
as closely as we please to 2000. Thus the cubes of 12.5 and of 12.6 are
respectively 1953.125 and 2000.376, so that the number whose cube
differs as little as possible from 2000 is somewhere between 12.5 and
12.6. Again the cube of 12.59 is 1995.616979, so that the number lies
between 12.59 and 12.60. We may therefore consider that there is some
number x whose cube is 2000, and we can find this number to any degree
of accuracy that we please.
A number of this kind is called a _surd_; the surd which is the pth root
of N is written [root p]N, but if the index is 2 it is usually omitted,
so that the square root of N is written [root]N.
85. _Surd as a Power._--We have seen (§§ 43, 44) that, if we take the
successive powers of a number N, commencing with 1, they may be written
N^0, N^1, N², N³, ..., the series of indices being the standard series;
and we have also seen (§ 44) that multiplication of any two of these
numbers corresponds to addition of their indices. Hence we may insert in
the power-series numbers with fractional indices, provided that the
multiplication of these numbers follows the same law. The number denoted
by N^(1/3) will therefore be such that N^(1/3) × N^(1/3) × N^(1/3) =
N^(1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3) = N; i.e. it will be the cube root of N. By analogy
with the notation of fractional numbers, N^(2/3) will be N^(1/3 + 1/3) =
N^(1/3) × N^(1/3); and, generally, N^(p/q) will mean the product of p
numbers, the product of q of which is equal to N. Thus N^(2/6) will not
mean the _same_ as N^(1/3), but will mean the square of N^(1/6); but
this will be _equal_ to N^(1/3), i.e. ([root 6]N)² = [root 3]N.
86. _Multiplication and Division of Surds._--To add or subtract
fractional numbers, we must reduce them to a common denominator; and
similarly, to multiply or divide surds, we must express them as
power-numbers with the same index. Thus ([root 3]2) × ([root]5) =
2^(1/3) × 5^(½) = 2^(2/6) × 5^(3/6) = 4^(1/6) × 125^(1/6) = 500^(1/6) =
[root 6]500.
87. _Antilogarithms._--If we take a fixed number, e.g. 2, as base, and
take as indices the successive decimal numbers to any particular number
of places of decimals, we get a series of _antilogarithms_ of the
indices to this base. Thus, if we go to two places of decimals, we have
as the integral series the numbers 1, 2, 4, 8, ... which are the values
of 2^0, 2^1, 2², ... and we insert within this series the successive
powers of x, where x is such that x^100 = 2. We thus get the numbers
2^.01, 2^.02, 2^.03, ..., which are the antilogarithms of .01, .02, .03,
... to base 2; the first antilogarithm being 2^.00 = 1, which is thus
the antilogarithm of 0 to this (or any other) base. The series is formed
by successive multiplication, and any antilogarithm to a larger number
of decimal places is formed from it in the same way by multiplication.
If, for instance, we have found 2^(.31), then the value of 2^(.316) is
found from it by multiplying by the 6th power of the 1000th root of 2.
For practical purposes the number taken as base is 10; the convenience
of this being that the increase of the index by an integer means
multiplication by the corresponding power of 10, i.e. it means a
shifting of the decimal point. In the same way, by dividing by powers of
10 we may get negative indices.
88. _Logarithms._--If N is the antilogarithm of p to the base a, i.e. if
N = a^p, then p is called the logarithm of N to the base a, and is
written log_a N. As the table of antilogarithms is formed by successive
multiplications, so the logarithm of any given number is in theory
found by successive divisions. Thus, to find the logarithm of a number
to base 2, the number being greater than 1, we first divide repeatedly
by 2 until we get a number between 1 and 2; then divide repeatedly by
[root 10]2 until we get a number between 1 and [root 10]2; then divide
repeatedly by [root 100]2; and so on. If, for instance, we find that the
number is approximately equal to 2³ × ([root 10]2)^5 × ([root 100]2)^7
× ([root 1000]2)^4, it may be written 2^(3.574), and its logarithm to
base 2 is 3.574.
For a further explanation of logarithms, and for an explanation of the
treatment of cases in which an antilogarithm is less than 1, see
LOGARITHM.
For practical purposes logarithms are usually calculated to base 10, so
that log10 10 = 1, log10 100 = 2, &c.
IX. UNITS
89. _Change of Denomination_ of a numerical quantity is usually called
_reduction_, so that this term covers, e.g., the expression of £153, 7s.
4d. as shillings and pence and also the expression of 3067s. 4d. as £,
s. and d.
The usual statement is that to express £153, 7s. as shillings we
multiply 153 by 20 and add 7. This, as already explained (§ 37), is
incorrect. £153 denotes 153 units, each of which is £1 or 20s.; and
therefore we must multiply 20s. by 153 and add 7s., i.e. multiply 20 by
153 (the unit being now 1s.) and add 7. This is the expression of the
process on the grouping method. On the counting method we have a scale
with every 20th shilling marked as a £; there are 153 of these 20's, and
7 over.
A
+-------------+---------+
| 1s. | 12d. |
+-------------+-------------+---------+
|£1 | 20s. | |
+-------------+-------------+---------+
|£153, 7s. 4d.| 3067s. 4d. | 36808d. |
+-------------+-------------+---------+
B
+-----------+---------------+
| 20s. | £1 |
+---------+-----------+---------------+
| 12d. | 1s. | |
+---------+-----------+---------------+
| 36808d. | 3067s. 4d.| £153, 7s. 4d. |
+---------+-----------+---------------+
The simplest case, in which the quantity can be expressed as an integral
number of the largest units involved, has already been considered (§§
37, 42). The same method can be applied in other cases by regarding a
quantity expressed in several denominations as a fractional number of
units of the largest denomination mentioned; thus 7s. 4d. is to be taken
as meaning 7(4/12)s., but £0, 7s. 4d. as £0 (7(4/12))/20 (§ 17). The
reduction of £153, 7s. 4d. to pence, and of 36808d. to £, s. d., on this
principle, is shown in diagrams A and B above.
For reduction of pounds to shillings, or shillings to pounds, we must
consider that we have a multiple-table (§ 36) in which the multiples of
£1 and of 20s. are arranged in parallel columns; and similarly for
shillings and pence.
90. _Change of Unit._--The statement "£153 = 3060s." is not a statement
of _equality_ of the same kind as the statement "153 × 20 = 3060," but
only a statement of _equivalence_ for certain purposes; in other words,
it does not convey an absolute truth. It is therefore of interest to see
whether we cannot replace it by an absolute truth.
To do this, consider what the ordinary processes of multiplication and
division mean in reference to concrete objects. If we want to give, to 5
boys, 4 apples each, we are said to multiply 4 apples by 5. We cannot
multiply 4 apples by 5 boys, for then we should get 20 "boy-apples," an
expression which has no meaning. Or, again, to distribute 20 apples
amongst 5 boys, we are not regarded as dividing 20 apples by 5 boys, but
as dividing 20 apples by the number 5. The multiplication or division
here involves the omission of the unit "boy," and the operation is
incomplete. The complete operation, in each case, is as follows.
(i) In the case of multiplication we commence with the conception of the
number "5" and the unit "boy"; and we then convert this unit into 4
apples, and thus obtain the result, 20 apples. The conversion of the
unit may be represented as multiplication by a factor (4 apples)/(1
boy), so that the operation is [(4 apples)/(1 boy)] × (5 boys) = 5 × [(4
apples)/(1 boy)] × (1 boy) = 5 × 4 apples = 20 apples. Similarly, to
convert £153 into shillings we must multiply it by a factor 20s./£1, so
that we get
(20s./£1) × £153 = 153 × (20s./£1) × £1 = 153 × 20s. = 3060s.
Hence we can only regard £153 as being equal to 3060s. if we regard this
converting factor as unity.
(ii) In the case of partition we can express the complete operation if
we extend the meaning of division so as to enable us to divide 20 apples
by 5 boys. We thus get (20 apples)/(5 boys) = (4 apples)/(1 boy), which
means that the distribution can be effected by distributing at the rate
of 4 apples per boy. The converting factor mentioned under (i) therefore
represents a _rate_; and partition, applied to concrete cases, leads to
a rate.
In reference to the use of the sign × with the converting factor, it
should be observed that "(7 lb.)/(4 lb.) ×" symbolizes the replacing of
so many times 4 lb. by the same number of times 7 lb., while "(7/4) ×"
symbolizes the replacing of 4 times something by 7 times that something.
X. ARITHMETICAL REASONING
91. _Correspondence of Series of Numbers._--In §§ 33-42 we have dealt
with the parallelism of the original number-series with a series
consisting of the corresponding multiples of some unit, whether a number
or a numerical quantity; and the relations arising out of
multiplication, division, &c., have been exhibited by diagrams
comprising pairs of corresponding terms of the two series. This,
however, is only a particular case of the correspondence of two series.
In considering addition, for instance, we have introduced two parallel
series, each being the original number-series, but the two being placed
in different positions. If we add 1, 2, 3, ... to 6, we obtain a series
7, 8, 9, ... , the terms of which correspond with those of the original
series 1, 2, 3,...
Again, in §§ 61-75 and 84-88 we have considered various kinds of numbers
other than those in the original number-series. In general, these have
involved two of the original numbers, e.g. 5³ involves 5 and 3, and
log2 8 involves 2 and 8. In some cases, however, e.g. in the case of
negative numbers and reciprocals, only one is involved; and there might
be three or more, as in the case of a number expressed by (a + b)^n. If
all but one of these constituent elements are settled beforehand, e.g.
if we take the numbers 5, 5², 5³, ..., or the numbers [root 3]1, [root
3]2, [root 3]3, ... or log10 1.001, log10 1.002, log10 1.003 ... we
obtain a series in which each term corresponds with a term of the
original number-series.
A B C
+---+-----+ +---+----+ +---+---------+
| n |6 + n| | n | 4n | | n | [root]n |
+---+-----+ +---+----+ +---+---------+
| 0 | 6 | | 0 | 0 | | 0 | .000 |
| 1 | 7 | | 1 | 4 | | 1 | 1.000 |
| 2 | 8 | | 2 | 8 | | 2 | 1.414 |
| 3 | 9 | | 3 | 12 | | 3 | 1.732 |
| . | . | | . | . | | . | . |
| . | . | | . | . | | . | . |
| . | . | | . | . | | . | . |
+---+-----+ +---+----+ +---+---------+
This correspondence is usually shown by _tabulation_, i.e. by the
formation of a table in which the original series is shown in one
column, and each term of the second series is placed in a second column
opposite the corresponding term of the first series, each column being
headed by a description of its contents. It is sometimes convenient to
begin the first series with 0, and even to give the series of negative
numbers; in most cases, however, these latter are regarded as belonging
to a different series, and they need not be considered here. The
diagrams, A, B, C are simple forms of tables; A giving a sum-series, B a
multiple-series, and C a series of square roots, calculated
approximately.
92. _Correspondence of Numerical Quantities._--Again, in § 89, we have
considered cases of multiple-tables of numerical quantities, where each
quantity in one series is _equivalent_ to the corresponding quantity in
the other series. We might extend this principle to cases in which the
terms of two series, whether of numbers or of numerical quantities,
merely _correspond_ with each other, the correspondence being the result
of some relation. The volume of a cube, for instance, bears a certain
relation to the length of an edge of the cube. This relation is not one
of proportion; but it may nevertheless be expressed by tabulation, as
shown at D.
D
+-----------+-------------+
| Length of | Volume |
| edge in | of |
| inches. | cube. |
+-----------+-------------+
| 0 | Nil. |
| 1 | 1 cub. in. |
| 2 | 8 cub. in. |
| 3 | 27 cub. in. |
| . | . |
| . | . |
| . | . |
+-----------+-------------+
93. _Interpolation._--In most cases the quantity in the second column
may be regarded as increasing or decreasing continuously as the number
in the first column increases, and it has intermediate values
corresponding to intermediate (i.e. fractional or decimal) numbers not
shown in the table. The table in such cases is not, and cannot be,
complete, even up to the number to which it goes. For instance, a cube
whose edge is 1½ in. has a definite volume, viz. 3(3/8) cub. in. The
determination of any such intermediate value is performed by
_Interpolation_ (q.v.).
In treating a fractional number, or the corresponding value of the
quantity in the second column, as intermediate, we are in effect
regarding the numbers 1, 2, 3, ..., and the corresponding numbers in the
second column, as denoting points between which other numbers lie, i.e.
we are regarding the numbers as _ordinal_, not cardinal. The transition
is similar to that which arises in the case of geometrical measurement
(§ 26), and it is an essential feature of all reasoning with regard to
continuous quantity, such as we have to deal with in real life.
94. _Nature of Arithmetical Reasoning._--The simplest form of
arithmetical reasoning consists in the determination of the term in one
series corresponding to a given term in another series, when the
relation between the two series is given; and it implies, though it does
not necessarily involve, the establishment of each series as a whole by
determination of its unit. A method involving the determination of the
unit is called a _unitary_ method. When the unit is not determined, the
reasoning is algebraical rather than arithmetical. If, for instance,
three terms of a proportion are given, the fourth can be obtained by the
relation given at the end of § 57, this relation being then called the
_Rule of Three_; but this is equivalent to the use of an algebraical
formula.
More complicated forms of arithmetical reasoning involve the use of
series, each term in which corresponds to particular terms in two or
more series jointly; and cases of this kind are usually dealt with by
special methods, or by means of algebraical formulae. The old-fashioned
problems about the amount of work done by particular numbers of men,
women and boys, are of this kind, and really involve the solution of
simultaneous equations. They are not suitable for elementary purposes,
as the arithmetical relations involved are complicated and difficult to
grasp.
XI. METHODS OF CALCULATION
(i.) _Exact Calculation._
95. _Working from Left._--It is desirable, wherever possible, to perform
operations on numbers or numerical quantities from the left, rather than
from the right. There are several reasons for this. In the first place,
an operation then corresponds more closely, at an elementary stage, with
the concrete process which it represents. If, for instance, we had one
sum of £3, 15s. 9d. and another of £2, 6s. 5d., we should add them by
putting the coins of each denomination together and commencing the
addition with the £. In the second place, this method fixes the
attention at once on the larger, and therefore more important, parts of
the quantities concerned, and thus prevents arithmetical processes from
becoming too abstract in character. In the third place, it is a better
preparation for dealing with approximate calculations. Finally,
experience shows that certain operations in which the result is written
down at once--e.g. addition or subtraction of two numbers or quantities,
and multiplication by some small numbers--are with a little practice
performed more quickly and more accurately from left to right.
96. _Addition._--There is no difference in principle between addition
(or subtraction) of numbers and addition (or subtraction) of numerical
quantities. In each case the grouping system involves rearrangement,
which implies the commutative law, while the counting system requires
the expression of a quantity in different denominations to be regarded
as a notation in a varying scale (§§ 17, 32). We need therefore consider
numerical quantities only, our results being applicable to numbers by
regarding the digits as representing multiples of units in different
denominations.
When the result of addition in one denomination can be partly expressed
in another denomination, the process is technically called _carrying_.
The name is a bad one, since it does not correspond with any ordinary
meaning of the verb. It would be better described as _exchanging_, by
analogy with the "changing" of subtraction. When, e.g., we find that the
sum of 17s. and 18s. is 35s., we take out 20 of the 35 shillings, and
exchange them for £1.
To add from the left, we have to look ahead to see whether the next
addition will require an exchange. Thus, in adding £3, 17s. 0d. to £2,
18s. 0d., we write down the sum of £3 and £2 as £6, not as £5, and the
sum of 17s. and 18s. as 15s., not as 35s.
When three or more numbers or quantities are added together, the result
should always be checked by adding both upwards and downwards. It is
also useful to look out for pairs of numbers or quantities which make 1
of the next denomination, e.g. 7 and 3, or 8d. and 4d.
97. _Subtraction._--To subtract £3, 5s. 4d. from £9, 7s. 8d., on the
grouping system, we split up each quantity into its denominations,
perform the subtractions independently, and then regroup the results as
the "remainder" £6, 2s. 4d. On the counting system we can count either
forwards or backwards, and we can work either from the left or from the
right. If we count forwards we find that to convert £3, 5s. 4d. into £9,
7s. 8d. we must successively add £6, 2s. and 4d. if we work from the
left, or 4d., 2s. and £6 if we work from the right. The intermediate
values obtained by the successive additions are different according as
we work from the left or from the right, being £9, 5s. 4d. and £9, 7s.
4d. in the one case, and £3, 5s. 8d. and £3, 7s. 8d. in the other. If we
count backwards, the intermediate values are £3, 7s. 8d. and £3, 5s. 8d.
in the one case, and £9, 7s. 4d. and £9, 5s. 4d. in the other.
The determination of each element in the remainder involves reference to
an addition-table. Thus to subtract 5s. from 7s. we refer to an
addition-table giving the sum of any two quantities, each of which is
one of the series 0s., 1s., ... 19s.
Subtraction by counting forward is called _complementary addition_.
To subtract £3, 5s. 8d. from £9, 10s. 4d., on the grouping system, we
must _change_ 1s. out of the 10s. into 12d., so that we subtract £3, 5s.
8d. from £9, 9s. 16d. On the counting system it will be found that, in
determining the number of shillings in the remainder, we subtract 5s.
from 9s. if we count forwards, working from the left, or backwards,
working from the right; while, if we count backwards, working from the
left, or forwards, working from the right, the subtraction is of 6s.
from 10s. In the first two cases the successive values (in direct or
reverse order) are £3, 5s. 8d., £9, 5s. 8d., £9, 9s. 8d. and £9, 10s.
4d.; while in the last two cases they are £9, 10s. 4d., £3, 10s. 4d.,
£3, 6s. 4d. and £3, 5s. 8d.
In subtracting from the left, we look ahead to see whether a 1 in any
denomination must be reserved for changing; thus in subtracting 274 from
637 we should put down 2 from 6 as 3, not as 4, and 7 from 3 as 6.
98. _Multiplication-Table._--For multiplication and division we use a
_multiplication-table_, which is a multiple-table, arranged as explained
in § 36, and giving the successive multiples, up to 9 times or further,
of the numbers from 1 (or better, from 0) to 10, 12 or 20. The column
(vertical) headed 3 will give the multiples of 3, while the row
(horizontal) commencing with 3 will give the values of 3 × 1, 3 × 2,...
To multiply by 3 we use the row. To divide by 3, in the sense of
partition, we also use the row; but to divide by 3 as a unit we use the
column.
99. _Multiplication by a Small Number._--The idea of a large multiple
of a small number is simpler than that of a small multiple of a large
number, but the calculation of the latter is easier. It is therefore
convenient, in finding the product of two numbers, to take the smaller
as the multiplier.
To find 3 times 427, we apply the distributive law (§ 58 (vi)) that
3·427 = 3(400 + 20 + 7) = 3·400 + 3·20 + 3·7. This, if we regard 3·427
as 427 + 427 + 427, is a direct consequence of the commutative law for
addition (§ 58 (iii)), which enables us to add separately the hundreds,
the tens and the ones. To find 3·400, we treat 100 as the unit (as in
addition), so that 3·400 = 3·4·100 = 12·100 = 1200; and similarly for
3·20. These are examples of the associative law for multiplication (§ 58
(iv)).
100. _Special Cases._--The following are some special rules:--
(i) To multiply by 5, multiply by 10 and divide by 2. (And conversely,
to divide by 5, we multiply by 2 and divide by 10.)
(ii) In multiplying by 2, from the left, add 1 if the next figure of the
multiplicand is 5, 6, 7, 8 or 9.
(iii) In multiplying by 3, from the left, add 1 when the next figures
are not less than 33 ... 334 and not greater than 66 ... 666, and 2 when
they are 66 ... 667 and upwards.
(iv) To multiply by 7, 8, 9, 11 or 12, treat the multiplier as 10 - 3,
10 - 2, 10 - 1, 10 + 1 or 10 + 2; and similarly for 13, 17, 18, 19, &c.
(v) To multiply by 4 or 6, we can either multiply from the left by 2 and
then by 2 or 3, or multiply from the right by 4 or 6; or we can treat
the multiplier as 5 - 1 or 5 + 1.
101. _Multiplication by a Large Number._--When both the numbers are
large, we split up one of them, preferably the multiplier, into separate
portions. Thus 231·4273 = (200 + 30 + 1)·4273 = 200·4273 + 30·4273 +
1·4273. This gives the _partial products_, the sum of which is the
complete products. The process is shown fully in A below,--
A B C
| |
| 4273 | 4273 1 - 04273
-----+-------- ------+--------- 2 - 08546
200 | 854600 | 8546 3 - 12819
30 | 128190 231 | 12819 . .
1 | 4273 | 4273 . .
-----+-------- +--------- . .
231 | 987063 | 987063 10 - 042730
============== ==========
and more concisely in B. To multiply 4273 by 200, we use the commutative
law, which gives 200·4273 = 2 × 100 × 4273 = 2 × 4273 × 100 = 8546 × 100
= 854600; and similarly for 30·4273. In B the terminal 0's of the
partial products are omitted. It is usually convenient to make out a
preliminary table of multiples up to 10 times; the table being checked
at 5 times (§ 100) and at 10 times.
The main difficulty is in the correct placing of the curtailed partial
products. The first step is to regard the product of two numbers as
containing as many digits as the two numbers put together. The table of
multiples will them be as in C. The next step is to arrange the
multiplier and the multiplicand above the partial products. For
elementary work the multiplicand may come immediately after the
multiplier, as in D; the last figure of each partial product then comes
immediately under the corresponding figure of the multiplier. A better
method, which leads up to the multiplication of decimals and of
approximate values of numbers, is to place the first figure of the
multipler under the first figure of the multiplicand, as in E; the first
figure of each partial product will then come under the corresponding
figure of the multiplier.
D E
| | | 4273
| 4273| 231 | 231
----+-----+----- ----+---------
| 0854:6 | 08546
231 | 128:19 231 | 12819
| 04:273 | 04273
+-----:----- +---------
| 0987:063 | 0987063
============= ==========
102. _Contracted Multiplication._--The partial products are sometimes
omitted; the process saves time in writing, but is not easy. The
principle is that, e.g. (a·10² + b·10 + c)(p·10² + q^10 + r) = ap·10^4 +
(aq + bp)·10³ + (ar + bq + cp)·10² + (br + cq)·10 + cr. Hence the
digits are multiplied in pairs, and grouped according to the power of 10
which each product contains. A method of performing the process is shown
here for the case of 162·427. The principle is that 162·427 = 100·427 +
60·427 + 2·427 = 1·42700 + 6·4270 + 2·427; but, instead of writing down
the separate products, we (in effect) write 42700, 4270, and 427 in
separate rows, with the multipliers 1, 6, 2 in the margin, and then
multiply each number in each column by the corresponding multiplier in
the margin, making allowance for any figures to be "carried." Thus the
second figure (from the right) is given by 1 + 2·2 + 6·7 = 47, the 1
being carried.
+---+-------
| 1 | 427
| 6 | 427
| 2 | 427
+---+-------
69174
=====
103. _Aliquot Parts._--For multiplication by a proper fraction or a
decimal, it is sometimes convenient, especially when we are dealing with
mixed quantities, to convert the multiplier into the sum or difference
of a number of fractions, each of which has 1 as its numerator. Such
fractions are called _aliquot parts_ (from Lat. _aliquot_, some,
several). This can usually be done in a good many ways. Thus 5/6 = 1 -
1/6, and also = ½ + 1/3; and 15% = .15 = 1/10 + 1/20 = 1/6 - 1/60 = 1/8
+ 1/40. The fractions should generally be chosen so that each part of
the product may be obtained from an earlier part by a comparatively
simple division. Thus ½ + 1/20 - 1/60 is a simpler expression for 8/15
than ½ + 1/30.
The process may sometimes by applied two or three times in succession;
thus 8/15 = 4/5 · 2/3 = (1 - 1/5)(1 - 1/3), and 33/40 = ¾ · 11/10 = (1 -
¼)(1 + 1/10).
104. _Practice._--The above is a particular case of the method called
_practice_, but the nomenclature of the method is confusing. There are
two kinds of practice, _simple practice_ and _compound practice_, but
the latter is the simpler of the two. To find the cost of 2 lb. 8 oz. of
butter at 1s. 2d. a lb., we multiply 1s. 2d. by 2(8/16) = 2½. This
straightforward process is called "compound" practice. "Simple" practice
involves an application of the commutative law. To find the cost of n
articles at £a, bs, cd. each, we express £a, bs, cd. in the form £(a +
f), where f is a fraction (or the sum of several fractions); we then say
that the cost, being n × £(a + f), is equal to (a + f) × £n, and apply
the method of compound practice, i.e. the method of aliquot parts.
105. _Multiplication of a Mixed Number._--When a mixed quantity or a
mixed number has to be multiplied by a large number, it is sometimes
convenient to express the former in terms of one only of its
denominations. Thus, to multiply £7, 13s. 6d. by 469, we may express the
former in any of the ways £7.675, 307/40 of £1, 153½s., 153.5s., 307
sixpences, or 1842 pence. Expression in £ and decimals of £1 is usually
recommended, but it depends on circumstances whether some other method
may not be simpler.
A sum of money cannot be expressed exactly as a decimal of £1 unless it
is a multiple of ¾d. A rule for approximate conversion is that 1s. = .05
of £1, and that 2½d.= .01 of £1. For accurate conversion we write .1£
for each 2s., and .001£ for each farthing beyond 2s., their number being
first increased by one twenty-fourth.
106. _Division._ Of the two kinds of division, although the idea of
partition is perhaps the more elementary, the process of measuring is
the easier to perform, since it is equivalent to a series of
subtractions. Starting from the dividend, we in theory keep on
subtracting the unit, and count the number of subtractions that have to
be performed until nothing is left. In actual practice, of course, we
subtract large multiples at a time. Thus, to divide 987063 by 427, we
reverse the procedure of § 101, but with intermediate stages. We first
construct the multiple-table C, and then subtract successively 200
times, 30 times and 1 times; these numbers being the _partial
quotients_. The theory of the process is shown fully in F. Treating x as
the unknown quotient corresponding to the original dividend, we obtain
successive dividends corresponding to quotients x - 200, x - 230 and x -
231. The original dividend is written as 0987063, since its initial
figures are greater than those of the divisor; if the dividend had
commenced with (e.g.) 3 ... it would not have been necessary to insert
the initial 0. At each stage of the division the number of digits in the
reduced dividend is decreased by one. The final dividend being 0000, we
have x - 231 = 0, and therefore x = 231.
F
+---------+----------+
| | 4273 |
+=========+==========+
| x | 0987063 |
+---------+----------+
| 200 | 0854600 |
+---------+----------+
| x - 200 | 132463 |
+---------+----------+
| 30 | 128190 |
+---------+----------+
| x - 230 | 04273 |
+---------+----------+
| 1 | 04273 |
+---------+----------+
| x - 231 | 0000 |
+---------+----------+
107. _Methods of Division._--What are described as different methods of
division (by a single divisor) are mainly different methods of writing
the successive figures occurring in the process. In _long division_ the
divisor is put on the left of the dividend, and the quotient on the
right; and each partial product, with the remainder after its
subtraction, is shown in full. In _short division_ the divisor and the
quotient are placed respectively on the left of and below the dividend,
and the partial products and remainders are not shown at all. The
_Austrian_ method (sometimes called in Great Britain the _Italian_
method) differs from these in two respects. The first, and most
important, is that the quotient is placed above the dividend. The
second, which is not essential to the method, is that the remainders are
shown, but not the partial products; the remainders being obtained by
working from the right, and using complementary addition. It is doubtful
whether the brevity of this latter process really compensates for its
greater difficulty.
The advantage of the Austrian arrangement of the quotient lies in the
indication it gives of the true value of each partial quotient. A
modification of the method, corresponding with D of § 101, is shown in
G; the fact that the partial product 08546 is followed by two blank
spaces shows that the figure 2 represents a partial quotient 200. An
alternative arrangement, corresponding to E of § 101, and suited for
more advanced work, is shown in H.
G H
| | | 4273
| 4273 | 2 | 2
--+------+----- --+------------
| 0987063 | 0987063
| 08546 | 08546
--+------------ --+------------
| |
108. _Division with Remainder._--It has so far been assumed that the
division can be performed exactly, i.e. without leaving an ultimate
remainder. Where this is not the case, difficulties are apt to arise,
which are mainly due to failure to distinguish between the two kinds of
division. If we say that the division of 41d. by 12 gives quotient 3d.
with remainder 5d., we are speaking loosely; for in fact we only
distribute 36d. out of the 41d., the other 5d. remaining undistributed.
It can only be distributed by a subdivision of the unit; i.e. the true
result of the division is 3(5/12)d. On the other hand, we can quite well
express the result of dividing 41d. by 1s (= 12d.) as 3 with 5d. (not
"5") over, for this is only stating that 41d. = 3s. 5d.; though the
result might be more exactly expressed as 3(5/12)s.
Division with a remainder has thus a certain air of unreality, which is
accentuated when the division is performed by means of factors (§ 42).
If we have to divide 935 by 240, taking 12 and 20 as factors, the result
will depend on the fact that, in the notation of § 17,
(20) (12)
935 = 3 " 17 " 11.
In incomplete partition the quotient is 3, and the remainders 11 and 17
are in effect disregarded; if, after finding the quotient 3, we want to
know what remainder would be produced by a direct division, the simplest
method is to multiply 3 by 240 and subtract the result from 935. In
complete partition the successive quotients are 77(11/12) and
3(17(11/12))/20 = 3(215/240).
Division in the sense of measuring leads to such a result as 935d. = £3,
17s. 11d.; we may, if we please, express the 17s. 11d. as 215d., but
there is no particular reason why we should do so.
109. _Division by a Mixed Number._--To divide by a mixed number, when
the quotient is seen to be large, it usually saves time to express the
divisor as either a simple fraction or a decimal of a unit of one of the
denominations. Exact division by a mixed number is not often required in
real life; where approximate division is required (e.g. in determining
the rate of a "dividend"), approximate expression of the divisor in
terms of the largest unit is sufficient.
110. _Calculation of Square Root._--The calculation of the square root
of a number depends on the formula (iii) of § 60. To find the square
root of N, we first find some number a whose square is less than N, and
subtract a² from N. If the complete square root is a + b, the remainder
after subtracting a² is (2a + b) b. We therefore guess b by dividing the
remainder by 2a, and form the product (2a + b) b. If this is equal to
the remainder, we have found the square root. If it exceeds the square
root, we must alter the value of b, so as to get a product which does
not exceed the remainder. If the product is less than the remainder, we
get a new remainder, which is N - (a + b)²; we then assume the full
square root to be c, so that the new remainder is equal to (2a + 2b + c)
c, and try to find c in the same way as we tried to find b.
An analogous method of finding cube root, based on the formula for (a +
b)³, used to be given in text-books, but it is of no practical use. To
find a root other than a square root we can use logarithms, as explained
in § 113.
(ii.) _Approximate Calculation._
111. _Multiplication._--When we have to multiply two numbers, and the
product is only required, or can only be approximately correct, to a
certain number of significant figures, we need only work to two or three
more figures (§ 83), and then correct the final figure in the result by
means of the superfluous figures.
| 2734 3
| 3141 59
-----+-----------
| 0820 29
| 027 34
| 10 94
| 0 27
| 14
| 2
-----+-----------
| 0859
A common method is to reverse the digits in one of the numbers; but this
is only appropriate to the old-fashioned method of writing down products
from the right. A better method is to ignore the positions of the
decimal points, and multiply the numbers as if they were decimals
between .1 and 1.0. The method E of § 101 being adopted, the
multiplicand and the multiplier are written with a space after as many
digits (of each) as will be required in the product (on the principle
explained in § 101); and the multiplication is performed from the left,
two extra figures being kept in. Thus, to multiply 27.343 by 3.1415927
to one decimal place, we require 2 + 1 + 1 = 4 figures in the product.
The result is 085.9 = 85.9, the position of the decimal point being
determined by counting the figures before the decimal points in the
original numbers.
| 3141 5927
| 2734
-----+------------
| 0859 00
| 0628 32
| -------
| 230 68
| 219 91
| -------
| 10 77
| 9 42
| ------
| 1 35
| 1 26
| ------
112. _Division._--In the same way, in performing approximate division,
we can at a certain stage begin to abbreviate the divisor, taking off
one figure (but with correction of the final figure of the partial
product) at each stage. Thus, to divide 85.9 by 3.1415927 to two places
of decimals, we in effect divide .0859 by .31415927 to four places of
decimals. In the work, as here shown, a 0 is inserted in front of the
859, on the principle explained in § 106. The result of the division is
27.34.
113. _Logarithms._--Multiplication, division, involution and evolution,
when the results cannot be exact, are usually most simply performed, at
any rate to a first approximation, by means of a table of logarithms.
Thus, to find the square root of 2, we have log [root]2 = log (2^½) =
½ log 2. We take out log 2 from the table, halve it, and then find from
the table the number of which this is the logarithm. (See LOGARITHM.)
The _slide-rule_ (see CALCULATING MACHINES) is a simple apparatus for
the mechanical application of the methods of logarithms.
When a first approximation has been obtained in this way, further
approximations can be obtained in various ways. Thus, having found
[root]2 = 1.414 approximately, we write [root]2 = 1.414 + [theta],
whence 2 = (1.414)² + (2.818)[theta] + [theta]². Since [theta]² is less
than ¼ of (.001)², we can obtain three more figures approximately by
dividing 2 - (1.414)² by 2.818.
114. _Binomial Theorem._--More generally, if we have obtained a as an
approximate value for the pth root of N, the binomial theorem gives as
an approximate formula [root p]N = a + [theta], where N = a^p +
pa^(p - 1)[theta].
115. _Series._--A number can often be expressed by a series of terms,
such that by taking successive terms we obtain successively closer
approximations. A decimal is of course a series of this kind, e.g.
3.14159 ... means 3 + 1/10 + 4/10² + 1/10³ + 5/10^4 + 9/10^5 + ... A
series of aliquot parts is another kind, e.g. 3.1416 is a little less
than 3 + 1/7 - 1/800.
_Recurring Decimals_ are a particular kind of series, which arise from
the expression of a fraction as a decimal. If the denominator of the
fraction, when it is in its lowest terms, contains any other prime
factors than 2 and 5, it cannot be expressed exactly as a decimal; but
after a certain point a definite series of figures will constantly
recur. The interest of these series is, however, mainly theoretical.
116. _Continued Products._--Instead of being expressed as the sum of a
series of terms, a number may be expressed as the product of a series of
factors, which become successively more and more nearly equal to 1. For
example,
3.1416 = 3 × 10472/10000 = 3 × 1309/1250 = 3 × 22/21 × 2499/2500 =
3(1 + 1/21)(1 - 1/2500).
Hence, to multiply by 3.1416, we can multiply by 3(1/7), and subtract
1/2500 (= .0004) of the result; or, to divide by 3.1416, we can divide
by 3, then subtract 1/22 of the result, and then add 1/2499 of the new
result.
117. _Continued Fractions._--The theory of _continued fractions_ (q.v.)
gives a method of expressing a number, in certain cases, as a continued
product. A continued fraction, of the kind we are considering, is an
expression of the form
1
a + -------------
1
b + ---------
1
c + -----
d + &c.
where b, c, d, ... are integers, and a is an integer or zero. The
expression is usually written, for compactness, a + 1/b+ 1/c+ 1/d+ &c.
The numbers a, b, c, d, ... are called the _quotients_.
Any exact fraction can be expressed as a continued fraction, and there
are methods for expressing as continued fractions certain other numbers,
e.g. square roots, whose values cannot be expressed exactly as
fractions.
The successive values, a/1, (ab + 1)/b, ..., obtained by taking account
of the successive quotients, are called _convergents_, i.e. convergents
to the true value. The following are the main properties of the
convergents.
(i) If we precede the series of convergents by 0/1 and 1/0, then the
numerator (or denominator) of each term of the series 0/1, 1/0, a/1, (ab
+ 1)/b ..., after the first two, is found by multiplying the numerator
(or denominator) of the last preceding term by the corresponding
quotient and adding the numerator (or denominator) of the term before
that. If a is zero, we may regard 1/b as the first convergent, and
precede the series by 1/0 and 0/1.
(ii) Each convergent is a fraction in its lowest terms.
(iii) The convergents are alternately less and greater than the true
value.
(iv) Each convergent is nearer to the true value than any other fraction
whose denominator is less than that of the convergent.
(v) The difference of two successive convergents is the reciprocal of
the product of their denominators; e.g. (ab + 1)/b - a/1 = 1/(1·b), and
(abc + c + a)/(bc + 1) - (ab + 1)/b = (-1)/[b(bc + 1)].
It follows from these last three properties that if the successive
convergents are p1/1, p2/q2, p3/q3, ... the number can be expressed in
the form p1(1 + 1/p1q2)(1 - 1/p2q3)(1 + 1/p3q4) ..., and that
if we go up to the factor 1 ± 1/(p_n)(q_(n + 1)) the product of these
factors differs from the true value of the number by less than ±[1/(q_n)
(q_(n + 1))].
In certain cases two or more factors can be combined so as to produce an
expression of the form 1 ± 1/k, where k is an integer. For instance,
3.1415927 = 3(1 + 1/3.7)(1 - 1/22.106)(1 + 1/333.113) ...; but the last
two of these factors may be combined as (1 - 1/22.113). Hence 3.1415927
= 3/1 · 22/21 · 2485/2486 ...
XII. APPLICATIONS
(i.) _Systems of Measures._[1]
118. _Metric System._--The metric system was adopted in France at the
end of the 18th century. The system is decimal throughout. The principal
units of length, weight and volume are the _metre, gramme_ (or _gram_)
and _litre_. Other units are derived from these by multiplication or
division by powers of 10, the names being denoted by prefixes. The
prefixes for multiplication by 10, 10², 10³ and 10^4 are _deca-, hecto-,
kilo-_ and _myria-_, and those for division by 10, 10² and 10³ are
_deci-, centi-_ and _milli-_; the former being derived from Greek, and
the latter from Latin. Thus _kilogramme_ means 1000 grammes, and
_centimetre_ means 1/100 of a metre. There are also certain special
units, such as the _hectare_, which is equal to a square hectometre, and
the _micron_, which is 1/1000 of a millimetre.
The metre and the gramme are defined by standard measures preserved at
Paris. The litre is equal to a cubic decimetre. The gramme was intended
to be equal to the weight of a cubic centimetre of pure water at a
certain temperature, but the equality is only approximate.
The metric system is now in use in the greater part of the civilized
world, but some of the measures retain the names of old disused
measures. In Germany, for instance, the _Pfund_ is ½ kilogramme, and is
approximately equal to 1(1/10) lb. English.
119. _British Systems._--The British systems have various origins, and
are still subject to variations caused by local usage or by the usage of
particular businesses. The following tables are given as illustrations
of the arrangement adopted elsewhere in this article; the entries in any
column denote multiples or submultiples of the unit stated at the head
of the column, and the entries in any row give the expression of one
unit in term of the other units.
LENGTH
+-------+-------+-------+--------+----------+---------+
| Inch. | Foot. | Yard. | Chain. | Furlong. | Mile. |
+-------+-------+-------+--------+----------+---------+
| 1 | 1/12 | 1/36 | 1/792 | 1/7920 | 1/63360 |
+-------+-------+-------+--------+----------+---------+
| 12 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/66 | 1/660 | 1/5280 |
+-------+-------+-------+--------+----------+---------+
| 36 | 3 | 1 | 1/22 | 1/220 | 1/1760 |
+-------+-------+-------+--------+----------+---------+
| 792 | 66 | 22 | 1 | 1/10 | 1/80 |
+-------+-------+-------+--------+----------+---------+
| 7920 | 660 | 220 | 10 | 1 | 1/8 |
+-------+-------+-------+--------+----------+---------+
| 63360 | 5280 | 1760 | 80 | 8 | 1 |
+-------+-------+-------+--------+----------+---------+
WEIGHT (AVOIRDUPOIS)
+--------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+---------+
| Ounce. | Pound. | Stone. | Quarter. | Hundredweight. | Ton. |
+--------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+---------+
| 1 | 1/16 | 1/224 | 1/448 | 1/1792 | 1/33840 |
+--------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+---------+
| 16 | 1 | 1/14 | 1/28 | 1/112 | 1/2240 |
+--------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+---------+
| 224 | 14 | 1 | ½ | 1/8 | 1/160 |
+--------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+---------+
| 448 | 28 | 2 | 1 | ¼ | 1/80 |
+--------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+---------+
| 1792 | 112 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 1/20 |
+--------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+---------+
| 33840 | 2240 | 160 | 80 | 20 | 1 |
+--------+--------+--------+----------+----------------+---------+
(Also 7000 grains = 1 lb. avoirdupois.)
120. _Change of System._--It is sometimes necessary, when a quantity is
expressed in one system, to express it in another, The following are
the ratios of some of the units; each unit is expressed approximately as
a decimal of the other, and their ratio is shown as a continued product
(§ 116), a few of the corresponding convergents to the continued
fraction (§ 117) being added in brackets. It must be remembered that the
number expressing any quantity in terms of a unit is _inversely
proportional_ to the magnitude of the unit, i.e. the number of new units
is to be found by multiplying the number of old units by the ratio of
the old unit to the new unit.
Yard 9144 10000 11 884 8225 /11 32 8 4 235\
----- = ----- = ----- = -- · --- · ---- ... ( --,-- = -·-,--- )
Metre 10000 10935 12 385 8224 \32 35 7 5 257/.
Inch 25400 10000 5 66 1651 /5 33 127\
---------- = ----- = ----- = - · -- · ---- ... ( -, --, --- )
Centimetre 10000 3937 2 65 1650 \2 13 50/.
Mile 16093 10000 8 185 2369 /8 37 103\
--------- = ----- = ----- = - · --- · ---- ... ( -, --, --- )
Kilometre 10000 6214 5 184 2368 \5 23 64/.
Square Yard 8361 10000 5 306 15250 /5 51 250\
------------ = ----- = ----- = - · --- · ----- ... ( -, --, --- )
Square Metre 10000 11960 6 305 15249 \6 61 299/.
Acre 4047 10000 2 85 5320 /2 17 380\
------- = ----- = ----- = - · -- · ---- ... ( -, --, --- )
Hectare 10000 24711 5 84 5321 \5 42 939/.
Quart 11365 10000 8 175 8976 /8 25 408\
----- = ----- = ----- = - · --- · ---- ...( -, --, --- )
Litre 10000 8799 7 176 8975 \7 22 359/.
Pound 4536 10000 1 10 484 29391 /1 5 44 303\
---------- = ----- = ----- = - · -- · --- · ----- .. ( -, --, --, --- )
Kilogramme 10000 22046 2 11 485 29392 \2 11 97 668/.
(ii.) _Special Applications._
121. _Commercial Arithmetic._--This term covers practically all dealings
with money which involve the application of the principle of proportion.
A simple class of cases is that which deals with equivalence of sums of
money in different currencies; these cases really come under § 120. In
other cases we are concerned with a proportion stated as a _numerical
percentage_, or as a _money percentage_ (i.e. a sum of money per £100),
or as a _rate_ in the £ or the shilling. The following are some
examples. Percentage: _Brokerage, commission, discount, dividend,
interest, investment, profit and loss._ Rate in the £: _Discount,
dividend, rates, taxes._ Rate in the shilling: _Discount._
Text-books on arithmetic usually contain explanations of the chief
commercial transactions in which arithmetical calculations arise; it
will be sufficient in the present article to deal with interest and
discount, and to give some notes on percentages and rates in the £.
_Insurance_ and _Annuities_ are matters of general importance, which are
dealt with elsewhere under their own headings.
122. _Percentages and Rates in the £._--In dealing with percentages and
rates it is important to notice whether the sum which is expressed as a
percentage of a rate on another sum is a part of or an addition to that
sum, or whether they are independent of one another. Income tax, for
instance, is calculated on income, and is in the nature of a deduction
from the income; but local rates are calculated in proportion to certain
other payments, actual or potential, and could without absurdity exceed
20s. in the £.
It is also important to note that if the increase or decrease of an
amount A by a certain percentage produces B, it will require a different
percentage to decrease or increase B to A. Thus, if B is 20% less than
A, A is 25% greater than B.
123. _Interest_ is usually calculated yearly or half-yearly, at a
certain rate per cent. on the principal. In legal documents the rate is
sometimes expressed as a certain sum of money "per centum per annum";
here "centum" must be taken to mean "£100."
_Simple interest_ arises where unpaid interest accumulates as a debt not
itself bearing interest; but, if this debt bears interest, the total,
i.e. interest and interest on interest, is called _compound interest._
If 100r is the rate per cent. per annum, the simple interest on £A for n
years is £nrA, and the compound interest (supposing interest payable
yearly) is £[(1 + r)^n - 1]A. If n is large, the compound interest is
most easily calculated by means of logarithms.
124. _Discount_ is of various kinds. Tradesmen allow discount for ready
money, this being usually at so much in the shilling or £. Discount may
be allowed twice in succession off quoted prices; in such cases the
second discount is off the reduced price, and therefore it is not
correct to add the two rates of discount together. Thus a discount of
20%, followed by a further discount of 25%, gives a total discount of
40%, not 45%, off the original amount. When an amount will fall due at
some future date, the _present value_ of the debt is found by deducting
discount at some rate per cent. for the intervening period, in the same
way as interest to be added is calculated. This discount, of course, is
not equal to the interest which the present value would produce at that
rate of interest, but is rather greater, so that the present value as
calculated in this way is less than the theoretical present value.
125. Applications to _Physics_ are numerous, but are usually only of
special interest. A case of general interest is the measurement of
_temperature._ The graduation of a thermometer is determined by the
freezing-point and the boiling-point of water, the interval between
these being divided into a certain number of degrees, representing equal
increases of temperature. On the Fahrenheit scale the points are
respectively 32° and 212°; on the Centigrade scale they are 0° and 100°;
and on the Réaumur they are 0° and 80°. From these data a temperature as
measured on one scale can be expressed on either of the other two
scales.
126. _Averages_ occur in statistics, economics, &c. An average is found
by adding together several measurements of the same kind and dividing by
the number of measurements. In calculating an average it should be
observed that the addition of any numerical quantity (positive or
negative) to each of the measurements produces the addition of the same
quantity to the average, so that the calculation may often be simplified
by taking some particular measurement as a new zero from which to
measure.
AUTHORITIES.--For the history of the subject, see W.W.R. Ball,
_Short History of Mathematics_ (1901), and F. Cajori, _History of
Elementary Mathematics_ (1896); or more detailed information in M.
Cantor, _Vorlesungen über Geschichte der Mathematik_ (1894-1901). L.
C. Conant, _The Number-Concept_ (1896), gives a very full account of
systems of numeration. For the latter, and for systems of notation,
reference may also be made to Peacock's article "Arithmetic" in the
_Encyclopaedia Metropolitana_, which contains a detailed account of
the Greek system. F. Galton, _Inquiries into Human Faculty_ (1883),
contains the first account of number-forms; for further examples and
references see D.E. Phillips, "Genesis of Number-Forms," _American
Journal of Psychology_, vol. viii. (1897). There are very few works
dealing adequately but simply with the principles of arithmetic.
Homersham Cox, _Principles of Arithmetic_ (1885), is brief and lucid,
but is out of print. _The Psychology of Number_, by J.A. McLellan and
J. Dewey (1895), contains valuable suggestions (some of which have
been utilized in the present article), but it deals only with number
as the measure of quantity, and requires to be read critically. This
work contains references to Grube's system, which has been much
discussed in America: for a brief explanation, see L. Seeley, _The
Grube Method of Teaching Arithmetic_ (1890). On the teaching of
arithmetic, and of elementary mathematics generally, see J.W.A.
Young, _The Teaching of Mathematics in the Elementary and the
Secondary School_ (1907); D.E. Smith, _The Teaching of Elementary
Mathematics_ (1900), also contains an interesting general sketch; W.
P. Turnbull, _The Teaching of Arithmetic_ (1903), is more elaborate.
E.M. Langley, _A Treatise on Computation_ (1895), has notes on
approximate and abbreviated calculation. Text-books on arithmetic in
general and on particular applications are numerous, and any list
would soon be out of date. Recent English works have been influenced
by the brief _Report on the Teaching of Elementary Mathematics_,
issued by the Mathematical Association (1905); but this is critical
rather than constructive. The Association has also issued a _Report on
the Teaching of Mathematics in Preparatory Schools_ (1907). In the
United States of America the _Report of the Committee of Ten_ on
secondary school studies (1893) and the _Report of the Committee of
Fifteen_ on elementary education (1893-1894), both issued by the
United States Bureau of Education, have attracted a good deal of
attention. Sir O. Lodge, _Easy Mathematics, chiefly Arithmetic_
(1905), treats the subject broadly in its practical aspects. The
student who is interested in elementary teaching should consult the
annual bibliographies in the _Pedagogical Seminary_; an article by D.
E. Phillips in vol. v. (October 1897) contains references to works
dealing with the psychological aspect of number. For an account of
German methods, see W. King, _Report on Teaching of Arithmetic and
Mathematics in the Higher Schools of Germany_ (1903). (W. F. Sh.)
FOOTNOTE:
[1] See also WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.
ARIUS ([Greek: Areios]), a name celebrated in ecclesiastical history,
not so much on account of the personality of its bearer as of the
"Arian" controversy which he provoked. Our knowledge of Arius is scanty,
and nothing certain is known of his birth or of his early training.
Epiphanius of Salamis, in his well-known treatise against eighty
heresies (_Haer._ lxix. 3), calls him a Libyan by birth, and if the
statement of Sozomen, a church historian of the 5th century, is to be
trusted, he was, as a member of the Alexandrian church, connected with
the Meletian schism (see MELETIUS OF LYCOPOLIS), and on this account
excommunicated by Peter of Alexandria, who had ordained him deacon.
After the death of Peter (November 25, 311), he was received into
communion by Peter's successor, Achillas, elevated to the presbytery,
and put in charge of one of the great city churches, Baucalis, where he
continued to discharge his duties with apparent faithfulness and
industry after the accession of Alexander. This bishop also held him in
high repute. Theodoret (_Hist. Eccl._ i. 2) indeed does not hesitate to
say that Arius was chagrined because Alexander, instead of himself, had
been appointed to the see of Alexandria, and that the beginning of his
heretical attitude is, in consequence, to be attributed to discontent
and envy. But this must be rejected, for it is a common explanation of
heretical movements with the early church historians, and there is no
evidence for it in the original sources. However, Arius was ambitious.
Epiphanius, using older documents, describes him as a man inflamed with
his own opinionativeness, of a soft and smooth address, calculated to
persuade and attract, especially women: "in no time he had drawn away
seven hundred virgins from the church to his party." When the
controversy broke out, Arius was an old man.
The real causes of the controversy lay in differences as to dogma. Arius
had received his theological education in the school of the presbyter
Lucian of Antioch, a learned man, and distinguished especially as a
biblical scholar. The latter was a follower of Paul of Samosata, bishop
of Antioch, who had been excommunicated in 269, but his theology differed
from that of his master in a fundamental point. Paul, starting with the
conviction that the One God cannot appear substantially ([Greek:
ousiodos]) on earth, and, consequently, that he cannot have become a
person in Jesus Christ, had taught that God had filled the man Jesus with
his Logos ([Greek: sophia]) or Power ([Greek: dynamis]). Lucian, on the
other hand, persisted in holding that the Logos became a person in
Christ. But since he shared the above-mentioned belief of his master,
nothing remained for him but to see in the Logos a second essence,
created by God before the world, which came down to earth and took upon
itself a human body. In this body the Logos filled the place of the
intellectual or spiritual principle. Lucian's Christ, then, was not
"perfect man," for that which constituted in him the personal element was
a divine essence; nor was he "perfect God," for the divine essence having
become a person was other than the One God, and of a nature foreign to
him. It is this idea which Arius took up and interpreted unintelligently.
His doctrinal position is explained in his letters to his patron
Eusebius, bishop of the imperial city of Nicomedia, and to Alexander of
Alexandria, and in the fragments of the poem in which he set forth his
dogmas, which bears the enigmatic title of "Thalia" ([Greek: Thaleia]),
used in Homer, in the sense of "a goodly banquet," most unjustly
ridiculed by Athanasius as an imitation of the licentious style of the
drinking-songs of the Egyptian Sotades (270 B.C.). From these writings it
can even nowadays be seen clearly that the principal object which he had
in view was firmly to establish the unity and simplicity of the eternal
God. However far the Son may surpass other created beings, he remains
himself a created being, to whom the Father before all time gave an
existence formed out of not being ([Greek: ex ouk onton]); hence the name
of _Exoukontians_ sometimes given to Arius's followers. On the other
hand, Arius affirmed of the Son that he was "perfect God, only-begotten"
([Greek: plaeraes theos monogenaes]); that through him God made the
worlds ([Greek: aiones], ages); that he was the product or offspring of
the Father, and yet not as one among things made ([Greek: gennaema all
ouch ton gegenaemenon]). In his eyes it was blasphemy when he heard that
Alexander proclaimed in public that "as God is eternal, so is his
Son,--when the Father, then the Son,--the Son is present in God without
birth ([Greek: agennaetos]), ever-begotten ([Greek: aeigenaes]), an
unbegotten-begotten ([Greek: agennaetogenaes])." He detected in his
bishop Gnosticism, Manichaeism and Sabellianism, and was convinced that
he himself was the champion of pure doctrine against heresy. He was quite
unconscious that his own monotheism was hardly to be distinguished from
that of the pagan philosophers, and that his Christ was a demi-god.
For years the controversy may have been fermenting in the college of
presbyters at Alexandria. Sozomen relates that Alexander only interfered
after being charged with remissness in leaving Arius so long to disturb
the faith of the church. According to the general supposition, the
negotiations which led to the excommunication of Arius and his followers
among the presbyters and deacons took place in 318 or 319, but there are
good reasons for assigning the outbreak of the controversy to the time
following the overthrow of Licinius by Constantine, i.e. to the year
323. In any case, from this time events followed one another to a speedy
conclusion. Arius was not without adherents, even outside Alexandria.
Those bishops who, like him, had passed through the school of Lucian
were not inclined to let him fall without a struggle, as they recognized
in the views of their fellow-student their own doctrine, only set forth
in a somewhat radical fashion. In addressing to Eusebius of Nicomedia a
request for his help, Arius ended with the words: "Be mindful of our
adversity, thou faithful comrade of Lucian's school ([Greek:
sulloukianistaes])"; and Eusebius entered the lists energetically on his
behalf. But Alexander too was active; by means of a circular letter he
published abroad the excommunication of his presbyter, and the
controversy excited more and more general interest.
It reached even the ears of Constantine. Now sole emperor, he saw in the
one Catholic church the best means of counteracting the movement in his
vast empire towards disintegration; and he at once realized how
dangerous dogmatic squabbles might prove to its unity. His letter,
preserved by the imperial biographer, Eusebius of Caesarea, is a state
document inspired by a wisely conciliatory policy; it made out both
parties to be equally in the right and in the wrong, at the same time
giving them both to understand that such questions, the meaning of which
would be grasped only by the few, had better not be brought into public
discussion; it was advisable to come to an agreement where the
difference of opinion was not fundamental. This well-meaning attempt at
reconciliation, betraying as it did no very deep understanding of the
question, came to nothing. No course was left for the emperor except to
obtain a general decision. This took, place at the fist oecumenical
council, which was convened in Nicaea (q.v.) in 325. After various turns
in the controversy, it was finally decided, against Arius, that the Son
was "of the same substance" ([Greek: homoousios]) with the Father, and
all thought of his being created or even subordinate had to be excluded.
Constantine accepted the decision of the council and resolved to uphold
it. Arius and the two bishops of Marmarica Ptolemais, who refused to
subscribe the creed, were excommunicated and banished to Illyria, and
even Eusebius of Nicomedia, who accepted the creed, but not its
anathemas, was exiled to Gaul. Alexander returned to his see triumphant,
but died soon after, and was succeeded by Athanasius (q.v.), his deacon,
with whose indomitable fortitude and strange vicissitudes the further
course of the controversy is bound up.
It only remains for us here to sketch what is known of the future career
of Arius and the Arians. Although defeated at the council of Nicaea, the
Arians were by no means subdued. Constantine, while strongly disposed at
first to enforce the Nicene decrees, was gradually won to a more
conciliatory policy by the influence especially of Eusebius of Caesarea
and Eusebius of Nicomedia, the latter of whom returned from exile in 328
and won the ear of the emperor, whom he baptized on his death-bed. In
330 even Arius was recalled from banishment. Athanasius, on the other
hand, was banished to Trèves in 335. During his absence Arius returned
to Alexandria, but even now the people are said to have raised a fierce
riot against the heretic. In 336 the emperor was forced to summon him to
Constantinople. Bishop Alexander reluctantly assented to receive him
once more into the bosom of the church, but before the act of admission
was completed, Arius was suddenly taken ill while walking in the
streets, and died in a few moments. His death seems to have exercised no
influence worth speaking of on the course of events. His theological
radicalism had in any case never found many convinced adherents. It was
mainly the opposition to the Homoousios, as a formula open to heretical
misinterpretation, and not borne out by Holy Writ, which kept together
the large party known as Semiarians, who under the leadership of the two
Eusebiuses carried on the strife against the Nicenes and especially
Athanasius. Under the sons of Constantine Christian bishops in
numberless synods cursed one another turn by turn. In the western half
of the empire Arianism found no foothold, and even the despotic will of
Constantius, sole emperor after 351, succeeded only for the moment in
subduing the bishops exiled for the sake of their belief. In the east,
on the other hand, the Semiarians had for long the upper hand. They soon
split up into different groups, according as they came to stand nearer
to or farther from the original position of Arius. The actual centre was
formed by the _Homoii_, who only spoke generally of a likeness [Greek:
homoiotaes] of the Son to the Father; to the left of them were the
_Anomoii_, who, with Arius, held the Son to be unlike [Greek: anomoios]
the Father; to the right, the _Homoiousians_ who, taking as their
catchword "likeness of nature" [Greek: homoiotaes kat ousian], thought
that they could preserve the religious content of the Nicene formula
without having to adopt the formula itself. Since this party in the
course of years came more and more into sympathy with the
representatives of the Nicene party, the _Homoousians_, and notably with
Athanasius, the much-disputed formula became more and more popular, till
the council summoned in 381 at Constantinople, under the auspices of
Theodosius the Great, recognized the Nicene doctrine as the only
orthodox one. Arianism, which had lifted up its head again under the
emperor Valens, was thereby thrust out of the state church. It lived to
flourish anew among the Germanic tribes at the time of the great
migrations. Goths, Vandals, Suebi, Burgundians and Langobardi embraced
it; here too as a distinctive national type of Christianity it perished
before the growth of medieval Catholicism, and the name of Arian ceased
to represent a definite form of Christian doctrine within the church, or
a definite party outside it.
The best account of the proceedings, both political and theological,
may be found in the following books:--H.M. Gwatkin, _Studies of
Arianism_ (2nd edit., Cambridge, 1900); A. Harnack, _History of Dogma_
(Eng. trans., 1894-1899); J.F. Bethune-Baker, _An Introduction to the
Early History of Christian Doctrine_ (London, 1903); W. Bright, _The
Age of the Fathers_ (London, 1903). Cardinal Newman's celebrated
_Arians of the Fourth Century_ is interesting more from the
controversial than from the historical point of view. See also Paavo
Snellman, _Der Anfang des arianischen Streites_ (Helsingfors, 1904);
Sigismund Rogala, _Die Anfange des arianischen Streites_ (Paderborn,
1907). (G. K.)
ARIZONA (from the Spanish-Indian _Arizonac_, of unknown
meaning,--possibly "few springs,"--the name of an 18th-century mining
camp in the Santa Cruz valley, just S. of the present border of
Arizona), a state on the S.W. border of the United States of America,
lying between 31° 20' and 37° N. lat. and 109° 2' and 114° 45' W. long.
It is bounded N. by Utah, E. by New Mexico, S. by Mexico and W. by
California and Nevada, the Colorado river separating it from California
and in part from Nevada. On the W. is the Great Basin. Arizona itself is
mostly included in the great arid mountainous uplift of the Rocky
Mountain region, and partly within the desert plain region of the Gulf
of California, or Open Basin region. The whole state lies on the
south-western exposure of a great roof whose crest, along the
continental divide in western New Mexico, pitches southward. Its
altitudes vary from 12,800 ft. to less than 100 ft. above the sea. Of
its total area of 113,956 sq. m. (water surface, 116 sq. m.),
approximately 39,000 lie below 3000 ft., 27,000 from 3000 to 5000 ft.,
and 47,000 above 5000 ft.
_Physical Features._--Three characteristic physiographic regions are
distinctly marked: first the great Colorado Plateau, some 45,000 sq. m.
in area, embracing all the region N. and E. of a line drawn from the
Grand Wash Cliffs in the N.W. corner of the state to its E. border near
Clifton; next a broad zone of compacted mountain ranges with a southern
limit of similar trend; and lastly a region of desert plains, occupying
somewhat more than the S.W. quarter of the state. The plateau region has
an average elevation of 6000-8000 ft. eastward, but it is much broken
down in the west. The plateau is not a plain. It is dominated by high
mountains, gashed by superb canyons of rivers, scarred with dry gullies
and washes, the beds of intermittent streams, varied with great shallow
basins, sunken deserts, dreary levels, bold buttes, picturesque mesas,
forests and rare verdant bits of valley. In the N.W. there is a giddy
drop into the tremendous cut of the Grand Canyon (q.v.) of the Colorado
river. The surface in general is rolling, with a gentle slope northward,
and drains through the Little Colorado (or Colorado Chiquito), Rio
Puerco and other streams into the Grand Canyon. Along the Colorado is
the Painted Desert, remarkable for the bright colours--red, brown, blue,
purple, yellow and white--of its sandstones, shales and clays. Within
the desert is a petrified forest, the most remarkable in the United
States. The trees are of mesozoic time, though mostly washed down to the
foot of the mesas in which they were once embedded, and lying now amid
deposits of a later age. Blocks and logs of agate, chalcedony, jasper,
opal and other silicate deposits lie in hundreds over an area of 60 sq.
m. The forest is now protected as a national reserve against vandalism
and commercialism. Everywhere are evidences of water and wind erosion,
of desiccation and differential weathering. This is the history of the
mesas, which are the most characteristic scenic feature of the
highlands. The marks of volcanic action, particularly lava-flows, are
also abundant and widely scattered.
Separating the plateau from the mountain region is an abrupt transition
slope, often deeply eroded, crossing the entire state as has been
indicated. In localities the slope is a true escarpment falling 150 and
even 250 ft. per mile. In the Aubrey Cliffs and along the Mogollon mesa,
which for about 200 m. parts the waters of the Gila and the Little
Colorado, it often has an elevation of 1000 to 2000 ft., and the ascent
is impracticable through long distances to the most daring climber. It
is not of course everywhere so remarkable, or even distinct, and
especially after its trend turns southward W. of Clifton, it is much
broken down and obscured by erosion and lava deposits. The mountain
region has a width of 70 to 150 m., and is filled with short parallel
ranges trending parallel to the plateau escarpment. Many of the
mountains are extinct volcanoes. In the San Francisco mountains, in the
north central part of the state, three peaks rise to from 10,000 to
12,794 ft.; three others are above 9000 ft.; all are eruptive cones, and
among the lesser summits are old cinder cones. The S.E. corner of
Arizona is a region of greatly eroded ranges and gentle aggraded
valleys. This mountain zone has an average elevation of not less than
4000 ft., while in places its crests are 5000 ft. above the plains
below. The line dividing the two regions runs roughly from Nogales on
the Mexican border, past Tucson, Florence and Phoenix to Needles
(California), on the W. boundary. These plains, the third or desert
region of the state, have their mountains also, but they are lower, and
they are not compacted; the plains near the mountain region slope toward
the Gulf of California across wide valleys separated by isolated ranges,
then across broad desert stretches traversed by rocky ridges, and
finally there is no obstruction to the slope at all. Small parts of the
desert along the Mexican boundary are shifting sand.
[Illustration: Map of Arizona.]
_Climate._--As may be inferred from the physical description, Arizona
has a wide variety of local climates. In general it is characterized by
wonderfully clear air and extraordinarily low humidity. The scanty
rainfall is distributed from July to April, with marked excess from July
to September and a lesser maximum in December. May and June are very
dry. Often during a month, sometimes for several months, no rain falls
over the greatest part of Arizona. Very little rain comes from the
Pacific or the Gulf of California, the mountains and desert, as well as
the adverse winds, making it impossible. Rain and snow fall usually from
clouds blown from the Gulf of Mexico and not wholly dried in Texas. The
mountainous areas are the only ones of adequate precipitation; the
northern slope of the Colorado Plateau is almost destitute of water; the
region of least precipitation is the "desert" region. The mean annual
rainfall varies from amounts of 2 to 5.5 in. at various points in the
lower gulf valley, and on the western border to amounts of 25 to 30
in. in the mountains. The highest recorded maximum in Arizona is 35 in.
The proportion of perfectly clear days in the year varies at different
points from a half to two-thirds; of the rest not more than half are
without brilliant sunshine part of the day. Local thunderstorms and
cloud-bursts are a characteristic phenomenon, inundating limited areas
and transforming dried-up streams into muddy torrents carrying boulders
and débris. Often in the plateau country the dry under-air absorbs the
rain as it falls; and rarely in the Hopi Country do flooded gullies "run
through" to the Little Colorado. The country of the cliff-dwellers in
the N.E. is desert-like. Only points high in altitude catch much rain.
Mountain snows feed the Gila, the Little Colorado, and the Colorado
rivers. The Colorado, apart from the Gila, draws little water from
Arizona. The mountain zone W. of Prescott drains into the Colorado, and
to the S. and E. into the Gila; and the latter is by far the heavier
drainage in volume. The floods come in May and June, and during the wet
season the rivers, all with steep beds in their upper courses, wash
along detritus that lower down narrows, and on smaller streams almost
chokes, their courses. These gradients enable the inconstant streams
tributary to the Colorado to carve their canyons, some of which are in
themselves very remarkable, though insignificant beside the Grand
Canyon. Many streams that are turned in spring or by summer cloud-bursts
into torrents are normally mere water films or dry gulches. Even the
Gila is dry in its bed part of the year at its mouth near Yuma. From the
Gila to the southern boundary the parched land gives no water to the
sea, and the international boundary runs in part through a true desert.
In the hot season there is almost no surface water. Artesian wells are
used in places, as in the stock country of the Baboquivari valley.
The temperature of Arizona is somewhat higher than that of points of
equal latitude on the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts. In the
mountains on the plateau it ranges from that of the temperate zone to
that of regions of perpetual snow; S. of the mountains it ranges from
temperate heats in the foothills to semi-tropic heat in the lower
valleys of the Gila and Colorado. The average annual temperature over
the region N. of 34' N. is about 55°; that of the region S. is about
68°. The warmest region is the lower Gila valley. Here the hottest
temperature of the year hovers around 130°, the mean for the hottest
month (July) is about 98°, and the mean for the year is from 68.9°-74.4°
F. at different points. Some parts of the Santa Cruz valley are equally
hot. In the hottest (western) portions of the true desert on the Mexican
border the daily maximum temperature is about 110° F.; but owing to the
rapid radiation in the dry, clear, cloudless air the temperature
frequently falls 40-50° in the night. The coldest points on the high
plateau have annual means as low as 45-48°, and a mean for the coldest
month at times below 20° F. The range from high to low extreme on the
plateau may be as great as 125°, but in the S.W. it is only about 70-80°
F. The daily variation (not uncommonly 60° F.) is of course greatest in
the most arid regions, where radiation is most rapid. And of all Arizona
it should be said that owing to the extreme dryness of the air,
evaporation from moist surfaces is very rapid,[1] so that the high
temperatures here are decidedly less oppressive than much lower
temperatures in a humid atmosphere. The great difference between
absolute and sensible temperature is a very important climatic
characteristic of Arizona. Generally speaking, during two-thirds of the
year the temperature is really delightful; the nights are cool, the
mornings bracing, the days mild though splendid. Intense heat prevails
in July, August and September. In lowness of humidity (mean annual
relative humidity at Yuma about 39, at Phoenix 36.7, at Tucson 37.8) and
clarity of atmosphere, southern Arizona rivals Upper Egypt and other
famous arid health resorts.
_Fauna and Flora._--Within the borders of Arizona are areas
representative of every life zone save the humid tropical. From the
summit of the San Francisco Mountains one may pass rapidly through all
these down into the Painted Desert. The Boreal-Canadian, Transition and
Upper Sonoran embrace the highlands. Coyotes are very common; wild cats
and mountain lions are fairly plentiful. Deer and antelope are
represented by various species. Prairie-dogs, jack-rabbits, crows and
occasional ravens, quail, grouse, pheasants and wild turkeys are also
noteworthy in a rather scant animal life. Characteristic forms of the
Upper Sonoran zone are the burrowing owl, Nevada sage-thrush,
sage-thrasher and special species of orioles, kangaroo rats, mice,
rabbits and squirrels. The Lower Sonoran covers the greatest part of
southern and western Arizona, as well as the immediate valleys of the
Colorado and Little Colorado rivers. Its animal life is in the main
distinguished in species only from that of the Upper Sonoran belt,
including among birds, the desert sparrow, desert thrasher,
mocking-bird, hooded oriole; and among mammals small nocturnal species
of kangaroo rats, pocket mice, mice and bats. Jaguars occasionally stray
into Arizona from Mexico. Lizards and toads are conspicuous in the more
desert areas. Snakes are not numerous. The Gila-monster, tarantula, the
scorpion and thelyphonus, scolopender and julus occur in some localities
in the rainy season. The Arid-Tropical zone is represented by a narrow
belt along the lower Colorado river, with a short arm extending into the
valley of the Gila. The country is so arid that it supports only desert
birds and mammals. Camels were very successfully employed as pack
animals on the Tule desert in the palmy days of Virginia City, Nevada,
before the advent of railways.
The general conditions of distribution of the fauna of Arizona are shown
even more distinctly by the flora. There are firs and spruces on the
mountains, characteristic of the Boreal zone; pines characteristic of
the Transition zone; piñon juniper, greasewood and the universally
conspicuous sage-brush, characteristic of the Upper Sonoran zone. In the
Lower Sonoran belt, soapweed, acacias (Palo Verde or _Parkinsonia
torreyana_), agaves, yuccas and dasylirions, the creosote bush and
mesquite tree, candle wood, and about seventy-five species of
cactuses--among them omnipresent opuntiae and great columnar
"Chayas"--make up a striking vegetation, which in its colours of dull
grey and olive harmonizes well with the rigidity and forbidding
barrenness of the plains. It has exercised profound influence upon the
industries, arts, faiths and general culture of the Indians. In places
the giant cactus grows in groves, attaining a height of 40 and even 50
ft. The mesquite varies in size from a tangled thorny shrub to a
spreading tree as much as 3 ft. in diameter and 50 ft. high; it is
normally perhaps half as high, and 6-8 in. in diameter. Enduring hardily
great extremes of heat and moisture, it is throughout the arid
South-west the most important, and in many localities the only
important, native tree. From the great juicy, leafless, branchless stalk
of the yucca, soap is prepared, and strong fibres useful in making
paper, rope and fabrics. The fibre of the agave is also made into rope
and its juice into pulque. The canaigre grows wild and is also
cultivated. It is easy to exaggerate greatly the barrenness of an arid
country. There are fine indigenous grasses that spring up over the mesas
after the summer rains, furnishing range for live-stock; some are
extraordinarily independent of the rainfall. In the most arid regions
there is a small growth of green in the rainy season, and a rich display
of small wild-flowers, as well as the enormous flower clusters of the
yucca, and blooms in pink and orange, crimson, yellow and scarlet of the
giant cactus and its fellows. Even in the Mexican border, desert oak,
juniper and manzanita cover the mountains, and there is a vigorous
though short-lived growth of grasses and flower from July to October.
The cliff-dweller country supports a scant vegetation--a few cottonwood
in the washes, a few cedars on the mesas.
Continuous forest areas are scant. A fair variety of trees--cottonwood,
sycamore, ash, willow, walnut and cherry--grow in thickets in the
canyons, and each mountain range is a forest area. Rainfall varying with
the altitude, the lower timber line below which precipitation is
insufficient to sustain a growth of trees is about 7000 ft., and the
upper timber line about 11,500 ft. Oaks, juniper, piñon, cedars, yellow
pine, fir and spruce grow on the mountains and over large areas of the
plateau country.[2] The Coconino forest is one of the largest unbroken
pine forests (about 6000 sq. m.) in the United States. Since 1898 about
86% of the wooded lands have been made reservations, and work has been
done also to preserve the forest areas in the mountains in the
south-east, from which there are few streams of permanent flow to the
enclosing arid valleys.
_Soil._--The soils in the southern part of Arizona are mainly sandy
loams, varying from light loam to heavy, close adobe; on the plateaus is
what is known as "mesa" soil; and along the rivers are limited overflow
plains of fine sediment--especially along the Colorado and the river
Verde. These soils are in general rich, but deficient in nitrogen and
somewhat in humus; and in limited areas white alkaline salts are
injuriously in excess. Virgin soils are densely compact. By far the most
useful crops are leguminous green manures, especially alfalfa, which
grows four to seven cuttings in a year and as a soil flocculator and
nitrogen-storer has proved of the greatest value. The greatest obstacle
to agriculture is lack of water. Artesian wells are much used in the
south-east. For the reservation of the water-partings--in the past
considerably denuded by lumbermen and ranchmen--the increase of the
forest areas, and the creation of reservoirs along the rivers, to
control their erratic flow[3] and impound their flood waste for purposes
of irrigation, much has been done by the national government. The
irrigated areas are only little spots along the permanent streams. In
1900 the farm area was only 2.7% of the total area of the state and only
0.31% was actually improved (including Indian reservations, 0.35%; in
1906, 0.92% was cultivated); of the land actually under crops, 88.5% was
irrigated. The improved acreage more than quintupled from 1880 to 1900.
The total irrigated area in 1900 was 185,000 acres and in 1902, 247,250
acres. The increase in land values by irrigation from 1890 to 1900 is
estimated at $3,500,000. A reservoir was begun in 1904 just below the
junction of the Tonto and the Salt with capacity to store 1,330,000
acre-ft. for irrigation, and develop also an electric power sufficient
to pump underground water for an additional 50,000 acres at the lowest
estimate[4] of lands lying too high for supply by gravity. Another
important undertaking begun about the same time was the throwing of an
East Indian weir dam (the only one in the United States) across the
Colorado near Yuma, and the confinement of both sides of the lower Gila
and Colorado with levees.
_Agriculture._--Strawberries and Sahara dates; alfalfa, wheat, barley,
corn and sorghum; oranges, lemons, wine grapes, limes, olives, figs,
dates, peanuts and sweet potatoes; yams and sugar beets, show the range
of agricultural products. The date palm fruits well; figs grow
luxuriantly, though requiring much irrigation; almonds do well if
protected from spring frosts; sea-island cotton grows in the finest
grades, but is not of commercial importance. The country about Yuma is
particularly suited to subtropical fruits. Temperate fruits--peaches,
pears, apples, apricots and small fruits--do excellently; as do all
important vegetables. The fruit industry is becoming more and more
important. Farming is very intensive, and crop follows crop in swift
succession; in 1905 the yield of barley per acre, 44 bushels, was
greater than in any other state or territory, as was the farm price per
bushel on the 1st of December, 81 cents; the average yield per acre of
hay was the highest in the Union in 1903, 3.46 tons, the general average
being 1.54 tons, was fourth in 1904, 2.71 tons (Utah 3.54, Idaho 3.07,
Nevada 3.04), the general average being 1.52 tons, and was highest in
1905, 3.75 tons, the general average for the country being 1.54 tons;
and in the same three years the average value per acre of hay was
greater in Arizona than in any other state of the Union, being $35.78 in
1903, $40.22 in 1904, and $46.39 in 1905, the general averages for the
country being $13.93, $13.23 and $13.11 respectively, for the three
years. Of the total farm acreage of the state 97.6% were held in 1900 by
the whites; and of these 80.2% owned in whole or in part the land they
cultivated.
Stock-raising is a leading industry, but it has probably attained its
full development. The over-stocking of the ranges has caused much loss
in the past, and the almost total eradication of fine native grasses
over extended areas. Of the neat cattle (7,042,635) almost 98%, and of
the sheep (861,761) almost 100%, were in 1900 pastured wholly or in part
upon the public domain. The extension of national forest reserves and
the regulations enforced by the United States government for the
preservation of the ranges have put limits to the industry. In 1900 the
value of live-stock represented 15.7% of the capital invested in
agriculture; the value of animals sold or slaughtered for food
($3,204,758) was half the total value of all farm products ($6,997,097).
Ostrich farms have been successfully established in the Salt river
valley since 1893; in 1907 there were six farms in the Salt river
valley, on which there were about 1354 birds; the most successful food
for the ostrich is alfalfa.
_Minerals._--Mining is the leading industry of Arizona. Contrary to
venerable traditions there is no evidence that mining was practised
beyond the most inconsiderable extent by aborigines, Spanish
_conquistadores_, or Jesuits. In 1738 an extraordinary deposit of silver
nuggets, quickly exhausted (1741), was discovered at Arizonac. At the
end of the 18th century the Mexicans considerably developed the mines in
the south-east. The second half of the 19th century witnessed several
great finds; first, of gold placers on the lower Gila and Colorado
(1858-1869); later, of lodes at Tombstone, which flourished from
1879-1886, then decayed, but in 1905 had again become the centre of
important mining interests; and still later the development of copper
mines at Jerome and around Bisbee. Several of the Arizona copper mines
are among the greatest of the world. The Copper Queen at Bisbee from
1880-1902 produced 378,047,210 lb. of crude copper, which was
practically the total output of the territory till after 1900, when
other valuable mines were opened; the Globe, Morenci and Jerome
districts are secondary to Bisbee. Important mines of gold and silver,
considerable deposits of wolframite, valuable ores of molybdenum and
vanadium, and quarries of onyx marble, are also worked. Low-grade coal
deposits occur in the east central part of the state and near the
junction of the Gila and San Pedro rivers. Some fine gems of peridot,
garnet and turquoise have been found. The mineral products of Arizona
for 1907 were valued at $56,753,650; of which $51,355,687 (more than
that of any other state) was the value of copper; $2,664,000, gold; and
$1,916,000, silver. In 1907 the legislature passed an elaborate act
providing for the taxation of mines, its principal clause being that the
basis of valuation for taxation in each year be one-fourth of the output
of the mines in question for the next preceding year.
_Manufactures._--The manufacturing industries are of relatively slight
importance, though considerable promise attends the experiments with
canaigre as a source of tannin. The Navaho and Moqui Indians make
woollen blankets and rugs and the Pimas baskets. Onyx marbles of local
source are polished at Phoenix. The capital invested in manufacturing
industries increased from $9,517,573 in 1900 to $14,395,654 in 1905, or
51.3%, and the value of products from $20,438,987 in 1900 to $28,083,192
in 1905, or 37.4%. Of the total product in 1905 the product of the
principal industry, the smelting and refining of copper ($22,761,981),
represented 81.1%; it was 9.4% of all the smelting and refining of
copper done in the United States in that year. The other manufactures
were of much less importance, the principal ones being cars and general
shop construction, including repairs by steam railway companies
($1,329,308), lumber and timber products ($960,778), and flour and grist
mill products ($743,124).
Two transcontinental railway systems, the Southern Pacific and Santa Fe,
were built across Arizona in 1878-1883. They are connected by one line,
and a feeder runs S. into Sonora. The railway mileage of Arizona on the
1st of January 1908 was 1935.35 m.
_Population._--The population of Arizona in 1880 was 40,440; in 1890,
59,620; in 1900, 122,931 (including 28,623 reservation Indians not
counted before); in 1910, 204,354. The native population is of the most
diverse origin; the foreign element is equally heterogeneous, but more
than half (in 1900, 14,172 out of 24,283 foreign-born) are Mexicans,
many of whom are not permanent residents; after 1900, immigrants were
largely mine labourers, and included Slavonians and Italians. The
largest towns in 1900 were Tucson, Phoenix, which is the capital,
Prcscott (pop. 3559), Jerome (pop. 1890, 250; in 1900, 2861); Winslow
(pop. 1890, 363; in 1900, 1305), Nogales (pop. 1900, 1761), and Bisbee.
The last was an insignificant mining camp in 1880, still unincorporated
in 1900, but with an estimated population of 6000 in 1904. It is crowded
picturesquely into several narrow confluent ravines. Railway connexion
with El Paso was established in 1902. Douglas is another growing camp.
Over thirty Indian tribes are represented in the Indian schools of
Arizona. The more important are the Hualapais or Apache-Yumas; the
Mohaves; the Yavapais or Apache-Mohaves; the Yumas, whose lesser
neighbours on the lower Colorado are the most primitive Indians of the
United States in habits; the Maricopas; the Pimas and Papagoes, who
figure much in early Arizona history, and who are superior in
intelligence, adaptability, application and character; the Hopis or
Moquis, possessed of the same good qualities and notably temperate and
provident, famous for their prehistoric culture (Tusuyan); the Navaho,
and the kindred Apaches, perhaps the most relentless and savage of
Indian warriors. All the Indians of Arizona live on reservations save
the few non-tribal Indians taxed and treated as active citizens. Even
the Apaches after being whipped by relentless war into temporary
submission have been bound by treaties which the gifts, vices and
virtues of the reservation system have tempted them to observe. The
Pimas and Papagoes were early converted by the Spaniards, and retain
to-day a smattering of Christianity plentifully alloyed with paganism.
Apaches, Pimas, Papagoes have been employed by the United States on
great irrigation works, and have proved industrious and faithful
labourers. In 1900 there were 1836 taxed Indians, 26,480 reservation
Indians not taxed, and in addition many friendly Papagoes unenumerated.
In 1906 the Indian population was estimated as being 14% of the whole
population of Arizona, and that they are singularly law-abiding is
argued from the fact that in the same year the Indians furnished only 3%
of the convicts in the territorial prison.
_Government and Education._--Arizona became a territory of the first (or
practically autonomous) class in 1863. Her organic law thereafter until
1910 consisted of various sections of the Revised Statutes of the United
States. From the beginning she had a territorial legislature. Congress
retained ultimately direct control of all government, administration
being in the hands of resident officials appointed by the president and
Senate. Special mention must be made of the secret police, the Arizona
Rangers, organized in 1901 to police the cattle ranges; they are
"fearless men, trained in riding, roping, trailing and shooting," a
force whose _personnel_ is not known to the general public. The
legislature repealed the law licensing public gambling in 1907; enacted
a law requiring the payment of $300 per annum as licence fee by retail
liquor dealers; and provided for juvenile courts and probationary
control of children. In 1907 the total tax valuation of property was
$77,705,251; the net debt of the territory $1,022,972, and that of
counties and towns $3,123,275. The receipts of the territorial treasury
for the year ending on the 30th of June 1907 were $687,386, and the
disbursements for the same period were $601,568. A homestead provision
(1901) exempts from liability for debts (except mortgages or liens
placed before the homestead claim) any homestead belonging to the head
of a family, existing in one compact body and valued at not more than
$2500; such a homestead a married man may not sell, lease or put a lien
on without his wife's consent. Personal property to the value of $500 is
exempt from the same liability. The public school system was established
in 1871. A compulsory attendance law applies to children between 6 and
14 years of age, but it is not generally obeyed by the Mexican element
of population. In 1907 there was an enrolment of 24,962 out of 33,167
children of school age; there were six high schools--three new in 1906;
and the average number of school days was 128.4. In the fiscal year
ending June 1907, the total receipts for schools were $697,762, and the
expenditures were $701,102. Illiteracy is high, amounting in 1900 to
23.1% of native males, above 21 years of age, and 30.5% of foreign
males, principally because of the large number of Indians, Chinese,
Japanese and Mexicans in the state. There are two normal schools at
Tempe (1886) and Flagstaff (1899), a university at Tucson with an
agricultural experiment station that has done much for the industries of
Arizona; there is a considerable number of Indian schools, the largest
of which are maintained by the national government, and the funds of the
university come largely from the same source. The first juvenile reform
school, called the Territorial Industrial school, was opened in 1903 at
Benson. The territorial prison, formerly at Yuma, was abandoned for a
modern building at Florence, Pinal county; and a hospital for the insane
is 3 m. from Phoenix.
_History._--The history of the South-west is full of interest to the
archaeologist. A prehistoric culture widely distributed has left
abundant traces. Pueblo ruins are plentiful in the basins of the Gila
and Colorado rivers and their tributaries. Geographical conditions and a
hard struggle against nature fixed the character of this "aridian"
culture, and determined its migrations; the onslaughts of nomad Indians
determined the sedentary civilization of the cliff dwellers. A
co-operative social economy is evidenced by the traces of great public
works, such as canals many miles in length. The pueblos of the Gila
valley are held to be older than those of the Colorado. Casa Grande, 15
m. S.E. of a railway station of the same name on the Southern Pacific
railway, is the most remarkable of plain ruins in the South-west, the
only one of its type in the United States. It resembles the Casa Grande
ruin of Chihuahua, Mexico, with its walls of sun-dried puddled clay, and
its area of rooms, courts and plazas, surrounded by a wall. It was
already a ruin when discovered in 1694 by the Jesuit father Kino. John
Russel Bartlett described it in 1854, and in 1889 Congress voted that it
be protected as a government reservation; in 1892 it was set apart by
the government. Excavations were made there in 1906-1907 by Dr J. Walter
Fewkes. Migration was northward. The valleys of the Salt river and its
affluents, the Agua Fria, Verde and Tonto, are strewn with aboriginal
remains; but especially important in migrations of culture was the
Little Colorado. A very considerable population must have lived once in
this valley. It is represented to-day by the still undeserted habitats
of Zuñi (in New Mexico) and Tusayan; the Moquis, after the Zuñis, are in
customs and traditions the best survival of the ancient civilization.
Arizona north of the Gila, save for a very limited and intermittent
missionary effort and for scant exploring expeditions, was practically
unknown to the whites until well after the beginning of American rule.
The Santa Cruz valley, however, has much older annals of a past that
charms by its picturesque contrasts with the present. Arizona history
begins with the arrival in Sonora in 1536 of Alvar Nuñez Cabeza de Vaca,
who, although he had not entered Arizona or New Mexico, had heard of
them, and by his stories incited the Spaniards to explore the unknown
north in hope of wealth. Marcos de Niza, a Franciscan friar to whom the
first reconnaissance was entrusted, was the first Spaniard to enter the
limits of Arizona. He crossed the south-eastern corner to Zuñi in 1539,
passing through the Santa Cruz valley; and F.V. de Coronado (q.v.) was
led by Fray Marcos over the same route in 1540; while Hernando Alarcon
explored the Gulf of California and the lower Colorado river. Members of
Coronado's expedition explored the Moqui country and reached the Grand
Canyon, and after this a succession of remarkable and heroic
explorations followed through the century; which however accomplished
little for geography, further confusing and embellishing rather than
clearing up its mysteries. All this has left traces in still living
myths about the early history of the South-west. Early in the 17th
century considerable progress had been made in Christianizing the Pimas,
Papagoes and Moquis. Following 1680 came a great Indian revolt in New
Mexico and Arizona, and thereafter the Moquis remained independent of
Spanish and Christian domination, although visited fitfully by rival
Jesuits and Franciscans. In 1732 (possibly in 1720) regular Jesuit
missions were founded at Bac (known as an Indian rancheria since the
17th century) and at Guevavi. The region south of the Gila had already
been repeatedly explored. In the second half of the century there was a
presidio at Tubac (whose name first appears 1752) and some half-dozen
pueblos de visita, including the Indian settlement of Tucson.
A few errors should be corrected and some credit given with reference to
this early period. The Inquisition never had any jurisdiction whatever
over the Indians; compulsory labour by the Indians was never legalized
except on the missions, and the law was little violated; they were never
compelled to work mines; of mining by the Indians for precious metals
there is no evidence; nor by the Jesuits (expelled in 1767, after which
their missions and other properties were held by the Franciscans),
except to a small extent about the presidio of Tubac, although they did
some prospecting. Persistent traditions have greatly exaggerated the
former prosperity of the old South-west. The Spaniards probably provoked
some inter-tribal intercourse among the Indians, and did something among
some tribes for agriculture. Their own farms and settlements, save in
the immediate vicinity of the presidio, were often plundered and
abandoned, and such settlement as there was was confined to the Santa
Cruz valley. From about 1790 to 1822 was a period of peace with the
Apaches and of comparative prosperity for church and state. The fine
Indian mission church at Bac, long abandoned and neglected, dates from
the last decade of the 18th century. The establishment of a presidio at
Tucson in 1776 marks its beginning as a Spanish settlement.
The decay of the military power of the presidios during the Mexican war
of independence, the expulsion of loyal Spaniards--notably friars--and
the renewal of Apache wars, led to the temporary abandonment of all
settlements except Tubac and Tucson. The church practically forsook the
field about 1828.
American traders and explorers first penetrated Arizona in the first
quarter of the 19th century. As a result of the Mexican War, New Mexico,
which then included all Arizona north of the Gila, was ceded to the
United States. California gold discoveries drew particular attention to
the country south of the Gila, which was wanted also for a
transcontinental railway route. This strip, known as the "Gadsden
Purchase" (see GADSDEN, JAMES), was bought in 1854 by the United States,
which took possession in 1856. This portion was also added to New
Mexico. The Mexicans, pressed by the Apaches, had, in 1848, abandoned
even Tubac and Tamacácori, first a visita of Guevavi, and after 1784 a
mission. The progress of American settlement was interrupted by the
Civil War, which caused the withdrawal of the troops and was the
occasion for the outbreak of prolonged Indian wars.
Meanwhile a convention at Tucson in 1856 sent a delegate to Congress and
petitioned for independent territorial government. This movement and
others that followed were ignored by Congress owing to its division over
the general slavery question, and especially the belief of northern
members that the control of Arizona was an object of the pro-slavery
party. A convention held in April 1860 at Tucson undertook to "ordain
and establish," of its own motion, a provisional constitution until
Congress should "organize a territorial government." This provisional
territory constituted all New Mexico south of 34° 40' N. Officials were
appointed and New Mexican legislation for the Arizona counties ignored,
but nothing further was done. In 1861 it was occupied by a Texan force,
declared for the Confederacy, and sent a delegate (who was not admitted)
to the Confederate congress. That body in January 1862 passed a formal
act organizing the territory, including in it New Mexico, but in May
1862 the Texans were driven out by a Union force from California. By act
of the 24th of February 1863 Congress organized Arizona territory as the
country west of 109° W. long. In December an itinerant government sent
out complete from Washington crossed the Arizona line and effected a
formal organization. The territorial capital was first at Prescott
(1863-1867), then at Tucson (1867-1877), again at Prescott (1877-1889),
and finally at Phoenix (since 1889).
There have been boundary difficulties with every contiguous state or
territory. The early period of American rule was extremely unsettled.
The California gold discoveries and overland travel directed many
prospecting adventurers to Arizona. For some years there was
considerable sentiment favouring filibustering in Sonora. The Indian
wars, breeding a habit of dependence on force, and the heterogeneous
elements of cattle thieves, Sonoran cowboys, mine labourers and
adventurers led to one of the worst periods of American border history.
But since about 1880 there is nothing to chronicle but a continued
growth in population and prosperity. Agitation for statehood became
prominent in territorial politics for some years. In accordance with an
act of Congress, approved on the 16th of June 1906, the inhabitants of
Arizona and New Mexico voted on the 6th of November 1906 on the question
of uniting the territories into a single state to be called Arizona; the
vote of New Mexico was favourable to union and statehood, but these were
defeated by the vote of Arizona (16,265 against, and 3141 for
statehood). In June 1910 the President approved an enabling act
providing for the admission of Arizona and New Mexico as separate
states.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--For the Colorado river and the Grand Canyon see those
articles; for the Sonoran boundary region, _Report of the Boundary
Commission upon the Boundaries between the United States and Mexico_
(3 vols., Washington, 1898-1899, also as Senate Document No. 247,
vols. 23-25, 55 Congress, 2 Session); for the petrified forest of the
Painted Desert, L.F. Ward in _Smithsonian Institution_ Annual Rep.,
1899; for the rest of the area, various reports in the U.S. Geological
Survey publications, bibliography in _Bulletin_ Nos. 100, 177.--FAUNA
and FLORA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, _North American Fauna_, No.
3 (1890), No. 7 (1893); _U.S. Biological Survey, Bulletin_ No. 10
(1898); publications of the Desert Botanical Laboratory at Tucson;
also titles under archaeology below, particularly Bandelier's "Final
Report."--CLIMATE, SOIL, AGRICULTURE: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
_Climate and Crop Service, Arizona_, monthly reports, annual
summaries; Arizona Agricultural Experiment Station,
_Bulletins._--MINERAL INDUSTRIES: U.S. Geological Survey publications,
consult bibliographies; _The Mineral Industry_, annual (New York and
London).--GOVERNMENT: _Arizona Revised Statutes_ (Phoenix, 1887);
_Report of the Governor of Arizona Territory to the Secretary of the
Interior_, annual.--ARCHAEOLOGY: An abundance of materials in the
_Annual Report, U.S. Bureau of Ethnology_ for different years; consult
also especially A.F.A. Bandelier, "Contributions to the History of
the South-western Portion of the United States," in _Archaeological
Institute of America, Papers, American Series_, vol. 5 (Cambridge,
1890); "Final Report of Investigations among the Indians of the
South-western United States," _ib._ vols. 3 and 4 (Cambridge,
1890-1892); other material may be found in Smithsonian Institution,
_Annual Report_, 1896, 1897, &c., and many important papers by J.W.
Fewkes, F.W. Hodge, C. Mendeleff and others in the _American
Anthropologist_ and _Journal of American Ethnology._--HISTORY: H.H.
Bancroft, _History of Arizona and New Mexico_ (San Francisco, 1887);
A.F.A. Bandelier, "Historical Introduction to Studies among the
Sedentary Indians of New Mexico," in _Archaeological Institute of
America, Papers, American Series_, vol. 1 (Boston, 1881); _The Gilded
Man (El Dorado) and other Papers_ (New York, 1893); G.P. Winship,
"The Coronado Expedition," in _U.S. Bureau of Ethnology, 14th Annual
Report_ (1892-1893), pp. 339-613, with an abundant literature to which
this may be the guide. The traditional errors respecting the early
history of the Spanish South-west are fully exposed in the works of
Bancroft and Bandelier, whose conclusions are supported by E. Coues,
_On the Trail of a Spanish Pioneer, Francisco Garcés_ (2 vols. New
York, 1900).
FOOTNOTES:
[1] At Yuma, Phoenix and Tucson, the records of twenty-six, eighteen
and fifteen years respectively show a rate of evaporation 35.2, 12.7,
and 7.7 times as great as the mean annual rainfall, which was 2.84
in., 7.06 in. and 11.7 in. for the places named.
[2] The San Francisco yellow pine forest, with an area of some 4700
sq. m., is the finest forest of the arid south-west.
[3] The combined flow of the Salt and Verde varies from 100 to more
than 10,000 cub. ft. per second.
[4] The dam locks a narrow canyon. The height is 284 ft., the water
rising 230 ft. against it. The storage capacity is exceeded by
probably but one reservoir in the world--the Wachusett reservoir near
Boston.
ARJUNA, in Hindu mythology, a semi-divine hero of the _Mahabharata_. He
was the third son of Pandu, son of Indra, His character as sketched in
the great epic is of the noblest kind. He is the central figure of that
portion of the epic known as the _Bhagwad-gita_, where he is represented
as horrified at the impending slaughter of a battle and as being
comforted by Krishna.
ARK (a word common to Teutonic languages, cf. Ger. _Arche_, adapted from
the Lat. _arca_, chest, cf. _arcere_, to shut up, enclose), a chest,
basket or box. The Hebrew word _tebah_, translated in the A.V. by "ark,"
is used in the Old Testament (1) of the box made of bulrushes in which
Pharaoh's daughter found the infant Moses (Exodus ii. 3), and (2) of the
great vessel or ship in which Noah took refuge during the flood (Genesis
vi.-ix.).
_Noah's Ark._--According to the story in Genesis, Noah's ark was large
enough to contain his family and representatives of each kind of animal.
Its dimensions are given as 300 cubits long, 50 cubits broad and 30
cubits high (cubit = 18-22 in.). It was made of "gopher" wood, which has
been variously identified with cypress, pine and cedar. Before the days
of the "higher criticism" and the rise of the modern scientific views as
to the origin of species, there was much discussion among the learned,
and many ingenious and curious theories were advanced, as to the number
of the animals and the space necessary for their reception, with
elaborate calculations as to the subdivisions of the ark and the
quantities of food, &c., required to be stored. It may be interesting to
recall the account given in the first edition of the _Encyclopaedia
Britannica_ (1771), which contained a summary of some of these various
views (substantially repeated up to the publication of the eighth
edition, 1853). "Some have thought the dimensions of the ark as given by
Moses too scanty ... and hence an argument has been drawn against the
authority of the relation. To solve this difficulty many of the ancient
Fathers and the modern critics have been put to miserable shifts. But
Buteo and Kircher have proved geometrically that, taking the cubit of a
foot and a half, the ark was abundantly sufficient for all the animals
supposed to be lodged in it. Snellius computes the ark to have been
above half an acre in area ... and Dr Arbuthnot computes it to have been
81,062 tuns ... if we come to a calculation the number of species of
animals will be found much less than is generally imagined, not
amounting to a hundred species of quadrupeds, nor to two hundred of
birds.... Zoologists usually reckon but an hundred and seventy species
in all." The progress of the "higher criticism," and the gradual
surrender of attempts to square scientific facts with a literal
interpretation of the Bible, are indicated in the shorter account given
in the eighth edition, which concludes as follows:--"the insuperable
difficulties connected with the belief that all the existing species of
animals were provided for in the ark, are obviated by adopting the
suggestion of Bishop Stillingfleet, approved by Matthew Poole, Pye
Smith, le Clerc, Rossenmüller and others, that the deluge did not extend
beyond the region of the earth then inhabited, and that only the animals
of that region were preserved in the ark." The first edition also gives
an engraving of the ark (repeated in the editions up to the fifth), in
shape like a long roofed box, floating on the waters; the animals are
seen in separate stalls. By the time of the ninth edition (1875) precise
details are no longer considered worthy of inclusion; and the age of
scientific comparative mythology has been reached.
For a comparative study of the occurrence of the ark in the various
deluge myths, in the present edition, see DELUGE; COSMOGONY; BABYLONIA
AND ASSYRIA.
The _Ark of the Law_, in the Jewish synagogue, is a chest or cupboard
containing the scrolls of the Torah (Pentateuch), and is placed against
or in the wall in the direction of Jerusalem. It forms one of the most
decorative features of the synagogue, and often takes an architectural
design, with columns, arches and a dome. There is a fine example in the
synagogue at Great St Helens, London. (X.)
_Ark of the Covenant, Ark of the Revelation, Ark of the Testimony_, are
the full names of the sacred chest of acacia wood overlaid with gold
which the Israelites took with them on their journey into Palestine. The
Biblical narratives reveal traces of a considerable development in the
traditions regarding this sacred object, and those which furnish the
most complete detail are of post-exilic date when the original ark had
been lost. The fuller titles of the ark originate in the belief that it
contained the "covenant" (berith) or "testimony" ('eduth), the technical
terms for the Decalogue (q.v.); primarily, however, it would seem to
have been called "the ark of Yahweh" (or "Elohim"), or simply "the ark."
The word itself (aron) designates an ordinary chest (cp. Gen. i. 26; 2
Kings xii. 10), and the (late) description of its appearance represents
it as an oblong box 2½ cubits long, 1½ cubits in breadth and height
(roughly 1.2 by .75 metres). It was lined within and without with gold,
and through four golden rings were placed staves of acacia wood, by
means of which it was carried. A slab of the same metal (the so-called
"mercy-seat," _kapporeth_, Gr. _hilasterion_) covered the top, and this
was surmounted by two Cherubim (Ex. xxv. 10-22, xxxvii. 1-9). The
latter, however, are not mentioned in earlier passages (Deut. x. 1, 3),
and would naturally increase the weight of the ark, which, according to
2 Sam. xv. 29, could be carried by two men.
The ark was borne by the Levites (Deut. x. 8), and the latest narratives
amplify the statement with a wealth of detail characteristic of the
post-exilic interest in this order. (See LEVITES.) An interesting
passage relating the commencement of an Israelite journey vividly
illustrates the power of the sacred object. As the ark started, it was
hailed with the cry,"Arise, Yahweh, let thine enemies be scattered, let
them that hate thee flee from before thee," and when it came to rest,
the cry again rang out,"Return, O Yahweh, to the myriads of families of
Israel" (Num. x. 33-36). This saying appears to imply a settled life in
Canaan, but both affirm the warlike significance of Yahweh and the ark.
Thus it is the permanent pledge of Yahweh's gracious presence; it guides
the people on their journey and leads them to victory. It is no mere
receptacle, but a sacrosanct object as much to be feared as Yahweh
himself. To presume to fight without it was to invite defeat, and on one
notable occasion the Israelites attempted to attack their enemy north of
Kadesh without its aid, and were defeated (Num. xiv. 44 sq.). There are
many gaps in its history, and although at the crossing of the Jordan and
at the fall of Jericho the ark figures prominently (Josh. iii. sq., vi.
sq.), it is unaccountably missing in stories of greater national moment.
Once it is found at Bethel (Judges xx. 27 sq.). It is met with again at
Shiloh, where it is under the care of Eli and his sons, descendants of
an ancient family of priests (1 Sam. ii. 28; cp. Josh. xviii. 1). After
a great defeat of Israel by the Philistines it was brought into the
field, but was captured by the enemy. The trophy was set up in the
Philistine temple of Ashdod, but vindicated its superiority by
overthrowing the god Dagon. A plague smote the city, and when it was
removed to Ekron, pestilence followed in its wake. After taking counsel
the Philistines placed the ark with a votive offering upon a new cart
drawn by two cows. The beasts went of their own accord to Beth-shemesh,
where it remained in the field of a certain Joshua. Again a disaster
happened through some obscure cause, and seventy of the sons of Jeconiah
were smitten (1 Sam. vi. 19, R.V., margin). Thence it was removed to the
house of Abinadab of Kirjath-jearim, who consecrated his son to its
service (1 Sam. iv.-vii. 1). For many years the ark remained
untouched--apparently forgotten. Shiloh disappears from history; neither
Saul nor even Samuel, whose youth had been spent with it, takes any
further thought of it. After a remarkable period of obscurity, the ark
enters suddenly into the history of David (2 Sam. vi.). Some time after
the capture of Jerusalem the ark was brought from Baal-Judah, but at the
threshing-floor of Nacon (an unintelligible name) Abinadab's son Uzzah
laid hands upon it and was struck down for his impiety. On this account
the place is said to have received the name Perez-Uzzah ("breach of
Uzzah"). It was taken into the house of Obed-edom the Gittite (i.e. of
Gath), and brought a blessing upon his house during the three months
that it remained there. Finally the king had it conveyed to the city of
David, where a tent was prepared to shelter it. Once at Jerusalem, it
seems to have lost its unique value as the token of Yahweh's presence;
its importance was apparently merged with that of the Temple which
Solomon built. The foundation of the capital would pave the way for the
belief that the national god had taken a permanent dwelling-place in the
royal seat. The prophets themselves lay no weight upon the ark as the
central point of Jerusalem's holiness. The real Deuteronomic code does
not mention it, and to Jeremiah (iii. 16) it was a thing of no
consequence. Later, in the age of the priestly schools, the ark received
much attention, although it must obviously be very doubtful how far a
true recollection of its history has survived. But nowhere is any light
thrown upon its fate. The invasion of Shishak, the capture of Jerusalem
by Joash (2 Kings xiv. 13, 14), the troublous reign of Manasseh, the
destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar, have found each its
supporters. The wild legends of its preservation at the taking of
Jerusalem (2 Macc. ii. and elsewhere) only show that the popular mind
was unable to share the view that the ark was an obsolete relic. More
poetical is the tradition that the ark was raised to heaven, there to
remain till the coming of the Messiah, a thought which embodies the
spiritual idea that a heavenly pledge of God's covenant and faithfulness
had superseded the earthly symbol.[1]
A critical examination of the history of the Israelite ark renders it
far from certain that the object was originally the peculiar possession
of all Israel. Many different traditions have gathered around the story
of the Exodus, and the ark was not the only divinely sent guide or
forerunner which led the Israelites. Its presence at Shiloh, and its
prominence in the life of Joshua, support the view that it was the
palladium of the Joseph tribes, but the traditions in question conflict
with others. The account of the commencement of the ark's journey
associates it with Moses and his kin (Num. x. 29 sqq.)--that is, with
the south Palestinian clans with which the term "Levites" appears to be
closely connected. (See LEVITES.) A distinct movement direct into Judah
is implied by certain old traditions (see CALEB), but this is
subordinated to the more comprehensive account of the journey round by
the east of the Jordan. (See EXODUS, THE.) The narratives in 1 Sam.
iv.-vi. stand on a plane by themselves, and the gap between them and 2
Sam. vi. has not been satisfactorily fixed. But it is not certain that
the two belong to the same cycle of tradition; Kirjath-jearim and
Baal-Judah are identified only in later writings, and the behaviour of
Saul's daughter (2 Sam. vi. 15 sqq.) may conceivably imply that the ark
was an unknown object to Benjamites. It is of course possible that the
ark was originally the sacred shrine of the clans which came direct to
Judah, and that the traditions in 1 Sam. iv.-vi., Josh. iii. sqq. are of
secondary origin, and are to be associated with its appearance at
Shiloh, the fall of which place, although attributed to the time of
Samuel, is apparently regarded by Jeremiah (xxvi. 6) as a recent event.
Of these two divergent traditions, it would seem that the one which
associates it with the kin of Moses and David may be traced farther in
those late narratives which connect the ark closely with the Levites and
even attribute its workmanship to Bezalel, a Calebite (Ex. xxxi. 2; 1
Chron. ii. 19 sqq.). The tradition in Psalms cxxxii. 6 of the search for
the ark at Jaar (Kirjath-jearim) and Ephratah is not clear; but a
comparison with 1 Chron. ii. 50 seems to show that it recognized the
"Calebite" origin of the ark.
See, on this, S.A. Cook, _Critical Notes on 0. T. History (Index_
s.v.), and, for other views, Kosters, _Theol. Tijd_. xxvii. 361 sqq.;
Cheyne, _Encyc. Bib._ "Ark"; G. Westphal, _Yahwes Wohnstätten_, pp. 55
sqq., 85 sqq. (Giessen, 1908).
Whether the ark originally contained some symbol of Yahweh or not has
been the subject of much discussion. Thus, it has been held that it
contained stone fetishes (meteoric stones and the like) from Yahweh's
original abode on Sinai or Horeb. As the palladium of the Joseph tribes,
it has even been suggested that the bones of Joseph were treasured in
the ark. Others have regarded it as an empty portable throne,[2] or as a
receptacle for sacred serpents (analogies in Frazer, _Pausanias_, iv.
pp. 292, 344). That it contained the tables of the law (Deut. x. 2; 1
Kings viii. 9) was the later Israelite view, and the subsequent
development is illustrated in Heb. ix. 4. It is enough to decide that
the ark represented in some way or other the presence of Yahweh and that
the safety of his followers depended upon its security (analogies in
Frazer, _Paus._ x. p. 283). The Semitic world affords many examples of
the belief that a man's religion was part of his political connexion and
that the change of nationality involved change of cult. He who leaves
his land to enter another, leaves his god and is influenced by the
religion of his new home (1 Sam. xxvi. 19; Ruth i. 16 sqq.), but
strangers know not "the cult of the God of the land" (2 Kings xvii. 26).
No nation willingly changes its god (Jer. ii. 11), and there are means
whereby the follower of Yahweh may continue his worship even when
outside Yahweh's land (2 Kings v. 17). When a people migrate they may
take with them their god, and if they conceive him to be a spiritual
being who cannot be represented by an image, they may desire a
symbolical expression of or, rather, a substitute for his presence.
Accordingly the conception of the ark must be based in the first
instance upon the beliefs of the particular clans or tribes whose sacred
object it was.
See further, W.R. Smith, _Religion of the Semites_, p. 37; Schwally,
_Kriegsaltertümer_, i. p. 9; _Revue biblique_ (1903), pp. 249 sqq.;
and on the ark, generally, in addition to the literature already
cited, Kautzsch, Hastings' _Dict. Bible_, v. p. 628; A.R.S. Kennedy,
_Century Bible: Samuel_ (_Appendix_); E. Meyer, _Die Israeliten, Index
s.v. "Lade,"_; and R.H. Kennett, _Enc. of Rel. and Ethics_.
(S. A. C.)
FOOTNOTES:
[1] Cp. Rev. xi. 19, and W.R. Smith, _Old Test. in Jew. Church,
Index_. For later traditional material, see Buxtorf, _De Arca
Foederis_ (Basel, 1659).
[2] But see Budde, _Expos. Times_ (1898), pp. 398 sqq.; _Theolog.
Stud. u. Krit._ (1906), pp. 489-507. The possibility must be conceded
that there were several arks in the course of Hebrew history and that
separate tribes or groups of tribes had their own sacred object.
ARKANSAS, a river of the United States of America, rising in the
mountains of central Colorado, near Leadville, in lat. 39° 20' N., long.
106° 15' W., and emptying into the Mississippi, at Napoleon, Arkansas,
in lat. 33° 40' N. Its total length is about 2000 m., and its drainage
basin (greater than that of the Upper Mississippi) about 185,000 sq. m.
It is the greatest western affluent of the Missouri-Mississippi system.
It rises in a pocket of lofty peaks at an altitude of 10,400 ft. on a
sharply sloping plateau, down which it courses as a mountain torrent,
dropping 4625 ft. in 120 m. At Canyon City it passes out of the Rockies
through the Grand Canyon of the Arkansas; then turning eastward, and
soon a turbid, shallow stream, depositing its mountain detritus, it
flows with steadily lessening gradient and velocity in a broad,
meandering bed across the prairies and lowlands of eastern Colorado,
Kansas, Oklahoma and Arkansas, shifting its direction sharply to the
south-east in central Kansas. The Arkansas ordinarily receives little
water from its tributaries save in time of floods. In topography and
characteristics and in the difficulties of its regulation the Arkansas
is in many ways typical of the rivers in the arid regions of the western
states. The gradient below the mountains averages 7.5 ft. per mile
between Canyon City and Wichita, Kansas (543 m.), about 1.5 ft. between
Wichita and Little Rock (659 m.), and 0.65 of a foot from Little Rock to
the mouth (173 m.). The shores are sand, clay or loam throughout some
1300 m., with very rare rock ridges or rapids, and the banks rise low
above ordinary water. The waters are constantly rising and falling, and
almost never is the discharge at any point uniform. Every year there
are, normally, two distinct periods of high water; one an early freshet
due mainly to the heavy winter rainfall on the lower river, when the
upper river is still frozen hard; the other in the late spring, due to
the setting in of rains along the upper courses also, and to the melting
of the snow in the mountains. The lowest waters are from August to
December. In the summer there are sometimes violent floods due to
cloud-bursts. Everywhere along the river there is a never-ending
variation of velocity and discharge, and an equally ceaseless
transformation of the river's bed and contour. These changes become
revolutionary in times of flood. All these characteristics are
accentuated below Little Rock. The depth of water at this point has been
known to vary from 27 ft. to only half-a-foot, and the discharge to fall
to 1170 cub. ft. per second. There is often no more than 1.5 ft. of
water, and far below Little Rock a depth of 3 ft. on crossings is not
infrequent. In many places there are different channels for high and low
water, the latter being partly filled by each freshet, and recut after
each subsidence; and the river meanders tortuously through the alluvial
bottom in scores of great bends, loops and cut-offs. It is estimated
that the eating and caving of the shore below Little Rock averages 7.64
acres per mile every year (as against 1.99 acres above Little Rock). By
way of the White river cut-off the Arkansas finds an additional outlet
through the valley of that river in times of high water, and the White,
when the current in its natural channel is deadened by the backwaters of
the Mississippi, finds an outlet by the same cut-off through the valley
of the Arkansas. This backwater, where it meets and checks the current
of the Arkansas, occasions the precipitation of enormous alluvial
deposits, and vast quantities of snags. The banks are disintegrated
along this part of the river and built up again on the opposite side to
their original height in the extraordinarily short time of two or three
years, the channel remaining all the while narrow. At the mouth of the
White, the Arkansas and the Mississippi the level of recurrent floods is
6 or 8 ft. above the timber-bearing soil along the banks, and all along
the lower river the country is liable to overflow; and as the land
backward from the stream slopes downward from the banks heaped up by
successive flood-deposits, each overflow creates along the river a
fringe of swamps. These features, although exaggerated in the portion of
the river now in question, are qualitatively characteristic of its
entire course below the mountains.
Up to the 30th of June 1907 the government of the United States expended
$2,384,557 on improvements along the Arkansas. Almost half of this sum
was required for snagging operations alone. There is a considerable
traffic on the river within the borders of Arkansas in miscellaneous
freights, and a slight passenger movement. The river is rarely navigable
above Fort Smith, and during a considerable part of the year not above
Pine Bluff. Steamer service is maintained the year round between this
point and Memphis. Ordinarily there are some 400 m. of channel open to
steamers part of the year, and in time of high flood considerably more.
To the mouth of the Grand river (460 m.) the river is open about four
months in a year for vessels of 4 ft. draft and about eight months for
vessels of 2 ft. draft.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--General descriptions of different portions of the river
are indicated in the Index to the _Reports of the Chief of Engineers,
U.S. Army_ (many volumes, 1879-1900). See also H. Gannett, _Profiles
of Rivers in the U.S._ (U.S. Geolog. Survey, 1901); Greenleaf,
"Western Floods," in _Engin. Mag._ xii. 945-958; U.S. Geolog. Survey,
_Bull._ 140; I.C. Russell, _Rivers of North America_ (1898); T.J.
Vivian, _Transportation, Rivers of the Miss. Valley_ (U.S. Census,
1890, special Rp.).
ARKANSAS, one of the South Central states of the United States of
America, situated between 89° 40' N. and 94° 42' W., bounded N. by
Missouri, E. by the Mississippi river, separating it from Tennessee and
Mississippi, and W. by Texas and Oklahoma. Its area is 53,335 sq. m., of
which 810 are water surface.
Arkansas lies in the drainage basin of the lower Mississippi, and has a
remarkable river system. The Arkansas bisects the state from W. to E.;
along its valley lie the oldest and largest settlements of the state.
Nine other considerable streams drain the state; of these, the Red, the
Ouachita, the White and the St Francis are the most important. There are
a number of swamps and bayous in the eastern part.
_Physical Features._--The surface of Arkansas is the most diversified of
that of any state in the central Mississippi valley. It rises, sloping
upward toward the N.W., from an average elevation of less than 300 ft.
in the south-east to heights of 2000 ft. and more in the north-western
quarter. There are four physiographic regions: two of highlands; one of
river valley plain separating the two highland areas; while the fourth
is a region of hills, lowlands and scanty prairie. The last covers the
E. half of the state, and is part of the Gulf or coastal plain province
of the United States. If a line be drawn from the point where the Red
river cuts the western boundary to where the Black cuts the northern, E.
of it is the Gulf plain and W. of it are the highlands (over 500 ft.)
and the mineral regions of the state. They are divided by the valley of
the Arkansas river into two regions, which are also structurally
different. South of the river are the Ouachita Mountains, and north of
it are the Boston Mountains. The Ouachita Mountains are characterized by
close folding and faulting. Their southern edge is covered with
cretaceous deposits, and their eastern edge is covered as well with the
tertiary deposits of the Gulf plains. The Arkansas valley is marked by
wide and open folding. The Boston Mountains are substantially a
continuation of the Ozark dome of Missouri. Their northern border is
marked by an escarpment of 500 to 700 ft. in height. The trend is from
E. to W. between Batesville and Wagoner, Oklahoma. In structure they are
monoclinical, their rocks--sandstones and shales--being laid southward
and blending on that side with the Arkansas valley region. The entire
region is very much dissected by streams, and the topography is
characteristically of a terrace and escarpment type. In the highlands N.
of the Arkansas the country is very irregularly broken; S. of the river
the hills lie less capriciously in short, high ranges, with low, fertile
valleys between them. The Ouachitas extend 200 m., from within Oklahoma
(near Atoka) to central Arkansas, near Little Rock. They are
characterized by long, low ridges bearing generally W.-E., with wide,
flat valleys. Near the western boundary of the state they attain a
maximum altitude of 2900 ft. above the sea, and 2000 ft. above the
valleys of the Arkansas and Red river; falling in elevation eastward (as
westward) to 500-700 ft. at their eastern end. Five peaks rise above
2000 ft. Magazine Mountain, 2833 ft. above the sea-level and 2350 ft.
above the surrounding country, is the highest point between the
Alleghanies and the Rockies. Altitudes of 2250 ft. are attained in the
Boston Mountains, which are the highest portion of the Ozark uplift, and
the most picturesque. The streams are vigorous, and in their lower
courses flow in deep-cut gorges, 500 to 1000 ft. deep, almost deserving
the name of canyons. The main streams are tortuous, and their dendritic
tributaries have cut the region into ridges. The mountains do not fill
the N.W. quarter of the state, and are separated from a lower, greatly
eroded highland region on their N. by a bold escarpment 500 to 1000 ft.
in height. Along the upper course of the White river in the Bostons and
in the country about Hot Springs in the Ouachitas is found the most
beautiful scenery of the highlands; few regions are more beautiful. The
valley region embraces the bottom-lands along the Mississippi, and up
the Arkansas as far as Pine Bluff, and the cypress swamp country of the
St Francis.
_Climate._--The climate of the state is "southern," owing to the
influence of the Gulf of Mexico. The mean temperatures for the different
seasons are normally about 41.6°, 61.1°, 78.8° and 61.9° F. for winter,
spring, summer and autumn respectively. The normal mean precipitations
are about 11.7, 14.5, 10.5 and 10.2 in. for the same seasons. The
extreme range of the monthly isotherms crossing the state is from about
35° in winter to 81° F. in summer, and the range of annual isotherms
from about 54° to 60° F. That is, the variation of mean annual
temperatures for different parts of the state is only 6° F. The
variation of the mean annual temperature for the entire state is only 4°
(from 59° to 63° F.). The variation of precipitation is as great as 30
in. (from 34 to 64 in.) according to locality. There is little snow, no
severe winter cold, and no summer drought. Sheltered valleys in the
interior produce spring crops three or four weeks earlier than is usual
in Kansas. The climate is generally healthy.
_Flora._--Arkansas lies in the humid, or Austroriparian, area of the
Lower Austral life-zone, except the highlands of the Ozark uplift and
Ouachita Mountains, which belong to the humid, or Carolinian, area of
the Upper Austral. The state possesses a rich fauna and flora. From an
economic standpoint its forests deserve special mention. The forest
lands of the state include four-fifths of its area, and three-fourths
are actually covered by standing timber. Valuable trees are of great
variety: cottonwood, poplar, catalpa, red cedar, sweet-gum, birch-eye,
sassafras, persimmon, ash, elm, sycamore, maple, a variety of pines,
pecan, locust, dogwood, hickory, various oaks, beech, walnut and cypress
are all abundant. There are one hundred and twenty-nine native species
of trees. The yellow pine, the white oak and the cypress are the most
valuable growths. The northern woods are mainly hard; the yellow pine is
most characteristic of the heavy woods of the south central counties;
and magnificent cypress abounds in the north-east. Hard woods grow even
on the alluvial lands. "The hard-wood forests of the state are hardly
surpassed in variety and richness, and contain inestimable bodies of the
finest oak, walnut, hickory and ash timber" (U.S. Census, 1870 and
1900). The growth on the alluvial bottoms and the lower uplands in the
E. is extraordinarily vigorous. The leading species of the Appalachian
woodland maintain their full vigour of growth nearer to the margin of
forest growth in this part of the Mississippi valley than in any other
part of the United States; and some species, such as the holly, the
osage orange and the pecan, attain their fullest growth in Arkansas
(Shaler). There are two Federal forest reserves (4968 sq. m.).
_Soil._--The soils of Arkansas are of peculiar variety. That of the
highlands is mostly but a thin covering, and their larger portion is
relatively poorly fitted for agriculture. The uplands are generally
fertile. Their poor soils are distinctively sandy, those of the lowlands
clayey; but these elements are usually found combined in rich loams
characterized by the predominance of one or the other constituent.
Finally the alluvial bottoms are of wonderful richness.
_Agriculture._--This variety of soils, a considerable range of moderate
altitudes and favourable factors of heat and moisture promote a rich
diversity in agriculture. Arkansas is predominantly an agricultural
state. The farm area of 1860 was only 28.2% of the whole area of the
state, that of 1900 (16,636,719 acres) was 49%; and while only a fifth
of this farm area was actually improved in 1860, two-fifths were
improved in 1900; thus, the part of the state's area actually cultivated
approximately quadrupled in four decades. The value of products in 1900
($79.6 millions) was 44% of the total farm values ($181.4 millions). The
rise in average value of farm lands since 1870 has not been a fifth of
the increase of the aggregate value of all farm property.
The Civil War wrought a havoc from which a full recovery was hardly
reached before 1890. The economic evolution of the state since
Reconstruction has been in the main that common to all the old slave
states developing from the plantation system of ante-bellum days,
somewhat diversified and complicated by the special features of a young
and border community. The farms of Arkansas increased in number 357.8%,
in area 73.7% and in total true (as distinguished from tax) valuation
about 53.8% between 1860 and 1900; the decade of most extraordinary
growth being that of 1870-1880. Thus Arkansas has shared that fall in
the average size of farms common to all sections of the Union (save the
north central) since 1850, but especially marked since the Civil War in
the "Cotton States," owing to the subdivision of large holdings with the
introduction of the tenant system. The rapidity of the movement has not
been exceptional in Arkansas, but the size of its average farm, less in
1850 than that of the other cotton states, was in 1900, 93.1 acres
(108.8 for white farmers alone, 49.0 for blacks alone), which was even
less than that of the North Atlantic states (96.5 acres, the smallest
sectional unit of the Union). The percentage of farms worked by owners
fell from 69.1% in 1880 to 54.6% in 1900; the difference of the balances
or 14.5% indicates the increase of tenant holdings, two-thirds of these
being for shares.
It is interesting to compare in this matter the whites and the negroes.
In actual numbers the white farmers heavily predominate, whether as
owners, tenants for cash or tenants on shares; but if we look at the
numbers within each race holding by these respective tenures (65.0, 8.7
and 26.3% respectively for whites; 25.6, 33.7 and 40.7% for negroes, in
1900), we see the lesser independence of the negro farmer. The cotton
counties, which are the counties of densest coloured habitancy,
exemplify this fact with great clearness. The few negroes in the white
counties of the uplands are much better off than those in the cotton
lowlands; more than three times as large a part of them owners; the
poorer element is segregated in the cotton region. In Arkansas, as
elsewhere in the south, negro tenants, like white tenants, are more
efficient than owners working their own lands. The black farmer is in
bondage to cotton; for him still "Cotton is King." He gives it
four-fifths of his land; while his white rival allows it only a quarter
of his, less by half than the area he gives to live-stock, dairying, hay
and grains. At Sunnyside, on the west bank of the Mississippi, negro
tenant farmers have been practically forced out of business by Italians,
who produced in 1899-1904 more than twice as much lint cotton per
working hand, and 70% more per acre. The general place of the negro in
agriculture is shown also by the fact that more than four-fifths of the
farm acreage and farm values of the state are in the hands of the
whites. The white farmer gives an outlay in labour and fertilizers on
his farm greater by 61.4% than the black, gathers a produce greater by
22.5%, and possesses a farm of a value 53.5% greater (Census, 1900).
Cotton is the leading product. It absorbs about a third of the area
under crops, and its returns ($28,000,000 in 1899) are about a half of
the value of all crops. A part of the cotton lands of Arkansas are among
the richest in the south. Other distinctively southern products
(tobacco, &c.) are of no importance in Arkansas. Cereals are given more
than twice as much acreage as cotton, but yield only a third as great
aggregate returns, Indian corn being much the most remunerative; about
three-fourths of the cereal acreage are given to its cultivation, and it
ranks after cotton in value of harvest.[1] For all the other staple
agricultural products of the central states the showing of Arkansas is
uniformly good, but not noteworthy. But its rank as a fruitgrowing
country is exceptional. Plums, prunes, peaches, pears and grapes are
cultivated very generally over the western half of the state (grapes in
the east also), but with greatest success in the south-west; apples
prosper best in the north-west. Small berries are a very important
product. All fruits are of the finest quality. For apples the state
makes probably a finer showing than that of any other state except
Oregon. About ninety varieties are habitually entered in national
competitions. The fruit industry generally has developed with extreme
rapidity.
_Manufactures._--Although Arkansas is rich in minerals and in forests,
in 1900 only 2% of its population were engaged in manufacturing. But the
development has been rapid; the value of products multiplied seven
times, the wages paid nine, and the capital invested twelve, in the
years 1880-1900; and the increase in the same categories from 1900-1905
was 35, 42.8 and 82.4% respectively.[2] It must be noted as
characteristic of the state that of the total manufactures in 1905,
80.3% were produced in rural districts (83.7 in 1900). About two-thirds
of the increase between 1890 and 1900 was in the lumber industry which
was of slight importance before the former year; it represented more
than half the total value of the manufactures of the state in 1905
(output, 1905, $28,065,171 and of mill products $3,786,772 additional);
in the value of lumber and timber products the state ranked sixth among
the states of the United States in 1900, and seventh in 1905. After the
lumber and timber industry ranked in 1905 the manufacture of cotton-seed
oil and cake ($4,939,919) and flour and grist milling. Cotton ginning
increased 739% from 1890 to 1900.
[Illustration: Map of Arkanas.]
_Minerals._--The progress of coal-mining has been a striking feature of
the state's economy since 1880. The field extends from Oklahoma eastward
to central Arkansas, along both sides of the Arkansas river. A
production of 5000 tons (short) in 1882 became 542,000 tons in 1891 and
2,229,172 tons in 1903--a maximum for the state up to 1905; in 1907 the
yield was 2,670,438 tons, valued at $4,473,693; the value of the product
increased more than eight-fold in 1886-1900. The United States
Geological Survey estimates that three-fourths of the coal area (over
1700 sq. m.) can made commercially productive. Apart from coal the great
and varied mineral wealth of the state has been only slightly utilized.
The great zinc and lead area along the northern border in the plateau
portion of the Ozark region has proved a disappointment in development;
the iron areas have hardly been touched, and the product of the
exceptionally promising deposits of manganese lost ground after 1890
before the output of Virginia and Georgia. Among the products of the
rich stone quarries of the state, only that of abrasive stones is
important in the markets of the Union; the novaculites of Arkansas are
among the finest whetstones in the world. Deposits of true chalk are
utilized in the manufacture of Portland cement for local markets. The
chalk region lies in the S. E. part of the state, S. of the Ouachita
Mountains. Bauxite was discovered in the state in 1887, and the product
increased from 5045 long tons in 1899 to 50,267 long tons in 1906, the
production for the whole country in 1899 being 35,280 long tons and in
1906 75,332 long tons. The only other states in which bauxite was
produced during the period were Alabama and Georgia, which in this
respect have greatly declined in importance relatively to Arkansas.
Extremely valuable and varied marls, kaolins and clays, fuller's earth,
asphaltum and mineral waters show special promise in the state's
industry. In 1906 diamonds were found in a peridotite dike in Pike
county 2½ m. S. E. of Murfreesboro; this is the first place in North
America where diamonds have been found _in situ_, and not in glacial
deposit or in river gravel.
_Communications._--The rivers afford for light craft (of not over 3 ft.
draft) about 3000 m. of navigable waters, a river system unequalled in
extent by that of any other state. The labours of the United States
government have much extended and very greatly improved this navigation,
materially lessening also the frequency and havoc of floods along the
rich bottom-lands through which the rivers plough a tortuous way in the
eastern and southern portions of the state. As a result of these
improvements land and timber values have markedly risen, and great
impetus has been given to traffic on the rivers, which carry a large
part of the cotton, lumber, coal, stone, hay and miscellaneous freights
of the state. The greatest of these internal improvements is the St
Francis levee, from New Madrid, Missouri, to the mouth of the St
Francis, 212 m. along the Mississippi; an area of 3500 sq. m., of
exceptional fertility, is here reclaimed at a cost of about $1500 per
sq. m. (as compared with $10,000 per sq. m. for the 2500 sq. m.
reclaimed by the Nile works at Assuan and Assiut). Whether with regard
to area or population, Arkansas is also relatively well supplied with
railways (4,472.8 m. at the end of 1907). A state railway commission
controls transportation rates, which are also somewhat checked by the
competition of river freights. There is also a considerable passenger
traffic on the Arkansas.
_Population._--The population in 1910 was 1,574,449. The growth in
1880-1900 is shown by the following table:--
+------+-----------+-------+-------+----------+---------------------+
| | | | | |% Increase by decades|
|Census| Total |% White|% Negro| Average +------+------+-------+
| Year.| Pop. | Pop. | Pop. |per sq. m.|Total |White | Negro |
+------+-----------+-------+-------+----------+------+------+-------+
| 1880 | 802,525 | 73.7 | 26.3 | 15.1 | 65.6 | 63.3 | 72.4 |
| 1890 | 1,128,211 | 72.6 | 27.4 | 21.5 | 40.6 | 38.4 | 46.6 |
| 1900 | 1,311,561 | 72.0 | 28.0 | 25.0 | 16.3 | 15.4 | 18.7 |
+------+-----------+-------+-------+----------+------+------+-------+
In 1900 the rank of the state in total population was twenty-fifth, and
in negro population tenth. The proportion of the coloured element
steadily rose from 11% in 1820 to 28% in 1900, at which time there were
more than a dozen counties along the border of the Mississippi and lower
Arkansas in which the negroes numbered 50 to 89% of the total. They have
never been a large element in the highland counties; it was these
counties which were most strongly Unionist at the time of the Civil War,
and which to-day are the region of diversified industry. About a ninth
of the state's population is gathered into towns of more than 2000
inhabitants. Fort Smith (pop. 11,587 in 1900), Little Rock, the state
capital (38,307), and Pine Bluff (11,496) lie in the valley of the
Arkansas. In 1900 a dozen other towns had a population exceeding 2500,
the most important being Hot Springs (9973), Helena (5550), Texarkana
(4914), Jonesboro (4508), Fayetteville (4061), Eureka Springs (3572),
Mena (3423) and Paragould (3324). Foreign blood has only very slightly
permeated the state; negroes and native whites of native parents make up
more than 95% of its population. Immigration is almost entirely from
other southern states. The strongest religious sects are the Methodists
and Baptists.
_Government._--The present constitution of the state dates from 1874
(with amendments). Few features mark it off from the usual type of such
documents. The governor holds office for two years; he has the pardoning
and veto power, but his veto may be overridden by a simple majority in
each house of the whole number elected to that house (a provision
unusual among the state constitutions of the Union). There is no
lieutenant-governor. The legislature is bicameral, senators holding
office for four years, representatives (about thrice as numerous) for
two. The length of the regular biennial legislative sessions is limited
to sixty days, but by a vote of two-thirds of the members elected to
each house the length of any session may be extended. Special sessions
may be called by the governor. A majority of the members elected to each
of the two houses suffices to propose a constitutional amendment, which
the people may then accept by a mere majority of all votes cast at an
election for the legislature (an unusually democratic provision); no
more than three amendments, however, can be proposed or submitted at the
same time. The supreme court has five members, elected by the people for
eight years; they are re-eligible. The population of the state entitles
it to seven representatives in the national House of Representatives,
and to nine votes in the Electoral College (census of 1900). Elections
of members of the state legislature and of Congress are not held at the
same time--a very unusual provision. Elections are by Australian ballot;
the constitution prescribes that no law shall "be enacted whereby the
right to vote at any election shall be made to depend upon any previous
registration of the elector's name" (extremely unusual). The
qualifications for suffrage include one year's residence in the state,
six months in the county, and one month in the voting district, next
before election; idiots, insane persons, convicts, Indians not taxed,
minors and women are disqualified; aliens who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States vote on the same terms
as actual citizens. An amendment of 1893 requires the exhibition of a
poll-tax receipt by every voter (except those "who make satisfactory
proof that they have attained the age of twenty-one years since the time
of assessing taxes next preceding" the election). There is nothing in
the constitution or laws of Arkansas with any apparent tendency to
disfranchise the negroes; there are statutory provisions (1866-1867)
against intermarriage of the races and constitutional and statutory
(1886-1887) provisions for separate schools, a "Jim Crow" law (1891)
requires railways to provide separate cars for negroes, and a law (1893)
provides for separate railway waiting-rooms for negroes. Giving or
accepting a challenge to a duel bars from office, but this survival of
the ante-bellum social life is to-day only reminiscent. Declared
atheists are similarly disqualified. There is no constitutional
provision for a census. Marriage is pronounced a civil contract. A law
for compulsory education was passed in 1909.
_Finance._--The constitution makes 1% on the assessed valuation of
property a maximum limit of state taxation for ordinary expenses, but by
an amendment of 1906 the legislature may levy three mills on the dollar
per annum for common schools; and may "authorize school districts to
levy by a vote of the qualified electors of such district a tax not to
exceed seven mills on the dollar in any year for school purposes." The
state debt in 1874 was $12,108,247, of which about $9,370,000 was
incurred after the Civil War for internal improvement schemes. This new
debt was practically repudiated in 1875 by a decision of the supreme
court, and completely set aside in 1884 by constitutional amendment.
Until 1900, when an adjustment of the matter was reached, there was also
another disputed debt to the national government, owing to the collapse
in 1839 of a so-called Real Estate Bank of Arkansas, in which the state
had invested more than $500,000 paid to it by the United States in
exchange for Arkansas bonds to be held as an investment for the
Smithsonian Institution, on which bonds the state defaulted after 1839.
If the unacknowledged debt be included (as it often is; and hence the
necessity of reference to it), very few states--and those all western or
southern--have a heavier burden per capita. But the acknowledged debt
was in 1907 only $1,250,500, and this is not a true debt, being a
permanent school fund that is not to be paid off; of this total in 3%
bonds, $1,134,500 is held by the common schools and $116,000 by the
state university. In net combined state and local debt, Arkansas ranks
very low among the states of the Union. The hired labourer suffers from
the "truck" system, taking his pay in board and living, in goods, in
trade on his employer's credit at the village store; the independent
farmer suffers in his turn from unlimited credit at the same store,
where he secures everything on the credit of his future crops; and if he
is reduced to borrow money, he secures it by vesting the title to his
property temporarily in his creditor. His legal protections under such
"title bonds" are much slighter than under mortgages. Homesteads
belonging to the head of a family and containing 80 to 160 acres
(according to value) if in the country, or a lot of ¼ to one acre
(according to value), if in town, village or city, are exempt from
liability for debts, excepting liens for purchase money, improvements or
taxes. A married man may not sell or mortgage a homestead without his
wife's consent.
_Education._--The legal beginnings of a public school system date from
1843; in 1867 the first tax was imposed for its support. Only white
children were regarded by the laws before Reconstruction days. There are
now separate race schools, with terms of equal length, and offering like
facilities; the number of white and coloured teachers employed is
approximately in the same proportion to the number of attending children
of the respective races; in negro districts two out of three school
directors are usually negroes. "The coloured race as a whole go to the
schools as regularly and as numerously in proportion as do the whites"
(Shinn). Of the current expenses of the common schools about
three-fourths is borne by the localities; the state distributes its
contribution annually among the counties. There is also a permanent
school fund derived wholly from land grants from the national
government. The total expenditure for the schools is creditable to the
state; but before 1909 hardly half the school population attended; and
in general the rural conditions of the state, the shortness of the
school terms and the dependence of the schools primarily upon local
funds and local supervision, make the schools of inadequate and quite
varying excellence. The average expenditure in 1906 for tuition per
child enrolled was $4.93, and the average length of the school term was
only eighty-one days. In June 1906 there were 1102 school houses in the
state valued at $100 or less. In 1905-1906 the Peabody Board gave $2000
to aid rural schools, and in general it has done much for the
improvement of country public schools throughout the state. In 1906 an
amendment to the state constitution, greatly increasing the tax
resources available for educational work, was passed by a large popular
vote. The University of Arkansas was opened at Fayetteville in 1872. The
law and medical faculties are at Little Rock. A branch normal school,
established 1873-1875 at Pine Bluff, provides for coloured students, who
enjoy the same opportunities for work, and are accorded the same
degrees, as the students at Fayetteville; they are about a fourth as
numerous. In 1905-1906 there were 497 students in the college of liberal
arts, sciences and engineering, 548 in the preparatory school and 26 in
the conservatory of music and arts, all in Fayetteville; 171 in the
medical school and 46 in the law school in Little Rock; and 240 in the
branch normal college at Pine Bluff. The university and the normal
school are supported by the Morrill Fund and by state appropriations.
The state still suffered in 1906 from the lack of a separate and special
training school for teachers; but in 1907 the legislature voted to
establish a state normal school. Of the Morrill Fund (see MORRILL,
JUSTIN SMITH), three-elevenths goes to the normal school. The
agricultural experiment station of the university dates from 1887. The
financial support of the university has been light, about three-fifths
coming from the United States government. Besides the university there
are about a score of denominational colleges or academies, of which
half-a-dozen are for coloured students. Among the large denominational
colleges are Philander Smith College, Little Rock (Methodist Episcopal,
1877); Ouachita College, Arkadelphia (Baptist, 1886); Hendrix College,
Conway (Methodist Episcopal, South, 1884); and Arkansas College,
Batesville (Presbyterian, 1872). There are few libraries in Arkansas. In
this matter her showing has long been among the very poorest in the
Union relatively to her population. Daily papers are few in number. The
state charitable institutions--insane asylum, deaf-mute and blind
institutes--and the penitentiary, are at Little Rock.
Local government is of the ordinary southern county type, without
noteworthy variations. Municipal corporations rest upon a general state
law, not upon individual charters. The liquor question is left by the
state to county (i.e. including "local," or town) option, and
prohibition is the most common county law, the alternative being
high-licence.
_History._--The first settlement by Europeans in Arkansas was made in
1686 by the French at Arkansas Post (later the residence of the French
and Spanish governors, important as a trading post in the earlier days
of the American occupation, and the first territorial capital,
1819-1820). In 1720 a grant on the Arkansas was made to John Law. In
1762 the territory passed to Spain, in 1780 back to France, and in 1803
to the United States as a part of the "Louisiana Purchase." Save in the
beginnings of western frontier trade, and in a great mass of litigation
left to the courts of later years by the curious and uncertain methods
of land delimitation that prevailed among the French and Spanish
colonists, the pre-American period of occupation has slight connexions
with the later period, and scant historical importance.
From 1804 to 1812 what is now Arkansas was part of the district (and
then the territory) of Louisiana, and from 1812 to 1819 of the territory
of Missouri. Its earliest county organizations date from this time. It
was erected successively into a territory of the first and second class
by acts of Congress of the 2nd of March 1819 and the 21st of April 1820.
By act of the 15th of June 1836 it was admitted into the Union as a
slave state.
There is little of general interest in the history of ante-bellum days.
Economic life centred in the slave plantation, and there was remarkable
development up to the Civil War. The decade 1819-1829 saw the first
newspaper (1819), the beginning of steamboating on Arkansas rivers, and
the first weekly mail from the east. Trade was largely confined to the
rivers and freighting for Sante Fé and Salt Lake before the war, but the
first railway entered the state in 1853. Social life was sluggish in
some ways and wild in others. An unhappy propensity to duelling, the
origin in Arkansas of the bowie-knife,--from an alleged use of which
Arkansas received the nickname, which it has always retained, of the
"toothpick state,"--and other backwoods associations gave the state a
reputation which to some extent has survived in spite of many years of
sober history. The questions of the conduct of territorial affairs do
not seem to have been contested systematically on national party lines
until about 1825. The government of Arkansas before the Civil War was
always in the hands of a few families closely intermarried. From the
beginning the state has been unswervingly Democratic, save in the
Reconstruction years, though often with heavy Whig or Republican
minorities.
In February 1861 the people of Arkansas voted to hold a convention to
consider the state of public affairs. The convention assembled on the
4th of March. Secession resolutions were defeated, and it was voted to
submit to the people the question whether there should be "co-operation"
through the Lincoln government, or "secession." The plan was endorsed of
holding a convention of all the states to settle the slavery question,
and delegates were chosen to the proposed Border State Convention that
was to meet at Frankfort, Kentucky, on the 27th of May. Then came the
fall of Fort Sumter and the proclamation of President Lincoln calling
for troops to put down rebellion. The governor of Arkansas curtly
refused its quota. A quick surge of ill-feeling, all the bitterer on
account of the divided sentiments of the people, chilled loyalty to the
Union. The convention reassembled on call of the governor, and on the
6th of May, with a single dissentient voice, passed an ordinance of
secession. It then repealed its former vote submitting the question of
secession to the people. On the 16th of May Arkansas became one of the
Confederate States of America.
In the years of war that followed, a very large proportion of the
able-bodied men of the state served in the armies of the Confederacy;
several regiments, some of coloured troops, served the Union. Union
sentiment was strongest in the north. In 1862-1863 various victories
threw more than half the state, mainly the north and east, under the
Federal arms. Accordingly, under a proclamation of the president,
citizens within the conquered districts were authorized to renew
allegiance to the Union, and a special election was ordered for March
1864, to reorganize the state government. But meanwhile, a convention of
delegates chosen mainly at polls opened at the army posts, assembled in
January 1864, abolished slavery, repudiated secession and the secession
war debt, and revised in minor details the constitution of 1836,
restricting the suffrage to whites. This new fundamental law was
promptly adopted by the people, i.e. by its friends, who alone voted.
But the representatives of Arkansas under this constitution were never
admitted to Congress.
The Federal and Confederate forces controlled at this time different
parts of the state; there was some ebb and flow of military fortune in
1864, and for a short time two rival governments. Chaotic conditions
followed the war. The fifteenth legislature (April 1864 to April 1865)
ratified the Thirteenth Amendment, and passed laws against
"bush-whacking," a term used in the Civil War for guerilla warfare,
especially as carried on by pretended neutrals. Local militia,
protecting none who refused to join in the common defence, and all
serving "not as soldiers but as farmers mutually pledged to protect each
other from the depredations of outlaws who infest the state," strove to
secure such public order as was necessary to the gathering of crops, so
as "to prevent the starvation of the citizens" (governor's circular,
1865). Struggling in these difficulties, the government of the state was
upset by the first Reconstruction Act. The governor in these years
(1865-1868) was a Republican, the caster of the single Union vote in the
convention of 1861; but the sixteenth legislature (1866-1867) was
largely Democratic. It undertook to determine the rights of persons of
African descent, and regrettable conflicts followed. The first
Reconstruction Act having declared that "no legal state government or
adequate protection for life or property" existed in the "rebel states,"
Arkansas was included in one of the military districts established by
Congress. A registration of voters, predominantly whites, was at once
carried through, and delegates were chosen for another constitutional
convention, which met at Little Rock in January 1868. The secessionist
element was voluntarily or perforce excluded. This convention ratified
the Fourteenth Amendment, and framed the third constitution of the
state, which was adopted by a small majority at a popular election,
marred by various irregularities, in March 1868. By its provisions
negroes secured full political rights, and all whites who had been
excluded from registration for the election of delegates to the
convention were now practically stripped of political privileges. The
organization of Arkansas being now acceptable to Congress, a bill
admitting it to the Union was passed over President Johnson's veto, and
on the 22nd of June 1868 the admission was consummated.
Arkansas now became for several years Republican, and suffered
considerably from the rule of the "carpet-baggers." The debt of the
state was increased about $9,375,000 from 1868 to 1874, largely for
railroad and levee schemes; much of the money was misappropriated, and
in a case involving the payment of railway aid bonds the action of the
legislature in pledging the credit of the state was held nugatory by the
state supreme court in 1875 on the ground that, contrary to the
constitution, the bond issue had never been referred to popular vote. An
amendment to the constitution approved by a popular vote in 1884
provided that the General Assembly should "have no power to levy any
tax, or make any appropriation, to pay" any of the bonds issued by
legislative action in 1868, 1869 and 1871. The current expenses of the
state in the years of Reconstruction were also enormously increased. The
climax of the Reconstruction period was the so-called Baxter-Brooks war.
Elisha Baxter (1827-1899) was the regular Republican candidate for
governor in 1872. He was opposed by a disaffected Republican faction
known as "brindletails," or as they called themselves, "reformers," led
by Joseph Brooks (1821-1877), and supported by the Democrats. Baxter was
irregularly elected. The election was contested, and his choice was
confirmed by the legislature, the court of last resort in such cases. He
soon showed a willingness to rule as a non-partisan, and favoured the
re-enfranchisement of white citizens. This would have put the Democrats
again in power, and they rallied to Baxter, while the Brooks party now
assumed the name of "regulars," and received the support of the
"carpet-bag" and negro elements. After Baxter had been a year in office
Brooks received a judgment of _ouster_ against him from a state circuit
judge, and got possession of the public buildings (April 1874). The
state flew to arms. The legislature called for Federal intervention (May
1874), and Federal troops maintained neutrality while investigations
were conducted by a committee sent out by Congress. As a result,
President Grant pronounced for Baxter, and the Brooks forces disbanded.
The chief result was another convention. In 1873 the article of the
constitution which had disfranchised the whites was repealed, and the
Democrats thus regained power. By an overwhelming majority the people
now voted for another convention, which (July to October 1874) framed
the present constitution. It removed all disfranchisement, and embraced
equitable amnesty and exemption features. It also took away all
patronage from the governor, reduced his term to two years, forbade him
to proclaim martial law or suspend the writ of _habeas corpus_, and
abolished all registration laws: all these provisions being reflections
of Reconstruction struggles. The people ratified the new constitution on
the 13th of October 1874. After Reconstruction the state again became
Democratic, and the main interest of its history has been the progress
of economic development.
The following is a list of the territorial and state governors of
Arkansas:--
_Territorial._
James Miller[3] 1819-1825
George Izard 1825-1828
John Pope[4] 1829-1835
William S. Fulton 1835-1836
_State._
James S. Conway 1836-1840 Democrat
Archibald Yell[5] 1840-1844 "
Thomas S. Drew[6] 1844-1849 "
John S. Roane 1849-1852 "
Elias N. Conway 1852-1860 "
Henry M. Rector[7] 1860-1862 "
Harris Flannigan[8] 1862-1865 "
Isaac Murphy[9] 1864-1868 Republican
C.H. Smith[10] 1867-1868 "
Powell Clayton 1868-1871 "
Ozra A. Hadley[11] 1871-1873 "
Elisha Baxter 1873-1874 "
August H. Garland 1874-1877 Democrat
William R. Miller 1877-1881 "
Thomas J. Churchill 1881-1883 "
James H. Berry 1883-1885 "
Simon P. Hughes 1885-1889 "
James P. Eagle 1889-1893 "
William M. Fishback 1893-1895 "
James P. Clarke 1895-1897 "
Daniel W. Jones 1897-1901 "
Jefferson Davis 1901-1907 "
John S. Little 1907-1908 "
X.O. Pindall, Acting Gov. 1908 "
George W. Donaghey 1909 "
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Information regarding the resources, climate,
population and industries of Arkansas should be sought in the volumes
of the United States Census, United States Department of Agriculture
and the United States Geological Survey (for the last two there are
various bibliographical guides); consult also the publications of the
Arkansas (Agricultural) Experiment Station (at Fayetteville), the
reports of the state horticulturist, the biennial reports of the state
treasurer, of the auditor, and of the Bureau of Mines, Manufactures
and Agriculture (all published at Little Rock).
The constitutional documents may best be consulted in the latest
compiled _Statutes_ of the state. See also J.H. Shinn, _Education in
Arkansas_ (U.S. Bur. of Education, 1900); W.F. Pope, _Early Days in
Arkansas_ (Little Rock, 1895); and F. Hempstead, _Pictorial History of
Arkansas_ (St Louis, 1890). Similar to the last in popular character,
vast in bulk and loose in method, are a series of _Biographical and
Pictorial Histories_, covering the different sections of the state (1
vol. by J. Hallum, Albany, 1887; four others compiled anonymously,
Chicago, 1889-1891). For the Reconstruction period see especially the
Poland Report in House Rp. No. 2, 43 Cong. 2 Sess., vol. i. (1874),
and John M. Harrell's _The Brooks and Baxter War: A History of the
Reconstruction Period in Arkansas_ (St Louis, Missouri, 1893), which
is frankly in favour of Baxter; also a paper by B.S. Johnson in vol.
ii. (1908) of the _Publications of the Arkansas Historical
Association_.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] For 1906 the _Yearbook_ of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
reported the following statistics for Arkansas:--Indian corn,
52,802,659 bu., valued at $24,817,207; oats 3,783,706 bu., valued at
$1,589,157; wheat, 1,915,250 bu., valued at $1,436,438; rice, 131,440
bu., valued at $111,724; rye, 23,652 bu., valued at $19,631;
potatoes, 1,666,960 bu., valued at $1,116,863; hay, 113,491 tons,
valued at $1,123,561.
[2] The special census of the manufacturing industry for 1905 was
concerned only with the establishment conducted under the so-called
"factory system"; for purposes of comparison the figures for 1900
have been reduced to the same standard, and this fact should be borne
in mind with regard to the percentages of increase given above.
[3] During this period Robert Crittenden, the secretary of the
territory, was frequently the acting governor.
[4] Robert Crittenden was acting governor in 1828-1829.
[5] Samuel Adams was acting governor from the 29th of April to the
9th of November 1844.
[6] R.C. Byrd was acting governor from the 11th of January to the 19th
of April 1849.
[7] Thomas Fletcher was acting governor from the 4th to the 15th of
November 1862.
[8] Confederate governor.
[9] Union governor.
[10] United States military (sub) governor.
[11] Acting governor.
ARKANSAS CITY, a city of Cowley county, Kansas, U.S.A., situated near
the S. boundary of the state, in the fork of the Arkansas and Walnut
rivers. Pop. (1890) 8347; (1900) 6140, of whom 302 were negroes; (1905)
7634; (1910) 7508. The city is served by the Atchison, Topeka & Santa
Fé, the Missouri Pacific, the St Louis & San Francisco, the Midland
Valley and the Kansas South-Western railways. To the south is the
Chilocco Indian school (in Key county, Oklahoma), established by the
U.S. government in 1884. A canal joining the Arkansas and Walnut rivers
furnishes good water power. The manufactories include flour mills,
packing establishments, a creamery and a paint factory. The city is
situated in the midst of a rich agricultural region and is a supply
centre for southern Kansas and Oklahoma, with large jobbing interests.
The municipality owns and operates the waterworks. Arkansas City, first
known as Creswell, was settled in 1870, was chartered as a city under
its present name in 1872 and was rechartered in 1880.
ARKLOW, a seaport and market town of Co. Wicklow, Ireland, in the east
parliamentary division, 49 m. S. of Dublin, by the Dublin &
South-Eastern railway. Pop. (1901) 4944. Sea-fisheries are prosecuted,
and there are oyster-beds on the coast, but the produce requires to be
freed from a peculiar flavour by the purer waters of the Welsh and
English coast before it is fit for food. The produce of the copper and
lead mines of the Vale of Avoca is shipped from the port. There are
cordite and explosives works, established by Messrs Kynoch of
Birmingham, England. In 1882 an act was passed providing for the
improvement of the harbour and for the appointment of harbour
commissioners. The town hall and the Protestant church (1899) were gifts
of the earl of Carysfort, in whose property the town is situated. There
are slight ruins of an ancient castle of the Ormondes, demolished in
1649 by Cromwell. On the 9th of June 1798 the Irish insurgents,
attacking the town, were defeated by the royal troops near Arklow
Bridge, and their leader, Father Michael Murphy, was killed.
ARKWRIGHT, SIR RICHARD (1732-1792), English inventor, was born at
Preston in Lancashire, on the 23rd of December 1732, of parents in
humble circumstances. He was the youngest of thirteen children, and
received but a very indifferent education. After serving his
apprenticeship in his native town, he established himself as a barber at
Bolton about 1750, and later amassed a little property from dealing in
human hair and dyeing it by a process of his own. This business he gave
up about 1767 in order to devote himself to the construction of the
spinning frame. The spinning jenny, which was patented by James
Hargreaves (d. 1778), a carpenter of Blackburn, Lancashire, in 1770,
though he had invented it some years earlier, gave the means of spinning
twenty or thirty threads at once with no more labour than had previously
been required to spin a single thread. The thread spun by the jenny
could not, however, be used except as weft, being destitute of the
firmness or hardness required in the longitudinal threads or warp.
Arkwright supplied this deficiency by the invention of the
spinning-frame, which spins a vast number of threads of any degree of
fineness and hardness.
The precise date of the invention is not known; but in 1767 he employed
John Kay, a watchmaker at Warrington, to assist him in the preparation
of the parts of his machine, and he took out a patent for it in 1769.
The first model was set up in the parlour of the house belonging to the
free grammar school at Preston. This invention having been brought to a
fairly advanced stage, he removed to Nottingham in 1768, accompanied by
Kay and John Smalley of Preston, and there erected his first spinning
mill, which was worked by horses. But his operations were at first
greatly fettered by want of capital, until Jedediah Strutt (q.v.),
having satisfied himself of the value of the machines, entered with his
partner, Samuel Need, into partnership with him, and enabled him in 1771
to build a second factory, on a much larger scale, at Cromford in
Derbyshire, the machinery of which was turned by a water-wheel. A fresh
patent, taken out in 1775, covered several additional improvements in
the processes of carding, roving and spinning. As the value of his
processes became known, he began to be troubled with infringements of
his patents, and in 1781 he took action in the courts to vindicate his
rights. In the first case, against Colonel Mordaunt, who was supported
by a combination of manufacturers, the decision was unfavourable to him,
on the sole ground that the description of the machinery in the
specification was obscure and indistinct. In consequence he prepared a
"case," which he at one time intended to lay before parliament, as the
foundation of an application for an act for relief. But this intention
was subsequently abandoned; and in a new trial (_Arkwright_ v.
_Nightingale_) in February 1785, the presiding judge having expressed
himself favourably with respect to the sufficiency of the specification,
a verdict was given for Arkwright. On this, as on the former trial,
nothing was stated against the originality of the invention.
In consequence of these conflicting verdicts, the whole matter was
brought, by a writ of _scire facias_, before the court of King's Bench,
to have the validity of the patent finally settled, and it was not till
this third trial, which took place in June 1785, that Arkwright's claim
to the inventions which formed the subject of the patent was disputed.
To support this new allegation, Arkwright's opponents brought forward,
for the first time, Thomas Highs, or Hayes, a reed-maker at Bolton, who
stated that he had invented a machine for spinning by rollers previously
to 1768, and that he had employed the watchmaker Kay to make a model of
that machine. Kay himself was produced to prove that he had communicated
that model to Arkwright, and that this was the real source of all his
pretended inventions. Having no idea that any attempt was to be made to
overturn the patent on this new ground, Arkwright's counsel were not
prepared with evidence to repel this statement, and the verdict went
against him. On a motion for a new trial on the 10th of November of the
same year it was stated that he was furnished with affidavits
contradicting the evidence that had been given by Kay and others with
respect to the originality of the invention; but the court refused to
grant a new trial, on the ground that, whatever might be the fact as to
the question of originality, the deficiency in the specification was
enough to sustain the verdict, and the cancellation of the patents was
ordered a few days afterwards. His fortunes, however, were not thereby
seriously affected, for by this time his business capacity and
organizing skill had enabled him to consolidate his position, in spite
of the difficulties he had encountered not only from rival manufacturers
but also from the working classes, who in 1779 displayed their antipathy
to labour-saving appliances by destroying a large mill he had erected
near Chorley.
Though a man of great personal strength, Arkwright never enjoyed good
health, and throughout his career of invention and discovery he
laboured under a severe asthmatic affection. A complication of disorders
at length terminated his life on the 3rd of August 1792, at his works at
Cromford. He was knighted in 1786 when he presented a congratulatory
address from the wapentake of Wirksworth to George III., on his escape
from the attempt on his life by Margaret Nicholson.
ARLES, a town of south-eastern France, capital of an arrondissement in
the department of Bouches-du-Rhône, 54 m. N.W. of Marseilles by rail.
Pop. (1906) 16,191. A canal unites Arles with the harbour of Bouc on the
Mediterranean. Arles stands on the left bank of the Rhone, just below
the point at which the river divides to form its delta. A tubular bridge
unites it with the suburb of Trinquetaille on the opposite bank. The
town is hemmed in on the east by the railway line from Lyons to
Marseilles, on the south by the Canal de Craponne. Its streets are
narrow and irregular, and, away from the promenades which border it on
the south, there is little animation. In the centre of the town stand
the Place de la République, a spacious square overlooked by the hôtel de
ville, the museum, and the old cathedral of St Trophime, the finest
Romanesque church in Provence. Founded in the 7th century, St Trophime
has been several times rebuilt, and was restored in 1870. Its chief
portal, which dates from the 12th century, is a masterpiece of graceful
arrangement and rich carving. The interior, plain in itself, contains
interesting sculpture. The choir opens into a beautiful cloister, the
massive vaulting of which is supported on heavy piers adorned with
statuary, between which intervene slender columns arranged in pairs and
surmounted by delicately carved capitals. Two of the galleries are
Romanesque, while two are Gothic. Arles has two other churches of the
Romanesque period, and others of later date. The hôtel de ville, a
building of the 17th century, contains the library. Its clock tower,
surmounted by a statue of Mars, dates from the previous century. The
museum, occupying an old Gothic church, is particularly rich in Roman
remains and in early Christian sarcophagi; there is also a museum of
Provençal curiosities. The tribunal of commerce and the communal college
are the chief public institutions. Arles is not a busy town and its port
is of little importance. There are, however, flour mills, oil and soap
works, and the Paris-Lyon-Méditerranée Railway Company have large
workshops. Sheep-breeding is a considerable industry in the vicinity.
The women of Arles have long enjoyed a reputation for marked beauty, but
the distinctive type is fast disappearing owing to their intermarriage
with strangers who have immigrated to the town.
Arles still possesses many monuments of Roman architecture and art, the
most remarkable being the ruins of an amphitheatre (the _Arénes_),
capable of containing 25,000 spectators, which, in the 11th and 12th
centuries, was flanked with massive towers, of which three are still
standing. There are also a theatre, in which, besides the famous Venus
of Arles, discovered in 1651, many other remains have been found; an
ancient obelisk of a single block, 47 ft. high, standing since 1676 in
the Place de la République; the ruins of the palace of Constantine, the
forum, the thermae and the remains of the Roman ramparts and of
aqueducts. There is, besides, a Roman cemetery known as the Aliscamps
(_Elysii Campi_), consisting of a short avenue once bordered by tombs,
of which a few still remain.
The ancient town, _Arelate_, was an important place at the time of the
invasion of Julius Caesar, who made it a settlement for his veterans. It
was pillaged in A.D. 270, but restored and embellished by Constantine,
who made it his principal residence, and founded what is now the suburb
of Trinquetaille. Under Honorius, it became the seat of the prefecture
of the Gauls and one of the foremost cities in the western empire. Its
bishopric founded by St Trophimus in the 1st century, was in the 5th
century the primatial see of Gaul; it was suppressed in 1790. After the
fall of the Roman empire the city passed into the power of the
Visigoths, and rapidly declined. It was plundered in 730 by the
Saracens, but in the 10th century became the capital of the kingdom of
Arles (see below). In the 12th century it was a free city, governed by a
_podesta_ and _consuls_ after the model of the Italian republics, which
it also emulated in commerce and navigation. In 1251 it submitted to
Charles I. of Anjou, and from that time onwards followed the fortunes of
Provence. A number of ecclesiastical synods have been held at Arles, as
in 314 (see below), 354, 452 and 475.
See V. Clair, _Monuments d'Arles_ (1837); J.J. Estrangin,
_Description de la ville d'Arles_ (1845); F. Beissier, _Le Pays
d'Arles_ (1889); Roger Peyre, _Nîmes, Arles, Orange_ (1903).
(R. Tr.)
_Synod of Arles (314)._--As negotiations held at Rome in October 313 had
failed to settle the dispute between the Catholics and the Donatists,
the emperor Constantine summoned the first general council of his
western half of the empire to meet at Arles by the 1st of August
following. The attempt of Seeck to date the synod 316 presupposes that
the emperor was present in person, which is highly improbable.
Thirty-three bishops are included in the most authentic list of
signatures, among them three from Britain,--York, London and "Colonia
Londinensium" (probably a corruption of Lindensium, or Lincoln, rather
than of Legionensium or Caerleon-On-Usk). The twenty-two canons deal
chiefly with the discipline of clergy and people. Husbands of adulterous
wives are advised not to remarry during the lifetime of the guilty
party. Reiteration of baptism in the name of the Trinity is forbidden.
For the consecration of a bishop at least three bishops are required. It
is noteworthy that British representatives assented to Canon I.,
providing that Easter be everywhere celebrated on the same day: the
later divergence between Rome and the Celtic church is due to
improvements in the _supputatio Romana_ adopted at Rome in 343 and
subsequently.
For the canons see Mansi ii. 471 ff.; Bruns ii. 107 ff.; Lauchert 26
ff. See also W. Smith and S. Cheetham, _Dictionary of Christian
Antiquities_ (Boston, 1875), i. 141 ff. (contains also notices of
later synods at Arles); W. Bright, _Chapters of Early English Church
History_ (2nd edition, Oxford, 1888), 9 f.; Herzog-Hauck,
_Realencyklopadie_ (3rd edition), ii. 59, x. 238 ff.; W. Moller,
_Kirchengeschichte_ (2nd edition by H. von Schubert, Tübingen, 1902),
i. 417. For full titles see COUNCIL. (W. W. R.*)
ARLES, KINGDOM OF, the name given to the kingdom formed about 933 by the
union of the old kingdoms of Provence (q.v.) or Cisjurane Burgundy, and
Burgundy (q.v.) Transjurane, and bequeathed in 1032 by its last
sovereign, Rudolph III., to the emperor Conrad II. It comprised the
countship of Burgundy (_Franche-Comté_), part of which is now
Switzerland (the dioceses of Geneva, Lausanne, Sion and part of that of
Basel), the Lyonnais, and the whole of the territory bounded by the
Alps, the Mediterranean and the Rhone; on the right bank of the Rhone it
further included the Vivarais. It is only after the end of the 12th
century that the name "kingdom of Arles" is applied to this district;
formerly it was known generally as the kingdom of Burgundy, but under
the Empire the name of Burgundy came to be limited more and more to the
countship of Burgundy, and the districts lying beyond the Jura. The
authority of Rudolph III. over the chief lords of the land, the count of
Burgundy and the count of Maurienne, founder of the house of Savoy, was
already merely nominal, and the Franconian emperors (1039-1125), whose
visits to the country were rare and of short duration, did not establish
their power any more firmly. During the first fifty years of their
domination they could rely on the support of the ecclesiastical
feudatories, who generally favoured their cause, but the investiture
struggle, in which the prelates of the kingdom of Arles mostly sided
with the pope, deprived the Germanic sovereigns even of this support.
The emperors, on the other hand, realized early that their absence from
the country was a grave source of weakness; in 1043 Henry III. conferred
on Rudolph, count of Rheinfelden (afterwards duke of Swabia), the title
of _dux et rector Burgundiae_, giving him authority over the barons of
the northern part of the kingdom of Arles. Towards the middle of the
12th century Lothair II. revived this system, conferring the rectorate
on Conrad of Zähringen, in whose family it remained hereditary up to the
death of the last representative of the house, Berthold V., in 1218; and
it was the lords of Zähringen who were foremost in defending the cause
of the Empire against its chief adversaries, the counts of Burgundy. In
the time of the Swabian emperors, the Germanic sovereignty in the
kingdom of Arles was again, during almost the whole period, merely
nominal, and it was only in consequence of fortuitous circumstances that
certain of the heads of the Empire were able to exercise a real
authority in these parts. Frederick I., by his marriage with Beatrix
(1156), had become uncontested master of the countship of Burgundy;
Frederick II., who was more powerful in Italy than his predecessors had
been, and was extending his activities into the countries of the Levant,
found Provence more accessible to his influence, thanks to the
commercial relations existing between the great cities of this country
and Italy and the East. Moreover, the heretics and enemies of the
church, who were numerous in the south, upheld the emperor in his
struggle against the pope. Henry VII. also, thanks to his good relations
with the princes of Savoy, succeeded in exercising a certain influence
over a part of the kingdom of Arles. The emperors further tried to make
their power more effective by delegating it, first to a viceroy, William
of Baux, prince of Orange (1215), then to an imperial vicar, William of
Montferrat (1220), who was succeeded by Henry of Revello and William of
Manupello. In spite of this, the history of the kingdom of Arles in the
13th century, and still more in the 14th, is distinguished particularly
by the decline of the imperial authority and the progress of French
influence in the country. In 1246 the marriage of Charles, the brother
of Saint Louis, with Beatrice, the heiress to the countship of Provence,
caused Provence to pass into the hands of the house of Anjou, and many
plans were made to win the whole of the kingdom for a prince of this
house. At the beginning of the 14th century the bishops of Lyons and
Viviers recognized the suzerainty of the king of France, and in 1343
Humbert II., dauphin of Viennois, made a compact with the French king
Philip VI. that on his death his inheritance should pass to a son or a
grandson of the French king. Humbert, who was perhaps the most powerful
noble in Arles, was induced to take this step as he had just lost his
only son, and Philip had already cast covetous eyes on his lands. Then
in 1349, being in want of money, he agreed to sell his possessions
outright, and thus Viennois, or Dauphiné, passed into the hands of
Philip's grandson, afterwards King Charles V. The emperor Charles IV.
took an active part in the affairs of the kingdom, but without any
consistent policy, and in 1378 he, in turn, ceded the imperial vicariate
of the kingdom to the dauphin, afterwards King Charles VI. This date may
be taken as marking the end of the history of the kingdom of Arles,
considered as an independent territorial area.
See the monumental work of P. Fournier, _Le Royaume d'Arles et de
Vienne_ (Paris, 1890); Leroux, _Recherches critiques sur les relations
politiques de la France avec l'Allemagne de 1292 à 1378_ (Paris,
1882). For the early history of the kingdom, L. Jacob, _Le Royaume de
Bourgogne sous les empereurs franconiens_ (_1038-1129_), (Paris,
1906). The question of the nature and extent of the rights of the
Empire over the kingdom of Arles has given rise, ever since the 16th
century, to numerous juridical polemics; the chief dissertations
published on this subject are indicated in A. Leroux, _Bibliographie
des conflits entre la France et l'Empire_ (Paris, 1902). (R. Po.)
ARLINGTON, HENRY BENNET, EARL OF (1618-1685), English statesman, son of
Sir John Bennet of Dawley, Middlesex, and of Dorothy Crofts, was
baptized at Little Saxham, Suffolk, in 1618, and was educated at
Westminster school and Christ Church, Oxford. He gained some distinction
as a scholar and a poet, and was originally destined for holy orders. In
1643 he was secretary to Lord Digby at Oxford, and was employed as a
messenger between the queen and Ormonde in Ireland. Subsequently he took
up arms for the king, and received a wound in the skirmish at Andover in
1644, the scar of which remained on his face through life.[1] And after
the defeat of the royal cause he travelled in France and Italy, joined
the exiled royal family in 1650, and in 1654 became official secretary
to James on Charles's recommendation, who had already been attracted by
his "pleasant and agreeable humour."[2] In March 1657 he was knighted,
and the same year was sent as Charles's agent to Madrid, where he
remained, endeavouring to obtain assistance for the royal cause, till
after the Restoration. On his return to England in 1661 he was made
keeper of the privy purse, and became the prime favourite. One of his
duties was the procuring and management of the royal mistresses, in
which his success gained him great credit. Allying himself with Lady
Castlemaine, he encouraged Charles's increasing dislike to Clarendon;
and he was made secretary of state in October 1662 in spite of the
opposition of Clarendon, who had to find him a seat in parliament. He
represented Callington from 1661 till 1665, but appears never to have
taken part in debate. He served subsequently on the committees for
explaining the Irish Act of Settlement and for Tangiers. In 1663 he
obtained a peerage as Baron Arlington of Arlington, or Harlington, in
Middlesex, and in 1667 was appointed one of the postmasters-general. The
control of foreign affairs was entrusted to him, and he was chiefly
responsible for the attack on the Smyrna fleet and for the first Dutch
War. In 1665 he advised Charles to grant liberty of conscience, but this
was merely a concession to gain money during the war; and he showed
great activity later in oppressing the nonconformists. On the death of
Southampton, whose administration he had attacked, his great ambition,
the treasurership, was not satisfied; and on the fall of Clarendon,
against whom he had intrigued, he did not, though becoming a member of
the Cabal ministry, obtain the supreme influence which he had expected;
for Buckingham first shared, and soon surpassed him, in the royal
favour. With Buckingham a sharp rivalry sprang up, and they only
combined forces when endeavouring to bring about some evil measure, such
as the ruin of the great Ormonde, who was an opponent of their policy
and their schemes. Another object of jealousy to Arlington was Sir
William Temple, who achieved a great popular success in 1668 by the
conclusion of the Triple Alliance; Arlington endeavoured to procure his
removal to Madrid, and entered with alacrity into Charles's plans for
destroying the whole policy embodied in the treaty, and for making terms
with France. He refused a bribe from Louis XIV., but allowed his wife to
accept a gift of 10,000 crowns;[3] in 1670 he was the only minister
besides the Roman Catholic Clifford to whom the first secret treaty of
Dover (May 1670), one clause of which provided for Charles's declaration
of his conversion to Romanism, was confided (see CHARLES II.); and he
was the chief actor in the deception practised upon the rest of the
council.[4] He supported several other pernicious measures--the scheme
for rendering the king's power absolute by force of arms; the "stop of
the exchequer," involving a repudiation of the state debt in 1672; and
the declaration of indulgence the same year, "that we might keep all
quiet at home whilst we are busy abroad."[5] On the 22nd of April 1672
he was created an earl, and on the 13th of June obtained the Garter; the
same month he proceeded with Buckingham on a mission, first to William
at the Hague, and afterwards to Louis at Utrecht, endeavouring to force
upon the Dutch terms of peace which were indignantly refused. But
Arlington's support of the court policy was entirely subordinate to
personal interests; and after the appointment of Clifford in November
1672 to the treasurership, his jealousy and mortification, together with
his alarm at the violent opposition aroused in parliament, caused him to
veer over to the other side. He advised Charles in March 1673 to submit
the legality of the declaration of indulgence to the House of Lords, and
supported the Test Act of the same year, which compelled Clifford to
resign. He joined the Dutch party, and in order to make his peace with
his new allies, disclosed the secret treaty of Dover to the staunch
Protestants Ormonde and Shaftesbury.[6] Arlington had, however, lost the
confidence of all parties, and these efforts to procure support met with
little success. On the 15th of January 1674 he was impeached by the
Commons, the specific charges being "popery," corruption and the
betrayal of his trust--Buckingham in his own defence having accused him
the day before of being the chief instigator of the French and
anti-Protestant policy, of the scheme of governing by the army, of
responsibility for the Dutch War, and of embezzlement. But the motion
for his removal, owing chiefly to the influence of his brother-in-law,
the popular Lord Ossory, was rejected by 166 votes to 127. His escape
could not, however, prevent his fall, and he resigned the secretaryship
on the 11th of September 1674, being appointed lord chamberlain instead.
In 1675 he made another attempt to gain favour with the parliament by
supporting measures against France and against the Roman Catholics, and
by joining in the pressure put upon Charles to remove James from the
court. In November he went on a mission to the Hague, with the popular
objects of effecting a peace and of concluding an alliance with William
and James's daughter Mary. In this he entirely failed, and he returned
home completely discredited. He had again been disappointed of the
treasurership when Danby succeeded Clifford; Charles having declared
"that he had too much kindness for him to let him have it, for he was
not fit for the office."[7] His intrigues with discontented persons in
parliament to stir up an opposition to his successful rival came to
nothing. From this time, though lingering on at court, he possessed no
influence, and was treated with scanty respect. It was safe to ridicule
his person and behaviour, and it became a common jest for "some courtier
to put a black patch upon his nose and strut about with a white staff in
his hand in order to make the king merry at his expense."[8] He was
appointed a commissioner of the treasury in March 1679, was included in
Sir William Temple's new modelled council the same year, and was a
member of the inner cabinet which was almost immediately formed. In 1681
he was made lord lieutenant of Suffolk. He died on the 28th of July
1685, and was buried at Euston, where he had bought a large estate and
had carried out extensive building operations. His residence in London
was Goring House, on the site of which was built the present Arlington
Street.
Arlington was a typical statesman of the Restoration, possessing
outwardly an attractive personality, and according to Sir W. Temple "the
greatest skill of court and the best turns of art in particular
conversation,"[9] but thoroughly unscrupulous and self-seeking, without
a spark of patriotism, faithless even to a bad cause, and regarding
public office solely as a means of procuring pleasure and profit. His
knowledge of foreign affairs and of foreign languages, gained during his
residence abroad, was considerable, but long absence from England had
also taught him a cosmopolitan indifference to constitutions and
religions, and a careless disregard for English public opinion and the
essential interests of the country. According to Clarendon, he "knew no
more of the constitution and laws of England than he did of China, nor
had he in truth a care or tenderness for church or state, but believed
France was the best pattern in the world."[10] He was one of the chief
promoters of the attempt to reintroduce into England arbitrary
government after the French model, not because he imagined an absolute
monarchy essential to the well-being and security of the state, but
because under such an administration the favourites of a king enjoyed
far greater privileges and profits than under a constitutional
government. Of the same egotistical character was his religion, towards
which his attitude was similar to that of Charles II. himself. He was
credited with having inclined the king towards Romanism. Before the
Restoration he had attended mass with the king abroad, and in opposition
to Lord Bristol had urged Charles to declare publicly his conversion in
order to obtain the long-expected succour from the foreign powers. But
his religion sat lightly upon him as it did upon his master, and it was
often convenient to disguise it. Like the king he continued to profess
and practise Protestantism, and spent large sums in restoring the church
at Euston; and, unlike Clifford, he took the Test in 1673 and remained
in office, successfully concealing his faith till on his deathbed, when
he declared himself an adherent of Roman Catholicism.[11]
He married Isabella of Beerwaert, daughter of Louis of Nassau, by whom
he had one daughter, Isabella, who married Henry, duke of Grafton, the
natural son of Charles II. and Lady Castlemaine.
AUTHORITIES.--In addition to those mentioned above, see _Biographia
Britannica_ (Kippis), accurate and careful, but too partial, and
written without complete knowledge of Arlington's career; Wood's
_Fasti Oxonienses_ (Bliss), ii. 274; _Hist. of Great Britain_ by J.
Macpherson (1776), i. 132-133; _Lauderdale Papers_ (Camden Soc. N.S.,
vols. 34, 36, 38), and MSS. in Brit. Mus.; _Original Letters of Sir R.
Fanshaw_ (1724); _Letters from the Secretaries of State to Francis
Parry_ (1817); _Add. MSS. Brit. Mus._ indexes; _Cat. of State Pap.
Dom._, and _Hist. MSS. Comm.--MSS. of Marquis of Ormonde, and Duke of
Buccleugh at Montagu House_, ii. 49. (P. C. Y.)
FOOTNOTES:
[1] See his portrait in the earl of Arlington's _Letters to Sir W.
Temple_, by Tho. Babington (1701).
[2] Clarendon's _Life and Continuation_, 397.
[3] _Memoirs of Great Britain and Ireland_, by Sir John Dalrymple
(1790), i. 125.
[4] _Ibid._ 114 et seq.
[5] Arlington to Sir B. Gascoyn, in J.T. Brown's _Miscellanea Aulica_
(1702), 66.
[6] On the authority of Colbert, 20th November 1673; Dalrymple's
_Memoirs_, i. 131.
[7] James's statement in Macpherson's _Orig. Pap._ i. 67.
[8] Eachard's _History of England_ (1720), 911.
[9] _Memoirs of W. Temple_, ed. by T.P. Courtenay, ii. 27.
[10] _Life and Con._ 404.
[11] Cf. North's _Examen_, 26; Dalrymple's _Mem._ (1790) i. 40;
Pepys's _Diary_ (Feb. 17, 1663); _Cat. of Clarendon St. Pap._ iii.
295; T. Carte's _Life of the Duke of Ormonde_ (1851), iv. 109.
ARLINGTON, a township of Middlesex county in E. Massachusetts, U.S.A.
Pop. (1890) 5629; (1900) 8603, of whom 2387 were foreign-born; (1910
census) 11,187. Area, 5½ sq. m. It is served by the Boston & Maine
railway. It has pleasant residential villages (Arlington, Arlington
Heights, &c.) with attractive environs, and there is an excellent public
library (the Robbins library). At Arlington Heights there are several
well-known sanatoriums. Spy Pond (about 100 acres) is one of the
prettiest bodies of water in the vicinity of Boston. Arlington is an
important centre for market-gardening (in hot-houses), and along Mill
Brook, in the township, are several factories, including chrome works, a
large mill and a manufactory of pianoforte cases. In 1762 Arlington was
made a "precinct" of Cambridge (of which it was a part from 1635 to
1807) under the name of Menotomy. In 1807 it became a separate township
under the name (retained until 1867) of West Cambridge.
See B. and W.R. Cutter, _History of the Town of Arlington ...
1637-1879_ (Boston, 1880); and C.S. Parker, _The Town of Arlington,
Past and Present_ (Arlington, 1907).
ARLON, the chief town of the Belgian province of Luxemburg, situated on
a hill about 1240 ft. above the sea. Pop. (1904) 10,894. It is a very
ancient town, and in the time of the Romans was called Orolaunum, being
a station on the Antoninian way connecting Reims and Trèves. Authorities
dispute as to the origin of the name, some tracing it to _Ara Lunae_, a
temple of Diana having been erected here, while others more plausibly
derive it from the Celtic words _ar_ (mount) and _lun_ (wooded).
Nowadays the woods have disappeared, and Arlon is chiefly notable for
the extensive views obtainable from the church of St Donat which crowns
the peak. Arlon is no longer fortified. When Vauban by order of Louis
XIV. turned it into a fortress in 1671 great damage was done to the old
Roman wall, the foundations of which were practically intact. In the
local museum are many Roman antiquities collected on the spot, including
several large sculptural stones similar to the celebrated monument at
Igel near Trèves. In the middle ages Arlon was the seat of a powerful
countship (later marquisate), held after 1235 by the dukes of Luxemburg.
As an important strategic position it was several times seized by the
French, e.g. in 1647 and 1651.
ARM (a common Teutonic word; the Indo-European root is _ar_, to join or
fit; cf. the Lat. _armus_, shoulder, and the plural word _arma_,
weapons, Gr. [Greek: armos], joint, and the reduplicated [Greek:
arariskein], to join), the human upper limb from the shoulder to the
wrist, and the fore limb of an animal. (See ANATOMY: _Superficial and
Artistic_, and SKELETON: _Appendicular._) The word is also used of any
projecting limb, as of a crane, or balance, of a branch of a tree, and
so, in a transferred sense, of the branch of a river or a nerve. Through
the Fr. _armes_, from the Lat. _arma_, and so in English usually in the
plural "arms," comes the use of the word for weapons of offence and
defence, and in many expressions such as "men-at-arms,"
"assault-at-arms," and the like, and for the various branches,
artillery, cavalry, infantry, of which an army is composed, the "arms of
the service." "Arms" or "armorial bearings" are the heraldic devices
displayed by knights in battle on the defensive armour or embroidered on
the surcoat worn over the armour and hence called "coats of arms." These
became hereditary and thus are borne by families, and similar insignia
are used by nations, cities, episcopal sees and corporations generally.
(See HERALDRY.)
ARMADA, THE. The Spanish or Invincible Armada was the great fleet (in
Spanish, _armada_) sent against England by Philip II. in 1588. The
marquis of Santa Cruz, to whom the command had first been given, died on
the 9th of February 1588 (according to the Gregorian calendar then used
by Spain; on the 31st of January by the Julian calendar used in England;
the other dates given in this article will be in Old Style, or Julian
calendar). Santa Cruz was succeeded by Don Alonso Perez de Guzman, duke
of Medina Sidonia, a noble of large estate, but of no experience or
capacity, who took the command unwillingly, and only on the reiterated
order of the king. The fleet was collected at Lisbon, after many delays,
and sailed on the 20th of May 1588. Its nominal strength was 132
vessels, of 59,190 tons, carrying 21,621 soldiers and 8066 sailors. But
from a third to a half of the vessels were transports, galleys or very
small boats, and some of them never reached the Channel. The effective
force was far below the paper strength. On the 10th of June, when the
Armada had rounded Cape Finisterre, it was scattered by squalls. Some of
the vessels went on to the appointed rendezvous at the Scilly Isles, but
the majority anchored on the north coast of Spain. Medina Sidonia, who
found many defects in his fleet, did not finally sail till the 12th of
July. On the English side all the royal navy, and such armed merchant
ships as could be obtained from the ports, had been collected under the
command of the lord high admiral Howard of Effingham, who had with him
Hawkins, Drake and Frobisher as subordinate admirals. The number of
vessels is put at 197, but the majority were very small. It is
impossible to state with confidence what were the relative numbers of
guns carried by the two fleets. The Spaniards had more pieces, but their
gunnery was inferior. The English fleet carried 16,000 or 17,000 men, of
whom the large majority were sailors. About 100 of their ships were at
Plymouth with the lord high admiral. The others were in the Downs with
Lord Henry Seymour and Sir William Winter, to co-operate with a Dutch
squadron under Justinus of Nassau in blockading the Flemish ports, then
occupied by the Spanish army of the duke of Parma. The object was to
prevent the proposed junction of the forces of Medina Sidonia and Parma.
On the 20th of July the Armada was seen off the Lizard. It sailed past
Plymouth, and was followed by the English fleet. The Spaniards, who were
heavy sailers, and were hampered by the transports, were much harassed
by the more active English, and were defeated in all their attempts to
board, which it was their wish to do in order to make use of their
superior numbers of men. The flagship of the squadron of Andalucia,
"Nuestra Señora del Rosario," commanded by Don Pedro de Valdes, was
crippled, fell behind and had to surrender. On the 25th of July, when
the fleets were near the Isle of Wight, a shift of the wind offered the
Spaniards a chance of bringing on a close action, but it soon changed
again. The English fleet, of which part had been in some danger, escaped
uninjured, and the Spaniards stood on. They anchored on the 26th of July
at Calais. The duke of Medina Sidonia now sent an officer to Parma,
calling on him to come to sea and join in a landing on the shore of
England. But Parma could not leave port in face of Justinus of Nassau's
squadron. While these messages were going and coming, Lord Howard had
been joined by Lord Henry Seymour and Sir William Winter from the Downs.
A council of war was held, to decide on the measures to be taken to
assail the Spaniards at Calais. The course taken was to send fireships
among them. On the night of the 28th of July the fireships were sent in,
and produced an utter panic in the Armada. Most of the Spanish vessels
slipped their cables and ran to sea. Others weighed anchor, and escaped
in a more orderly style. One great vessel ran ashore and was taken
possession of by the English, who were however compelled to give her up
by the French governor of Calais. On the 29th of July the scattered
Spaniards, who were quite unable to restore order, were attacked by the
English off Gravelines. The engagement was hot, and, though the English
did not succeed in taking any of the Spaniards, they destroyed some of
them, and their superiority in sailing force and gunnery was now so
obvious that the duke of Medina Sidonia lost heart. His large vessels
were indeed so helpless that only a timely shift of the wind saved many
of them from drifting on to the banks of Flanders. Officers and men
alike were completely discouraged. It was now recognized that an
invasion of England could not be carried out in face of the more active
English fleet and the proved impossibility of bringing about the
proposed union with Parma's army. Suggestions were made that the Armada
should sail to Hamburg, refit there, and renew the attack. But by this
time the Spanish force was incapable of energetic action. Medina Sidonia
and his council could think of nothing but of a return to Spain. As the
wind was westerly, and the English fleet barred the way, it was
impossible to sail down the Channel. The only alternative was to take
the route between the north of Scotland and Norway. So the Armada sailed
to the north. Lord Howard followed, after detaching Lord Henry Seymour
to remain in the Downs. He watched the Spaniards to the Firth of Forth.
The English had at that time little knowledge of the seas beyond the
Firth, and they were beginning to run short of food and ammunition. On
the 2nd of August, therefore, they gave up the pursuit. Medina Sidonia
continued to the north, till his pilots told him that it was safe to
turn to the west. Up to this time the loss of the Spaniards in ships had
not been considerable. If the weather had been that of a normal summer,
they would probably have reached home with no greater loss of men than
was usually inflicted on all fleets of the age by scurvy and fever. But
the summer of 1588 was marked by a succession of gales of unprecedented
violence. The damaged and weakened Spanish ships, which were from the
first greatly undermanned in sailors, were unable to contend with the
storms. It is not possible to give the details of the disasters which
overtook them. Nineteen of them are known to have been wrecked on the
coasts of Scotland and Ireland. The crews who fell into the hands of the
English officers in Ireland were put to the sword. Many more of them
disappeared at sea. Of the total number of the vessels originally
collected for the invasion of England one-half, if not more, perished,
and the crews of those which escaped were terribly diminished by scurvy
and starvation.
The failure of the Armada was mainly due to its own interior weakness,
and as a military operation the English victory was less glorious than
some other less renowned achievements of the British fleet. But the
repulse of the great Spanish armament was an event of the first
historical importance. It marked the final failure of King Philip II. of
Spain to establish the supremacy of the Habsburg dynasty and of the
Church of Rome, which he considered as being in a peculiar sense his
charge, in Europe. From that time forward no serious attempt to invade
England was, or could be, made. It became therefore the unconquerable
supporter of that part of Europe which had thrown off the authority of
the pope. The Armada had much of the character of a crusade. Though
Philip II. had political reasons for hostility to Queen Elizabeth, they
were so intimately bound up with the struggle between the Reformation
and the Counter Reformation that the secular and the religious elements
of the conflict cannot be separated from one another. The struggle was
therefore not one between armed forces in national rivalry alone. It was
a trial of strength between two widely different conceptions of life and
of the state--between the medieval and the modern worlds. The volunteers
of all ranks who came forward in large numbers on both sides were
fighting for a religious cause as well as for the interests of their
respective peoples.
AUTHORITIES.--The English side of the story of the Armada can best be
studied in the _State Papers relating to the Defeat of the Spanish
Armada_, edited by Sir J.K. Laughton, and printed for the Navy
Records Society (London, 1894). The Spanish side will be found in _La
Armada Invencible_, by Captain Cesareo Fernandez Duro (Madrid, 1884).
Froude summarized the work of Captain Fernandez Duro in his brilliant
_Spanish Story of the Armada_ (London, 1892). (D. H.)
ARMADILLO, the Spanish designation for the small mail-clad Central and
South American mammals of the order Edentata, constituting the family
_Dasypodidae_. The armature consists of a bony case, partly composed of
solid buckler-like plates, and partly of movable transverse bands, the
latter differing in number with the species, and giving to the body a
considerable degree of flexibility. The bony plates are overlain by
horny scales. Armadillos are omnivorous, feeding on roots, insects,
worms, reptiles and carrion, and are mostly, though not universally,
nocturnal. They are harmless and inoffensive creatures, offering no
resistance when caught; their principal means of escape being the
extraordinary rapidity with which they burrow in the ground, and the
tenacity with which they retain their hold in their subterranean
retreats. Notwithstanding the shortness of their limbs they run with
rapidity. Most of the species are esteemed good eating by the natives of
the countries in which they live. They are all inhabitants of the open
plains or the forests of the tropical and temperate parts of South
America, with the exception of a few species which range as far north as
Texas. The largest species is the giant armadillo (_Priodon gigas_),
measuring nearly a yard long, from the forests of Surinam and Brazil;
while one of the smallest is _Dasypus minutus_, a near ally of the
larger _D. sexcinctus_. The peba (_Tatusia novemcincta_) represents a
group with a large number of movable bands in the armour; while the apar
(_Tolypeutes tricinctus_) and the other members of the same genus are
remarkable for their power of rolling themselves up into balls. For the
distinctive characters of these and the other genera see EDENTATA.
[Illustration: Peba Armadillo (_Tatusia novemcincta_).]
ARMAGEDDON, a name occurring in the Authorized Version of the English
Bible in Rev. xvi. 16. The Revised Version has Harmagedon. The form is
commonly regarded as the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew _har megiddon_,
the mountain district of Megiddo. The writer is describing the place
where the last decisive battle was to be fought at the Day of Judgment,
and Harmagedon may have been chosen as the name because the district
about Megiddo had been on several occasions the scene of great battles
(cf. Judg. iv. 6 ff., v. 19). It has, however, been suggested in the
_Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft_, vii. 170 (1887),
that the name is for _har migdo_, "his fruitful mountain"--the mountain
land of Israel. Prof. Cheyne (_Encyc. Bibl._ s.v.) again, following
suggestions of H. Gunkel, H. Zimmern and P. Jensen, compares the dragon
of the Apocalypse with the Babylonian Tiamat, thinks that some myth is
referred to, and finds the [Greek: magedon] of [Greek: Harmagedon] in
the divine name [Greek: Yesemmigadon], a Babylonian god of the
underworld. The name of the place where Tiamat was defeated by Marduk
perhaps included that of a god of the underworld. (See ANTICHRIST.) From
the application of the word Armageddon to the great battle of the End of
Time comes the use of the phrase "an Armageddon" to express any great
slaughter or final conflict.
ARMAGH, an inland county of Ireland, in the province of Ulster, bounded
N. by Lough Neagh, E. by Co. Down, S. by Louth and W. by Monaghan and
Tyrone. The area is 327,704 acres, or about 512 sq. m. The general
surface of the county is gently undulating and pleasantly diversified;
but in the northern extremity, on the borders of Lough Neagh, there is a
considerable tract of low, marshy land, and the southern border of the
county is occupied by a barren range of hills, the highest of which,
Slieve Gullion, attains an elevation of 1893 ft. In the western portion
of the county are the Few Mountains, a chain of abrupt hills mostly
incapable of cultivation. The county is well watered by numerous
streams. The principal are the Callan, the Tynan and the Tallwater,
flowing into the Blackwater, which, after forming the boundary between
this county and Tyrone, empties itself into the south-western angle of
Lough Neagh. The Tara and Newtown-Hamilton, the Creggan and the Fleury,
flow into the bay of Dundalk. The Cam or Camlin joins the Bann, which,
crossing the north-western corner of the county, falls into Lough Neagh
to the east of the Blackwater. The Newry Canal, communicating with
Carlingford Lough at Warrenpoint, 6 m. below Newry, proceeds northward
through Co. Armagh for about 21 m., joining the Bann at Whitecoat. The
Ulster Canal begins at Charlemont on the river Blackwater, near its
junction with Lough Neagh, proceeding through the western border of the
county, and passing thence to the south-west by Monaghan and Clones into
Upper Lough Erne, after a course of 48 m. Part of Lough Neagh is in the
county, and there are many small loughs, such as Gullion, Cam and Ross.
_Geology._--The flat shore of Lough Neagh in the north is due to the
thick deposit of pale-coloured clays with lignites, which are probably
of Pliocene age, and indicate a reduction of the area of the lake in
still later times. Between this lowland and Armagh city, the early
Cainozoic basalts form slightly higher ground, while on the west a strip
of Trias appears, overlying Carboniferous Limestone. A rough
conglomerate containing blocks of this latter rock forms the hills on
which Armagh itself is built; this outlier is probably Permian. The
Carboniferous Limestone beneath it and around it is red-brown instead of
grey, and is famous for its richness in fish remains. A hummocky
irregular country spreads southward, where the Silurian axis is
encountered, in continuation of the southern uplands of Scotland. Slates
and fine-grained sandstones appear here freely through the glacial
drift. In the south the granite core of this upland is revealed, and is
quarried extensively about Bessbrook. It is penetrated by far younger
intrusive masses at Slieve Gullion and Forkill. These rocks, which
include some highly siliceous lavas, form part of the Eocene series that
is so conspicuously displayed above Carlingford in Co. Louth. Lead-veins
have been worked in various parts of the county from time to time.
_Industries._--The soil of the northern portion of the county is a rich
brown loam, on a substratum of clay or gravel. Towards Charlemont there
is much reclaimable bog resting on a limestone substratum. The eastern
portion of the county is generally of a light friable soil; the southern
portion rocky and barren, with but little bog except in the
neighbourhood of Newtown-Hamilton. The climate of Armagh is considered
to be one of the most genial in Ireland, and less rain is supposed to
fall in this than in any other county. Only about one-twentieth of the
land is naturally barren, and Armagh offers a relatively large area of
cultivable soil. Agriculture, however, is not far advanced, yet owing to
the linen industry the inhabitants are generally in circumstances of
comparative comfort. The principal crops are oats and potatoes, but all
grain crops are decreasing, and flax, formerly grown to a considerable
extent, is now practically neglected. The acreage under pasture slightly
exceeds that of tillage. Cattle, sheep, pigs and poultry show a general
increase in numbers. The principal manufacture, and that which has given
a peculiar tone to the character of the population, is that of linen,
though it has somewhat declined in modern times. It is not necessary to
the promotion of this manufacture that the spinners and weavers should
be congregated in large towns, or united in crowded and unwholesome
factories. On the contrary, most of its branches can be carried on in
the cottages of the peasantry. The men devote to the loom those hours
which are not required for the cultivation of their little farms; the
women spin and reel the yarn during the intervals of their other
domestic occupations. Smooth lawns, pure springs and the open sky are
necessary for perfecting the bleaching process. Hence the numerous
bleachers dwell in the country with their assistants and machinery. Such
is the effect of this combination of agricultural occupations with
domestic manufactures that the farmers are more than competent to supply
the resident population of the county with vegetable, though not with
animal food; and some of the less crowded and less productive parts of
Ulster receive from Armagh a considerable supply of oats, barley and
flour. Apples are grown in such quantities as to entitle the county to
the title applied to it, the orchard of Ireland.
Communications are monopolized by the Great Northern railway company,
whose main line from Belfast divides at Portadown, sending off lines to
Omagh, to Clones and to Dublin. A branch from Omagh joins the Dublin
line to Goraghwood, and from this line there is a branch to Newry in Co.
Down. An electric tram-way connects Bessbrook, a town with important
linen manufactures and granite quarries, with Newry.
_Population and Administration._--The population (72,286 in 1891; 65,619
in 1901) shows a heavy decrease, though emigration affects it less
seriously than the majority of Irish counties. Of the total about 45%
are Roman Catholics, 32% Protestant Episcopalians, and 16%
Presbyterians, the Roman Catholic faith prevailing in the mountainous
districts and the Protestant in the towns and lowlands. About 74% of the
whole constitutes the rural population. The chief towns are Armagh (a
city and the county town, pop. 7588), Lurgan (11,782), Portadown
(10,092), Tanderagee (1427), Bessbrook (2977) and Keady (1466). Armagh
is divided into eight baronies, and contains twenty-five parishes and
parts of parishes, the greater number of which are in the Protestant and
Roman Catholic dioceses of Armagh, and a few in the Roman Catholic
diocese of Dromore. The constabulary has its headquarters at Armagh, the
county being divided into five districts. Assizes are held at Armagh,
and quarter sessions at Armagh, Ballybot, Lurgan, Markethill and
Newtown-Hamilton. The parliamentary divisions are three: mid, north and
south, each returning one member.
_History and Antiquities._--Armagh, together with Louth, Monaghan and
some smaller districts, formed part of a territory called Orgial or
Urial, which was long subject to the occasional incursions of the Danes.
The county was made shire ground in 1586, and called Armagh after the
city by Sir John Perrott. When James I. proceeded to plant with English
and Scottish colonists the vast tracts escheated to the crown in Ulster,
the whole of the arable and pasture land in Armagh, estimated at 77,800
acres, was to have been allotted in sixty-one portions. Nineteen of
these, comprising 22,180 acres, were to have been allotted to the
church, and forty-two, amounting to 55,620 acres, to English and
Scottish colonists, servitors, native Irish and four corporate
towns--the swordsmen to be dispersed throughout Connaught and Munster.
This project was not strictly adhered to in Co. Armagh, nor were the
Irish swordsmen or soldiers transplanted into Connaught and Munster from
this and some other counties. The antiquities consist of cairns and
tumuli; the remains of the fortress of Emain near the city of Armagh
(q.v.), once the residence of the kings of Ulster; and Danes Cast, an
extensive fortification in the south-east of the county, near
Poyntzpass, extending into Co. Down. Spears, battle-axes, collars,
rings, amulets, medals of gold, ornaments of silver, jet and amber, &c.,
have also been found in various places. The religious houses were at
Armagh, Killevy, Kilmore, Stradhailloyse and Tahenny. Of military
antiquities the most remarkable are Tyrone's ditches, near Poyntzpass;
and the pass of Moyry, the entry into the county from the south, which
was fiercely contested by the Irish in 1595 and 1600, is defended by a
castle. The summit of Slieve Gullion is crowned by a large cairn, which
forms the roof of a singular cavern of artificial construction, probably
an early burial-place.
ARMAGH, a city and market town, and the county town of Co. Armagh,
Ireland, in the mid parliamentary division, 89½ m. N.N.W. of Dublin by
the Great Northern railway, at the junction of the Belfast-Clones line.
Pop. (1901) 7588. It is said to derive its name of _Ard-macha_, the Hill
of Macha, from Queen Macha of the Golden Hair, who flourished in the
middle of the 4th century B.C. but earlier it was named from its
situation on the sides of a steep hill called Drumsailech, or the Hill
of Sallows, which rises in the midst of a fertile plain near the Callan
stream. Of high antiquity, and, like many other Irish towns, claiming
(with considerable probability) to have been founded by St Patrick in
the 5th century, it long possessed the more important distinction of
being the metropolis of Ireland; and, as the seat of a flourishing
college, was greatly frequented by students from other lands, among whom
the English and Scots were said to have been so numerous as to give the
name of Trian-Sassanagh, or Saxon Street, to one of the quarters of the
city. St Patrick's bell, long preserved at Armagh, the oldest Irish
relic of its kind, is now, with its shrine of the year 1091, preserved
in the museum of the Royal Irish Academy at Dublin. Of a synod that was
held at Armagh as early as 448, there is an interesting memorial in the
_Book of Armagh_, an Irish MS. dating about A.D. 800. Exposed to the
successive calamities of the Danish incursions, the English conquest and
the English wars, and at last deserted by its bishops, who retired to
Drogheda, the venerable city sank into an insignificant collection of
cabins, with a dilapidated cathedral. From this state of decay, however,
it was raised, in the second half of the 18th century, by the unwearied
exertions of Archbishop Richard Robinson, 1st Lord Rokeby (1709-1794),
which, seconded by similar devotion on the part of succeeding
archbishops of the Beresford family, notably Archbishop Lord John George
Beresford (1773-1862), made of Armagh one of the best built and most
respectable towns in the country. As the ecclesiastical metropolis and
seat of an archbishop (Primate of all Ireland) in both the Protestant
and Roman organizations, it possesses two cathedrals and two
archiepiscopal palaces. As the county town Armagh has a court-house, a
prison, a lunatic asylum and a county infirmary. Besides these there is
a fever hospital, erected by Lord John George Beresford; a college,
which Primate Robinson was anxious to raise to the rank of a university;
a public library founded by him, an observatory, which has become famous
from the efficiency of its astronomers; a number of churches and
schools, and barracks. Almost all the buildings are built of the
limestone of the district, but the Anglican cathedral is of red
sandstone. It stands boldly on the top of the hill, a cruciform
structure dating from the 13th, but practically rebuilt in the 18th
century, in accordance with its original plan. The Roman Catholic
cathedral is in the Decorated style, and was consecrated in 1873. Armagh
was a parliamentary borough until 1885; and, having been incorporated in
1613, so remained until 1835. The administration is in the hands of an
urban district council. Two miles W. of Armagh is Emain, Emania, or
Navan Fort, with large entrenchments and mounds, the site of a royal
palace of Ulster, founded by that Queen Macha who gave her name to the
city. In A.D. 335 it was destroyed during the inroad on the defeat of
the king of Ulster by the three brothers Colla, cousins of Muredach,
king of Ireland. Armagh itself fell before the king Brian Boroime, who
was buried here; and before Edward Bruce in 1315, while previous to the
English war after the Reformation, it had witnessed the struggles of
Shane O'Neill (1564).
ARMAGNAC, formerly a province of France and the most important fief of
Gascony, now wholly comprised in the department of Gers (q.v.). In the
15th century, when it attained its greatest extent, it included, besides
Armagnac, the neighbouring territories of Fezensac, Fezensaguet,
Pardiac, Pays de Gaure, Rivière Basse, Eauzan and Lomagne, and stretched
from the Garonne to the Adour. Armagnac is a region of hills ranging to
a height of 1000 ft., watered by the river Gers and other rivers which
descend fanwise from the plateau of Lannemezan. On the slope of its
hills grow the grapes from which the famous Armagnac brandy is made. In
Roman Gaul this territory formed part of the diocese of Auch (_civitas
Ausciorum_), which corresponded roughly with the later duchy of Gascony
(q.v.). About the end of the 9th century Fezensac (_comitatus
Fedentiacus_), in circumstances of which no trustworthy record remains,
was erected into an hereditary countship. This latter was in its turn
divided, the south-western portion becoming, about 960, the countship of
Armagnac (_pagus Armaniacus_). The domain of this countship, at first
very limited in extent, continued steadily to increase in size, and
about 1140 Count Gerald III. added the whole of Fezensac to his
possessions. Under the English rule the counts of Armagnac were
turbulent and untrustworthy vassals; and the administration of the Black
Prince, tending to favour the towns of Aquitaine at the expense of the
nobles, drove them to the side of France. The complaint against the
English prince which Count John I., in defiance of the treaty of
Brétigny, himself carried to Paris, was the principal cause of the
resumption of hostilities of 1369, and of the incessant defeats
sustained by the English until the accession of their king Henry V.
At that moment Count Bernard VII. was all-powerful at the French court;
and Charles of Orleans, in order to be able to avenge his father, Louis
of Orleans, who had been assassinated in 1407 by John the Fearless, duke
of Burgundy, married Bonne, Bernard's daughter. This was the origin of
the political party known as "the Armagnacs." With the object of
combating the duke of Burgundy's preponderant influence, a league was
formed at Gien, including the duke of Orleans and his father-in-law, the
dukes of Berry, Bourbon and Brittany, the count of Alençon and all the
other discontented nobles. Bernard VII. ravaged the environs of Paris;
and the treaty of Bicêtre (November 2, 1410) only suspended hostilities
for a few months, war breaking out afresh in the spring of 1411. Paris
sided with the duke of Burgundy, and at his instigation Charles VII.
collected an army to besiege the allies in Bourges. The peace of
Bourges, confirmed at Auxerre on the 22nd of August, put an end to the
war. Paris was dominated at that time by the party of the "butchers," or
_Cabochiens_, which had been organized and armed by the count of
Saint-Pol, brother-in-law of John the Fearless. But their excesses, and
in particular the Cabochien ordinance of the 25th of May 1413, aroused
public indignation; a reaction took place, and in the month of August
the Armagnacs in their turn became masters of the government and of the
king. The duke of Burgundy, besieged in Arras, only obtained peace
(treaty of Arras, September 4, 1414), on condition of not returning to
Paris.
Several months later Henry V. declared war against France; and when, in
August 1415, the English landed in Normandy, the Armagnacs and
Burgundians united against them, but were defeated in the battle of
Agincourt (October 25, 1415). John the Fearless then began negotiations
with the English, while Bernard VII., appointed constable in place of
the count of Saint-Pol, who had been killed at Agincourt, returned to
defend Paris. However, the excesses committed by the Armagnacs incensed
the populace, and John the Fearless, who was ravaging the surrounding
districts, re-entered the capital on the 29th of May 1418, in
consequence of the treason of Perrinet Leclerc. On the 12th of June
Bernard VII. and the members of his party were massacred. From this time
onward the Armagnac party, with the dauphin, afterwards King Charles
VII., at its head, was the national party, while the Burgundians united
with the English. This division in France continued until the treaty of
Arras, on the 21st of September 1435. The rivalry of the Burgundians and
Armagnacs brought terrible disasters upon France, and for many years
afterwards the name of "Armagnacs" was bestowed upon the bands of
adventurers who were as much to be feared as the _Grandes Compagnies_ of
the preceding age.
In 1444-45 the emperor Frederick III. of Germany obtained from Charles
VII. a large army of Armagnacs to enforce his claims in Switzerland,
and the war which ensued took the name of the Armagnac war
(_Armagnakenkrieg_). In Germany the name of the foreigners, who were
completely defeated in the battle of St Jakob on the Birs, not far from
Basel, was mockingly corrupted into _Arme Jacken_, Poor Jackets, or
_Arme Gecken_, Poor Fools.
On the death of Charles of Armagnac, in 1497, the countship was united
to the crown by King Charles VII., but was again bestowed on Charles,
the nephew of that count, by Francis I., who at the same time gave him
his sister Margaret in marriage. After the death of her husband, by whom
she had no children, she married Henry of Albret, king of Navarre; and
thus the countship of Armagnac came back to the French crown along with
the other dominions of Henry IV. In 1645 Louis XIV. erected a countship
of Armagnac in favour of Henry of Lorraine, count of Harcourt, in whose
family it continued till the Revolution. James of Armagnac, grandson of
Bernard VII., was made duke of Nemours in 1462, and was succeeded in the
dukedom by his second son, John, who died without issue, and his third
son, Louis, in whom the house of Armagnac became extinct in 1503.
In 1789 Armagnac was a province forming part of the
_Gouvernement-général_ of Guienne and Gascony; it was divided into two
parts, High or White Armagnac, with Auch for capital, and Low or Black
Armagnac. At the Revolution the whole of the original Armagnac was
included in the department of Gers.
For authorities see U. Chevalier, _Répertoire des sources hist, du
moyen âge_, s. Armagnac (Montbéliard, 1894). For the Armagnacs see
Paul Dognon, "Les Armagnacs et les Bourguignons, le comte de Foix et
le dauphin en Languedoc" (1416-1420) in _Annales du Midi_ (1889);
Rameau, "Guerre des Armagnacs dans le Mâconnais" (1418-1435) in the
_Rév. soc. lit. de l'Ain_ (1884); Berthold Zeller, _Les Armagnacs et
les Bourguignons, la Commune de 1413_; E. Wulcker, _Urkunden und
Schreiben betreffend den Zug der Armagnaken_ (Frankfort, 1873); Witte,
_Die Armagnaken im Elsass, 1439-1445_ (Strassburg, 1889).
ARMATOLES (Gr. [Greek: armatolos], a man-at-arms), the name given to
some Greeks who discharged certain military and police functions under
the Turkish government. When the Turks under Sultan Mahommed II.
conquered Greece in the 15th century, many of the Greeks fled into the
mountainous districts of Macedonia and northern Greece, and maintained a
harassing warfare with the conquerors of their country. These men were
called _Klephts_ (modern Gr. [Greek: klephtaes], ancient [Greek:
kleptaes], a thief, a brigand), and during the 16th century the Turkish
pashas came to terms with some of them, and these men were allowed to
retain their local customs, and were confirmed in the possession of
certain districts, while in return they undertook some duties, such as
the custody of the highroads. Those who accepted these terms were called
_armatoles_, and the districts in which they lived _armatoliks_.
Strengthened by a considerable number of Christian Albanians, they
rendered good service in defending Greece, and to some extent repressed
the ravages of the _Klephts_; but their power and independence were
disliked by the Turks. After the peace of Belgrade in 1739 (between
Austria and Turkey), the Turkish government sought to weaken the
position of the _armatoles_. Their privileges were restricted,
Mahommedan Albanians were introduced into the _armatoliks_, and towards
the end of the 18th century their numbers were seriously reduced.
Irritated by this policy the _armatoles_ rendered considerable service
to Ali Pasha of Iannina in his struggle with the Turks in 1820-22, and
afforded valuable assistance to their countrymen during the Greek war of
independence in 1830.
ARMATURE (from Lat. _armatura_, armour), a covering for defence. In
zoology the word is used of the bony shell of the armadillo. In
architecture it is applied to the iron stays by which the lead lights
are secured in windows. (See STANCHION and SADDLE: _Saddle-Bars_.) In
magnetism Dr William Gilbert applied the term to the piece of soft iron
with which he "armed" or capped the lodestone in order to increase its
power. It is also used for the "keeper" or piece of iron which is placed
across the poles of a horse-shoe magnet, and held in place by magnetic
attraction, in order to complete the magnetic circuit and preserve the
magnetism of the steel; and hence, in dynamo-electric machinery, for the
portion which is attracted by the electromagnet, as the moving part of
an electric motor, or, by extension, the moving part of a dynamo (q.v.).
ARMAVIR, (1) The ruins of the old capital of Armenia, on the S.E. slope
of the extinct volcano Ala-geuz, according to legend, built by Armais, a
grandson of Haik, in 1980 B.C., and the capital of the Armenian kings
till the 2nd century A.D. Now a small village, Tapadibi, occupies its
seat. (2) A district town of Russia, northern Caucasia, province of
Kuban, on Kuban river, and on the main line of the Caucasian railway, 40
m. by rail west of Stavropol, built in 1848 for the settlement of
Armenian mountaineers, and now a well-built, growing town with 8000
inhabitants, the merchants of which carry on a lively trade.
ARMENIA (old Persian _Armina_, Armenian _Hayasdan_, or _Hayq_), the
popular modern name of a district south of the Caucasus and Black Sea,
which formed part of the ancient Armenian kingdom. The name, which first
occurs in the cuneiform inscriptions of Darius Hystaspis, supplanted the
earlier Urardhu, or Ararat, but its origin is unknown. In its widest
extent Armenia stretched from 37° to 49° E. long., and from 37½° to 41½°
N. lat.; but this area was never, or only for a brief period, united
under one king. Armenia is now divided between Persia, Russia and
Turkey, and the three boundaries have a common point on Little Ararat.
Geographically, Armenia is a continuation westward of the great Iranian
plateau. On the north it descends abruptly to the Black Sea; on the
south it breaks down in rugged terraces to the lowlands of Mesopotamia;
and on the east and west it sinks more gradually to the lower plateaus
of Persia and Asia Minor. Above the general level of the plateau, 6000
ft., rise bare ranges of mountains, which run from north-east to
south-west at an altitude of 8000-12,000 ft., and culminate in Ararat,
17,000 ft. Between the ranges are broad elevated valleys, through which
the rivers of the plateau flow before entering the rugged gorges that
convey their waters to lower levels. Geologically, Armenia consists of
archaic rocks upon which, towards the north, are superimposed
Palaeozoic, and towards the south later sedimentary rocks. The last have
been pierced by volcanic outbursts that extend southward to Lake Van.
Amongst the higher mountains are the two Ararats; Ala-geuz Dagh, north
of the Aras; Bingeul Dagh, south of Erzerum; and the peaks near Lake
Van. The rivers are the Euphrates, Tigris, Aras, Churuk Su (Chorokh) and
Kelkit Irmak, all rising on the plateau. The more important lakes are
Van, 5100 ft., about twice the size of the Lake of Geneva, and Urmia,
4000 ft., both salt; Gokcha or Sevan, 5870 ft., discharging into the
Aras; and Chaldir, into the Kars Chai. The aspect of the plateau is
dreary and monotonous. The valleys are wide expanses of arable land, and
the hills are for the most part grass-covered and treeless. But the
gorges of the Euphrates and Tigris, and their tributaries, cannot be
surpassed in wildness and grandeur. The climate is varied. In the higher
districts the winter is long and the cold severe; whilst the summer is
short, dry and hot. In Erzerum the temperature ranges from -22° to 84°
F., and snow sometimes falls in June. In the valley of the Aras, and in
the western and southern districts, the climate is more moderate. Most
of the towns lie high, from 4000 to 6000 ft. The villages are usually
built on gentle slopes, in which the houses are partially excavated as a
protection against the severity of the weather. Many of the early towns
were on or near the Araxes, and amongst their ruins are the remains of
churches which throw light on the history of Christian architecture in
the East. Armenia is rich in mineral wealth, and there are many hot and
cold mineral springs. The vegetation varies according to the locality.
Cereals and hardy fruits grow on the higher ground, whilst rice is
cultivated in the hot, well-watered valley of the Araxes. The summer is
so hot that the vine grows at much higher altitudes than it does in
western Europe, and the cotton tree and all southern fruit trees are
cultivated in the deeper valleys. On the fine pasture lands which now
support the flocks of the Kurds, the horses and mules, so celebrated in
ancient times, were reared. Trout are found in the rivers, and a small
herring in Lake Van. The country abounds in romantic scenery; that of
the district of Ararat especially has been celebrated by patriotic
historians like Moses of Chorene and Lazarus of Pharb.
_Population._--Accurate statistics cannot be obtained; but it is
estimated that in the nine vilayets, which include Turkish Armenia,
there are 925,000 Gregorian, Roman Catholic and Protestant Armenians,
645,000 other Christians, 100,000 Jews, Gypsies, &c., and 4,460,000
Moslems. The Armenians, taking the most favourable estimate, are in a
majority in nine kazas or sub-districts only (seven near Van, and two
near Mush) out of 159. In Russian Armenia there are 960,000 Armenians,
and in Persian Armenia 130,000. According to an estimate made by General
Zelenyi for the Caucasus Geographical Society (_Zapiski_, vol. xviii.,
Tiflis, 1896, with map), the population of the nine Turkish vilayets,
Erzerum, Van, Bitlis, Kharput (Mamuret-el-Aziz). Diarbekr, Sivas,
Aleppo, Adana and Trebizond, was 6,000,000 (Armenians, 913,875, or 15%;
other Christians, 632,875, or 11%; and Moslems, 4,453,250, or 74%). In
the first five vilayets which contain most of the Armenians, the
population was 2,642,000 (Armenians, 633,250, or 24%; other Christians,
179,875, or 7%; and Moslems, 1,828,875, or 69%); and in the seven
Armenian kazas the population was 282,375 (Armenians, 184,875, or 65%;
other Christians, 1000, or 0.3%; and Moslems, 96,500, or 34.7%). In 1897
there were 970,656 Armenians in Russia, of whom 827,634 were in the
provinces of Erivan, Elisavetpol and Tiflis.
The total number of Armenians is estimated at 2,900,000 (in Turkey,
1,500,000; Russia, 1,000,000; Persia, 150,000; Europe, America and East
Indies, 250,000).
_History._--The history of Armenia has been largely influenced by its
physical features. The isolation of the valleys, especially in winter,
encouraged a tendency to separation, which invariably showed itself when
the central power was weak. The rugged mountains have always been the
home of hardy mountaineers impatient of control, and the sanctuary to
which the lowlanders fled for safety in times of invasion. The country
stands as an open doorway between the East and the West. Through its
long valleys run the roads that connect the Iranian plateau with the
fertile lands and protected harbours of Asia Minor, and for its
possession nations have contended from the remotest past.
Ethnology.
The original inhabitants of Armenia are unknown, but, about the middle
of the 9th century B.C., the mass of the people belonged to that great
family of tribes which seems to have been spread over western Asia and
to have had a common non-Aryan language. Mixed with these
proto-Armenians, there was an important Semitic element of Assyrian and
Hebrew origin. In the 7th century B.C., between 640 and 600, the country
was conquered by an Aryan people, who imposed their language, and
possibly their name, upon the vanquished, and formed a military
aristocracy that was constantly recruited from Persia and Parthia.
Politically the two races soon amalgamated, but, except in the towns,
there was apparently little intermarriage, for the peasants in certain
districts closely resemble the proto-Armenians, as depicted on their
monuments. After the Arab and Seljuk invasions, there was a large
emigration of Aryan and Semitic Armenians to Constantinople and Cilicia;
and all that remained of the aristocracy was swept away by the Mongols
and Tatars. This perhaps explains the diversity of type and
characteristics amongst the modern Armenians. In the recesses of Mount
Taurus the peasants are tall, handsome, though somewhat sharp-featured,
agile and brave. In Armenia and Asia Minor they are robust, thick-set
and coarse-featured, with straight black hair and large hooked noses.
They are good cultivators of the soil, but are poor, superstitious,
ignorant and unambitious, and they live in semi-subterranean houses as
their ancestors did 800 years B.C. The townsmen, especially in the large
towns, have more regular features--often of the Persian type. They are
skilled artisans, bankers and merchants, and are remarkable for their
industry, their quick intelligence, their aptitude for business, and for
that enterprising spirit which led their ancestors, in Roman times, to
trade with Scythia, China and India. The upper classes are polished and
well educated, and many have occupied high positions in the public
service in Turkey, Russia, Persia and Egypt. The Armenians are
essentially an Oriental people, possessing, like the Jews, whom they
resemble in their exclusiveness and widespread dispersion, a remarkable
tenacity of race and faculty of adaptation to circumstances. They are
frugal, sober, industrious and intelligent, and their sturdiness of
character has enabled them to preserve their nationality and religion
under the sorest trials. They are strongly attached to old manners and
customs, but have also a real desire for progress which is full of
promise. On the other hand they are greedy of gain, quarrelsome in small
matters, self-seeking and wanting in stability; and they are gifted with
a tendency to exaggeration and a love of intrigue which has had an
unfortunate influence on their history. They are deeply separated by
religious differences, and their mutual jealousies, their inordinate
vanity their versatility and their cosmopolitan character must always
be an obstacle to the realization of the dreams of the nationalists. The
want of courage and self-reliance, the deficiency in truth and honesty
sometimes noticed in connexion with them, are doubtless due to long
servitude under an unsympathetic government.
[Illustration: Map of Armenia.]
Ancient kingdom.
The early history of Armenia, more or less mythical, is partly based on
traditions of the Biainian kings (see ARARAT), and is interwoven with
the Bible narrative, of which a knowledge was possibly obtained from
captive Jews settled in the country by Assyrian and Babylonian monarchs.
The legendary kings are but faint echoes of the kings of Biainas; the
story of Semiramis and Ara is but another form of the myth of Venus and
Adonis; and tradition has clothed Tigranes, the reputed friend of Cyrus,
with the transient glory of the opponent of Lucullus. The fall of the
Biainian kingdom, perhaps overthrown by Cyaxares, was apparently soon
followed by an immigration of Aryan (Medo-Persian) races, including the
progenitors of the Armenians. But they spread slowly, for the "Ten
Thousand," when crossing the plateau to Trebizond, 401-400 B.C., met no
Armenians after leaving the villages four days' march beyond the
Teleboas, now Kara Su. Under the Medes and Persians Armenia was a
satrapy governed by a member of the reigning family; and after the
battle of Arbela, 331 B.C., it was ruled by Persian governors appointed
by Alexander and his successors. Ardvates, 317-284 B.C., freed himself
from Seleucid control; and after the defeat of Antiochus the Great by
the Romans, 190 B.C., Artaxias (Ardashes), and Zadriades, the governors
of Armenia Major and Armenia Minor, became independent kings, with the
concurrence of Rome. (See TIGRANES.) Artaxias established his capital at
Artaxata on the Araxes, and his most celebrated successor was Tigranes
(Dikran), 94-56 B.C., the son-in-law of Mithradates VI., the Great.
Tigranes founded a new capital, Tigranocerta, in northern Mesopotamia,
which he modelled on Nineveh and Babylon, and peopled with Greek and
other captives. Here, and at Antioch, he played the part of "great king"
in Asia until his refusal to surrender his father-in-law involved him in
war with Rome. Defeated, 69 B.C., by Lucullus beneath the walls of his
capital, he surrendered his conquests to Pompey, 66 B.C., who had driven
Mithradates across the Phasis, and was permitted to hold Armenia as a
vassal state of Rome.
Under later Empire.
Medieval Partition.
The campaigns of Lucullus and Pompey brought Rome into delicate
relations with Parthia. Armenia, although politically dependent upon
Rome, was connected with Parthia by geographical position, a common
language and faith, intermarriage and similarity of arms and dress. It
had never been Hellenized, as the provinces of Asia Minor had been; the
Roman provincial system was never applied to it; and the policy of Rome
towards it was never consistent. The country became the field upon which
the East and West contended for mastery, and the struggle ended for a
time in the partition of Armenia, A.D. 387, between Rome and Persia. The
Roman portion was soon added to the Diocesis Pontica. The Persian
portion, Pers-Armenia, remained a vassal state under an Arsacid prince
until 428. It was afterwards governed by Persian and Armenian noblemen
selected by the "great king," and entitled _marzbans_. Before the
partition, Tiridates, converted by St Gregory, "the Illuminator," had
established Christianity as the religion of the state, and set an
example followed later by Constantine. After the partition, the
invention of the Armenian alphabet, and the translation of the Bible
into the vernacular, 410, drew the Armenians together, and the
discontinuance of Greek in the Holy Offices relaxed the ecclesiastical
dependence on Constantinople, which ceased entirely when the Patriarch,
491, refused to accept the decrees of the council of Chalcedon. The rule
of the _marzbans_ was marked by relentless persecution of the
Christians, forced conversions to Magism, frequent insurrections and the
rise to importance of the great families founded by men of Assyrian,
Parthian, Persian, Syrian and Jewish origin, and in some cases of royal
blood, who had been governors of districts, or holders of fiefs under
the Arsacids. Amongst the _marzbans_ were Jewish Bagratids and Persian
Mamegonians; and one of the latter family, Vartan, made himself
independent (571-578), with Byzantine aid. In 632 the victories of
Heraclius restored Armenia to the Byzantines; but the war that followed
the Arab invasion, 636, left the country in the hands of the caliphs,
who set over it Arab and Armenian governors (_ostikans_). One of the
governors, the Bagratid Ashod I., was crowned king of Armenia by the
caliph Motamid, 885, and founded a dynasty which ended with Kagig II. in
1079. A little later the Ardzrunian Kagig, governor of Vaspuragan or
Van, was crowned king of that province by the caliph Moktadir, 908, and
his descendants ruled at Van and Sivas until 1080. The Bagratids founded
dynasties at Kars, 962-1080, and in Georgia, which they held until its
absorption, 1801, by Russia. From 984 to 1085 the country from Diarbekr
to Melasgerd was ruled under the suzerainty first of Arabs then of
Byzantines and Seljuks, by the Mervanid dynasty of Kurds, called princes
of Abahuni ([Greek: Apachouvaes]). The Arab invasion drove many Armenian
noblemen to Constantinople, where they intermarried with the old Roman
families or became soldiers of fortune. Artavasdes, an Arsacid, usurped
the Byzantine throne for two years; Leo V., an Ardzrunian, and John
Zimisces, became emperors; whilst Manuel, the Mamegonian, and others
were amongst the best generals of the empire. In 991, and again in 1021,
Basil II. invaded Armenia, and in the latter year Senekherim, king of
Vaspuragan, exchanged his kingdom for Sivas and its territory, where he
settled down with many Armenian emigrants. Basil's policy was to make
the great Armenian fortresses, garrisoned by imperial troops, the first
line of defence on his eastern frontier; but it failed in the hands of
his feeble successors, who thought more of converting heretical Armenia
than of defending its frontier. The king of Ani, Kagig II., was
compelled to exchange his kingdom for estates in Cappadocia. The country
was raided by Seljuks and harried by Byzantine soldiers, and the
miseries of the people were regarded as gain to the Orthodox church.
After the defeat and capture of Romanus IV. by Alp Arslan, 1071, Armenia
formed part of the Seljuk empire until it split up, 1157, into petty
states, ruled by Arabs, Kurds and Seljuks, who were in turn swept away
by the Mongol invasion, 1235. For more than three centuries after the
appearance of the Seljuks, Armenia was traversed by a long succession of
nomad tribes whose one aim was to secure good pasturage for their flocks
on their way to the richer lands of Asia Minor. The cultivators were
driven from the plains, agriculture was destroyed, and the country was
seriously impoverished when its ruin was completed by the ravages and
wholesale butcheries of Timur. Many Armenians fled to the mountains,
where they embraced Islam, and intermarried with the Kurds, or purchased
security by paying blackmail to Kurdish chiefs. Others migrated to
Cappadocia or to Cilicia, where the Bagratid Rhupen had founded, 1080, a
small principality which, gradually extending its limits, became the
kingdom of Lesser Armenia. This Christian kingdom in the midst of Moslem
states, hostile to the Byzantines, giving valuable support to the
leaders of the crusades, and trading with the great commercial cities of
Italy, had a stormy existence of about 300 years. Internal disorders,
due to attempts by the later Lusignan kings to make their subjects
conform to the Roman Church, facilitated its conquest by Egypt, 1375.
The memory of Kiligia (Cilicia) is enshrined in a popular song, and at
Zeitun, in the recesses of Mount Taurus, a small Armenian community has
hitherto maintained almost complete independence. After the death of
Timur, Armenia formed part of the territories of the Turkoman dynasties
of Ak- and Kara-Kuyunli, and under their milder rule the seat of the
Catholicus, which, during the Seljuk invasion, had been moved first to
Sivas, and then to Lesser Armenia, was re-established, 1441, at
Echmiadzin.
Under Turkey.
In 1514, the Persian campaign of Selim I. gave Armenia to the Osmanli
Turks, and its reorganization was entrusted to Idris, the historian, who
was a Kurd of Bitlis. Idris found the rich arable lands almost deserted,
and the mountains bristling with the castles of independent chieftains,
of Kurd, Arab and Armenian descent, between whom there were
long-standing feuds. He compelled the Kurds to settle on the vacant
lands, and divided the country into small sanjaks which in the plains
were governed by Turkish officials, and in the mountains by local
chiefs. This policy gave rest to the country, but favoured the growth of
Kurd influence and power, which by 1534 had spread westwards to Angora.
Armenia was invaded by the Persians in 1575, and again in 1604, when
Shah Abbas transplanted many thousand Armenians from Julfa to his new
capital Isfahan. In 1639, the province of Erivan, which included
Echmiadzin, was assigned by treaty to Persia, and it remained in her
hands until it passed to Russia, 1828, under the treaty of Turkman-chai.
The Turko-Russian War of 1828-29, which advanced the Russian frontier to
the Arpa Chai, was followed by a large emigration of Armenians from
Turkish to Russian territory, and a smaller exodus took place after the
war of 1877-78, which gave Batum, Ardahan and Kars to Russia. In 1834
the independent power of the Kurds in Armenia was greatly curtailed; and
risings under Bedr Khan Bey in 1843, and Sheik Obeidullah in 1880, were
firmly suppressed.
Gregorian Armenians.
After the capture of Constantinople, 1453, Mahommed II. organized his
non-Moslem subjects in communities, or _millets_, under ecclesiastical
chiefs to whom he gave absolute authority in civil and religious
matters, and in criminal offences that did not come under the Moslem
religious law. Under this system the Armenian bishop of Brusa, who was
appointed patriarch of Constantinople by the sultan, became the civil,
and practically the ecclesiastical head of his community (_Ermeni
millet_), and a recognized officer of the imperial government with the
rank of vizier. He was assisted by a council of bishops and clergy, and
was represented in each province by a bishop. This _imperium in imperio_
secured to the Armenians a recognized position before the law, the free
enjoyment of their religion, the possession of their churches and
monasteries, and the right to educate their children and manage their
municipal affairs. It also encouraged the growth of a community life,
which eventually gave birth to an intense longing for national life. On
the other hand it degraded the priesthood. The priests became political
leaders rather than spiritual guides, and sought promotion by bribery
and intrigue. Education was neglected and discouraged, servility and
treachery were developed, and in less than a century the people had
become depraved and degraded to an almost incredible extent. After the
issue, 1839, of the _hatt-i-skerif_ of Gül-khaneh, the tradesmen and
artisans of the capital freed themselves from clerical control. Under
regulations, approved by the sultan in 1862, the patriarch remained the
official representative of the community, but all real power passed into
the hands of clerical and lay councils elected by a representative
assembly of 140 members. The "community," which excluded Roman Catholics
and Protestants, was soon called the "nation," "domestic" became
"national" affairs, and the "representative" the "national" assembly.
Roman Catholics.
The connexion of "Lesser Armenia" with the Western powers led to the
formation, 1335, of an Armenian fraternity, "the Unionists," which
adopted the dogmas of the Roman church, and at the council of Florence,
1439, was entitled the "United Armenian Church." Under the millet system
the unionists were frequently persecuted by the patriarchs, but this
ended in 1830, when, at the intervention of France, they were made a
community (_Katoluk millet_), with their own ecclesiastical head. The
Roman Catholics, through the works issued by the Mechitharists at
Venice, have greatly promoted the progress of education and the
development of Armenian literature. They are most numerous at
Constantinople, Angora and Smyrna.
Protestants.
The Protestant movement, initiated at Constantinople by American
missionaries in 1831, was opposed by the patriarchs and Russia. In 1846
the patriarch anathematized all Armenians with Protestant sympathies,
and this led to the formation of the "Evangelical Church of the
Armenians," which was made, after much opposition from France and
Russia, a community (_Protestant millet_), at the instance of the
British ambassador. The missionaries afterwards founded colleges on the
Bosporus, at Kharput, Marsivan and Aintab, to supply the needs of higher
university education, and they opened good schools for both sexes at all
their stations. Everywhere they supplied the people with pure, wholesome
literature, and represented progress and religious liberty.
Modern Armenian question.
When Abd-ul-Hamid came to the throne of Turkey in 1876, the condition of
the Armenians was better than it had ever been under the Osmanlis; but
with the close of the war of 1877-78 came the "Armenian Question." By
the treaty of San Stefano, Turkey engaged to Russia to carry out reforms
"in the provinces inhabited by the Armenians, and to guarantee their
security against the Kurds and Circassians." By the treaty of Berlin,
13th of July 1878, a like engagement to the six signatory powers was
substituted for that to Russia. By the Cyprus convention, 4th of June
1878, the sultan promised Great Britain to introduce necessary reforms
"for the protection of the Christians and other subjects of the Porte"
in the Turkish territories in Asia. The Berlin treaty encouraged the
Armenians to look to the powers, and not to Russia for protection; and
the convention, which did not mention the Armenians, was regarded as
placing them under the special protection of Great Britain. This
impression was strengthened by the action of England at Berlin in
insisting that Russia should evacuate the occupied territory before
reforms were introduced, and so removing the only security for their
introduction. The presentation of identic and collective notes to the
Porte by the powers, in 1880, produced no result, and in 1882 it was
apparent that Turkey would only yield to compulsion. In 1881 a circular
note from the British ministry to the five powers was evasively
answered, and in 1883 Prince Bismarck intimated to the British
government that Germany cared nothing about Armenian reforms and that
the matter had better be allowed to drop. Russia had changed her policy
towards the Armenians, and the other powers were indifferent. The
so-called "Concert of Europe" was at an end, but British ministries
continued to call the attention of the sultan to his obligations under
the treaty of Berlin.
Russian policy.
Russia began to interest herself in the Armenians when she acquired
Georgia in 1801; but it was not until 1828-1829 that any appreciable
number of them became her subjects. She found them necessary to the
development of her new territories, and allowed them much freedom. They
were permitted, within certain limits, to develop their national life;
many became wealthy, and many rose to high positions in the military and
civil service of the state. After the war of 1877-78 the Russian consuls
in Turkey encouraged the formation of patriotic committees in Armenia,
and a project was formed to create a separate state, under the supremacy
of Russia, which was to include Russian, Persian and Turkish Armenia.
The project was favoured by Loris-Melikov, then all-powerful in Russia,
but in 1881 Alexander II. was assassinated, and shortly afterwards a
strongly anti-Armenian policy was adopted. The schools were closed, the
use of the Armenian language was discouraged, and attempts were made to
Russify the Armenians and bring them within the pale of the Russian
Church. All hope of practical self-government under Russian protection
now ceased, and the Armenians of Tiflis turned their attention to
Turkish Armenia. They had seen the success of the Slav committees in
treating disturbances in the Balkans, and became the moving spirit in
the attempts to produce similar troubles in Armenia. Russia made no real
effort to check the action of her Armenian subjects, and after 1884 she
steadily opposed any active interference by Great Britain in favour of
the Turkish Armenians. When Echmiadzin passed to Russia, in 1828, the
Catholicus began to claim spiritual jurisdiction over the whole Armenian
Church, and the submission of the patriarch of Constantinople was
obtained by Russia when she helped the sultan against Mehemet Ali.
Subsequently Russia secured the submission of the independent catholicus
of Sis, and thus acquired a power of interference in Armenian affairs in
all parts of the world. During 1900 Russia showed renewed interest in
Turkish Armenia by securing the right to construct all railways in it,
and in the Armenians by pressing the Porte to restore order and
introduce reforms.
Revolutionary movement.
The Berlin treaty was a disappointment to the Gregorian Armenians, who
had hoped that Armenia and Cilicia would have been formed into an
autonomous province administered by Christians. But the formation of
such a province was impossible. The Gregorians were scattered over the
empire, and, except in a few small districts, were nowhere in a
majority. Nor were they bound together by any community of thought or
sentiment. The Turkish-speaking Armenians of the south could scarcely
converse with the Armenian-speaking people of the north; and the
ignorant mountaineers of the east had nothing in common, except
religion, with the highly educated townsmen of Constantinople and
Smyrna. After the change in Russian policy and the failure of the powers
to secure reforms, the advanced party amongst the Armenians, some of
whom had been educated in Europe and been deeply affected by the free
thought and Nihilistic tendencies of the day, determined to secure their
object by the production of disturbances such as those that had given
birth to Bulgaria. Societies were formed at Tiflis and in several
European capitals for the circulation of pamphlets and newspapers, and
secret societies, such as the Huntchagist, were instituted for more
revolutionary methods. An active propaganda was carried on in Turkish
Armenia by emissaries, who tried to introduce arms and explosives, and
represented the ordinary incidents of Turkish misrule to Europe as
serious atrocities. The revolutionary movement was joined by some of the
younger men, who formed local committees on the Nihilist plan, but it
was strongly opposed by the Armenian clergy and the American
missionaries, who saw the impossibility of success; and its irreligious
tendency and the self-seeking ambition of its leaders made it
unacceptable to the mass of the people. Exasperated at their failure,
the emissaries organized attacks on individuals, wrote threatening
letters, and at last posted revolutionary placards, 5th of January 1893,
at Yuzgat, and on the walls of the American College at Marsivan. In the
last case the object of the Huntchagists was to compromise the
missionaries, and in this they succeeded. The Americans were accused of
issuing the placards; two Armenian professors were imprisoned; and the
girls' school was burned down. Outbreaks, easily suppressed, followed at
Kaisarieh and other places.
One of the revolutionary dreams was to make the ancient Daron the centre
of a new Armenia. But the movement met with no encouragement, either
amongst the prosperous peasants on the rich plain of Mush or in the
mountain villages of Sasun. In the summer of 1893, an emissary was
captured near Mush, and the governor, hoping to secure others, ordered
the Kurdish Irregular Horse to raid the mountain district. The Armenians
drove off the Kurds,[1] and, when attacked in the spring of 1894, again
held their own. The vali now called up regular troops from Erzingan; and
the sultan issued a firman calling upon all loyal subjects to aid in
suppressing the revolt. A massacre of a most brutal character, in which
Turkish soldiers took part, followed; and aroused deep indignation in
Europe. In November 1894 a Turkish commission of inquiry was sent to
Armenia, and was accompanied by the consular delegates of Great Britain,
France and Russia, who elicited the fact that there had been no attempt
at revolt to justify the action of the authorities. Throughout 1894 the
state of the country bordered upon anarchy, and during the winter of
1894-1895 the British government, with lukewarm support from France and
Russia, pressed for administrative reforms in the vilayets of Erzerum,
Van, Bitlis, Sivas, Memuret-el-Aziz (Kharput) and Diarbekr. The Porte
made counter-proposals, and officials concerned in the Sasun massacres
were decorated and rewarded. On the 11th of May 1895 the three powers
presented to the sultan a complicated scheme of reforms which was more
calculated to increase than to lessen the difficulties connected with
the government of Armenia; but it was the only one to which Russia would
agree. The sultan delayed his answer. Great Britain was in favour of
coercion, but Russia, when sounded, replied that she "would certainly
not join in any coercive measures" and she was supported by France. At
this moment, 21st of June 1895, Lord Rosebery's cabinet resigned, and
when Lord Salisbury's government resumed the negotiations in August, the
sultan appealed to France and Russia against England. During the
negotiations the secret societies had not been inactive. Disturbances
occurred at Tarsus; Armenians who did not espouse the "national" cause
were murdered; the life of the patriarch was threatened; and a report
was circulated that the British ambassador wished some Armenians killed
to give him an excuse for bringing the fleet to Constantinople. On the
1st of October 1895 a number of Armenians, some armed, went in
procession with a petition to the Porte and were ordered by the police
to disperse. Shots were fired, and a riot occurred in which many
Armenian and some Moslem lives were lost. The British ambassador now
pressed the scheme of reforms upon the sultan, who accepted it on the
17th of October. Meanwhile there had been a massacre at Trebizond
(October 8), in which armed men from Constantinople took part, and it
had become evident that no united action on the part of the powers was
to be feared. The sultan refused to publish the scheme of reforms, and
massacre followed massacre in Armenia in quick succession until the 1st
of January 1896. Nothing was done. Russia refused to agree to any
measure of coercion, and declared (December 19) that she would take no
action except such as was needed for the protection of foreigners. Great
Britain was not prepared to act alone. In the summer of 1896 (June
14-22) there were massacres at Van, Egin, and Niksar; and on the 26th of
August the Imperial Ottoman Bank at Constantinople was seized by
revolutionists as a demonstration against the Christian powers who had
left the Armenians to their fate. The project was known to the Porte,
and the rabble, previously armed and instructed, were at once turned
loose in the streets. Two days' massacre followed, during which from
6000 to 7000 Gregorian Armenians perished.
The massacres.
The massacres were apparently organized and carried out in accordance
with a well-considered plan. They occurred, except in six places, in the
vilayets to which the scheme of reforms was to apply. At Trebizond they
took place just before the sultan accepted that scheme, and after his
acceptance of it they spread rapidly. They were confined to Gregorian
and Protestant Armenians. The Roman Catholics were protected by France,
the Greek Christians by Russia. The massacre of Syrians, Jacobites and
Chaldees at Urfa and elsewhere formed no part of the original plan.
Orders were given to protect foreigners, and in some cases guards were
placed over their houses. The damage to the American buildings at
Kharput was due to direct disobedience of orders. The attacks on the
bazars were made without warning, during business hours, when the men
were in their shops and the women in their houses. Explicit promises
were given, in some instances, that there would be no danger to those
who opened their shops, but they were deliberately broken. Nearly all
those who, from their wealth, education and influence, would have had a
share in the government under the scheme of reforms, were killed and
their families ruined by the destruction of their property. Where any
attempt at defence was made the slaughter was greatest. The only
successful resistance was at Zeitun, where the people received
honourable terms after three months' fighting. In some towns the troops
and police took an active part in the massacres. At Kharput artillery
was used. In some the slaughter commenced and ended by bugle-call, and
in a few instances the Armenians were disarmed beforehand. Wherever a
superior official or army officer intervened the massacre at once
ceased, and wherever a governor stood firm there was no disturbance. The
actual perpetrators of the massacres were the local Moslems, aided by
Lazis, Kurds and Circassians. A large majority of the Moslems
disapproved of the massacres, and many Armenians were saved by Moslem
friends. But the lower orders were excited by reports that the
Armenians, supported by the European powers, were plotting the overthrow
of the sultan; and their cupidity was aroused by the prospect of wiping
out their heavy debts to Armenian pedlars and merchants. No one was
punished for the massacres, and many of those implicated in them were
rewarded. In some districts, especially in the Kharput vilayet, the cry
of "Islam or death" was raised. Gregorian priests and Protestant pastors
were tortured, but preferred death to apostasy. Men and women were
killed in prison and in churches in cold blood. Churches, monasteries,
schools and houses were plundered and destroyed. In some places there
was evidence of the previous activity of secret societies, in others
none. The number of those who perished, excluding Constantinople, was
20,000 to 25,000.[2] Many were forced to embrace Islam, and numbers were
reduced to poverty. The destruction of property was enormous, the
hardest-working and best tax-paying element in the country was
destroyed, or impoverished, and where the breadwinners were killed the
women and children were left destitute. Efforts by Great Britain and the
United States to alleviate the distress were opposed by the authorities,
but met with some success. After the massacres the number of students in
the American schools and colleges increased, and many Gregorian
Armenians became Roman Catholics in order to obtain the protection of
France.
The Armenian revolutionary societies continued their propaganda down to
the granting of the Turkish constitution in 1908; and meanwhile further
massacres occurred here and there, notably at Mush (1904) and Van
(1908).
See Abich, _Geologie d. armenischen Hochlandes_ (Wien, 1882); Bishop,
_Journeys in Persia and Kurdistan_ (Lond., 1891); Bliss, _Turkey and
the Armenian Atrocities_ (Lond., 1896); Bryce, _Transcaucasia and
Ararat_ (4th ed., Lond., 1896); De Coursous, _La Rébellion arménienne_
(Paris, 1895); Lepsius, _Armenia and Europe_ (Lond., 1897); Murray,
_Handbook for Asia Minor_ (Lond., 1895); Parly. Papers, _Turkey_, I.
(1895); _Turkey_, I., II. (1896); Supan, "Die Verbreitung d. Armenier
in der asiatischen Turkei, u. in Transkaukasien," in Pet. _Mitt_. vol.
xlii. (1896); Tozer, _Turkish Armenia and Eastern Asia Minor_ (Lond.,
1881); Cholet, _Arménie, Kurdistan, et Mésopotamie_ (1892); Lynch,
_Armenia_ (2 vols., 1901). (C. W. W.)
FOOTNOTES:
[1] The Armenians and Kurds have lived together from the earliest
times. The adoption of Islam by the latter, and by many Armenians,
divided the people sharply into Christian and Moslem, and placed the
Christian in a position of inferiority. But the relations between the
two sects were not unfriendly previously to the Russian campaigns in
Persia and Turkey. After 1829 the relations became less friendly; and
later, when the Armenians attracted the sympathies of the European
powers after the war of 1877-78, they became bitterly hostile.
[2] According to some estimates the number killed was 50,000 or more.
ARMENIAN CHURCH. No trustworthy account exists of the evangelization of
Armenia, for the legend of King Abgar's correspondence with Christ, even
if it contained any historical truth, only relates to Edessa and Syriac
Christianity. That the Armenians appropriated from the Syrians this, as
well as the stories of Bartholomew and Thaddeus (the Syriac _Addai_),
was merely an avowal on their part that Edessa was the centre from which
the faith radiated over their land. In the 4th century and later the
liturgy was still read in Syriac in parts of Armenia, and the New
Testament, the history of Eusebius, the homilies of Aphraates, the works
of St Ephraem and many other early books were translated from Syriac,
from which tongue most of their ecclesiological terms were derived. The
earliest notice of an organized church in Armenia is in Eusebius, _H.
E_. vi. 46, to the effect that Dionysius of Alexandria c. 250 sent a
letter to Meruzanes, bishop of the brethren in Armenia. There were many
Christians in Melitene at the time of the Decian persecution in A.D.
250, and two bishops from Great Armenia were present at the council of
Nice in 325. King Tiridates (c. A.D. 238-314) had already been baptized
some time after 261 by Gregory the Illuminator. The latter was ordained
priest and appointed _catholicus_ or exarch of the church of Great
Armenia by Leontius, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia. This one fact is
certain amidst the fables which soon obscured the history of this great
missionary. Thus the church of Great Armenia began as a province of the
Cappadocian see. But there was a tradition of a line of bishops earlier
than Gregory in Siuniq, a region east of Ararat along the Araxes (Aras),
which in early times claimed to be independent of the catholicus. The
Adoptianist bishop Archelaus, who opposed the entry of Mani into Armenia
under Probus c. 277, was also perhaps a Syriac-speaking bishop of
Pers-Armenia. Almost the earliest document revealing anything of the
inner organization and condition of the Armenian church in the Nicene
age is the epistle of Macarius, bishop of Jerusalem, to the Armenian
bishop Verthanes, written between 325 and 335 and preserved in Armenian.
Its genuineness has been unreasonably suspected. It insists on the
erection of fonts; on distinction of grades among the ordained clergy;
on not postponing baptism too long; on bishops and priests alone, and
not deacons, being allowed to baptize and lay hands on or confirm the
baptized; on avoiding communion with Arians; on the use of unleavened
bread in the Sacrament, &c. We learn from it that the bishop of Basen
and Bagrevand was an Arian at that time. By the year 450 these two
districts already had separate bishops of their own. The letter of
Macarius, therefore, if a forgery, must be a very early one.[1] The
Armenians must, like the Georgians a little later, have set store by the
opinion of the bishop of Jerusalem, or they would not have sent to
consult him. It was equally from Jerusalem that they subsequently
adopted their lectionary and arrangement of the Christian year; and a
9th-century copy of this lectionary in the Paris library preserves to us
precious details of the liturgical usages of Jerusalem in the 4th
century. We can trace the presence of Armenian convents on the Mount of
Olives as early as the 5th century.
Tradition represents the conversion of Great Armenia under Gregory and
Tiridates as a sort of triumphant march, in which the temples of the
demons and their records were destroyed wholesale, and their undefended
sites instantly converted into Christian churches. The questions arise:
how was the transition from old to new effected? and what was the type
of teaching dominant in the new church? Armenian tradition, confirmed by
nearly contemporary Greek sources, answers the first question. The old
order went on, but under new names. The priestly families, we learn,
hearing that the God preached by Gregory needed not sacrifice, sent to
the king a deputation and asked how they were to live, if they became
Christians; for until then the priests and their families had lived off
the portions of the animal victims and other offerings reserved to them
by pagan custom. Gregory replied that, if they would join the new
religion, not only should the sacrifices continue, but they should have
larger perquisites then ever. The priestly families then went over _en
masse_. How far the older sacrificial rules resembled the levitical law
we do not know, but in the canons of Sahak, c. 430, the priests already
receive the levitical portions of the victims; and we find that animals
are being sacrificed every Sunday, on the feast days which at first were
few, in fulfilment of private vows, in expiation of the sins of the
living, and still more of those of the dead. No one might kill his own
meat and deprive the priest of his due; but this rule did not apply to
the chase. The earliest Armenian rituals contain ample services for the
conduct of an _agape_ (q.v.) or love feast held in the church off
sacrificial meat. The victim was slaughtered by the priest in the church
porch before the crucifix, after it had been ritually wreathed and given
the holy salt, by licking which it appropriated a sacramental purity or
efficacy previously conveyed into the salt by exorcisms and
consecration. In the canons of Sahak the priest is represented as eating
the sins of the people in these repasts.
It is easy to underrate the importance in religion of a change of names.
The old sacrificial hymns were probably obscene and certainly
nonsensical, and the substitution for them of the psalms, and of
lections of the prophets and New Testament, was an enormous gain. We do
not know precisely how the eucharistic rite was adjusted to these
sacrificial meals; but, in the canons of Sahak, 1 Cor. xi. 17-34 is
interpreted of these meals, which were known as the Dominical (suppers).
The Eucharist was, therefore, long associated with the _matal_ or animal
victim, and only in the 8th century do we hear of an interval of time
being left between the fleshly and the spiritual sacrifices, as the two
rites were then called. The Basilian service of the Eucharist was used
in the 5th century, but superseded later on by a Byzantine rite which
will be found translated in F.E. Brightman's _Eastern Liturgies_. The
Eucharist was no doubt the one important sacrifice in the minds of the
clergy who had attended the schools of Constantinople and Alexandria;
yet the heart of the people remained in their ancient blood-offerings,
and as late as the 12th century they were prone to deny that the mass
could expiate the sins of the dead unless accompanied by the sacrifice
of an animal. Perhaps even to-day the worst fate that can befall a
villager after death is to be deprived, not of commemoration in the
mass, but of the victim slain for his sins. The keenest spiritual weapon
of the Armenian priest was ever a threat not to offer the _matal_ for a
man when he died.
Another survival in the Armenian church was the hereditary priesthood.
None but a scion of a priestly family could become a deacon, elder or
bishop. Accordingly the primacy remained in the family of Gregory until
about 374, when the king Pap or Bab murdered Nerses, who had been
ordained by Eusebius of Caesarea (362-370) and was over-zealous in
implanting in Armenia the canons about celibacy, marriage, fasting,
hospices and monastic life which Basil had established in Cappadocia. It
may be remarked that Gregory's own family was a cadet branch of the
Arsacid kin which had occupied the thrones of Persia, Bactria, Armenia
and Georgia. His primacy therefore was in itself a survival of an
earlier age when king and priest were one. He was in fact a _rex
sacrificulus_, and later on, when the Arsacid dynasty fell in Armenia c.
A.D. 428, the Armenian catholicus became the symbol of national unity
and the rallying-point of patriotism. The line of Gregory was restored
in 390 in the person of Isaac or Sahak, son of Nerses, and his
patriarchate was the golden age of Armenian literature. But by this time
the autonomy of the Armenian church was thoroughly established. On the
death of Nerses the right of saying grace at the royal meals, which was
the essence of the catholicate, was transferred by the king, in despite
of the Greeks, to the priestly family of Albianus, and thenceforth no
Armenian catholicus went to Caesarea for ordination. The ties with Greek
official Christendom were snapped for ever, and in subsequent ages the
doctrinal preferences of the Armenians were usually determined more by
antagonism to the Greeks than by reflection. If they accepted the
council of Ephesus in 430 and joined in the condemnation of Nestorius,
it was rather because the Sassanid kings of Persia, who thirsted for the
reconquest of Armenia, favoured Nestorianism, a form of doctrine current
in Persia and rejected in Byzantium. But later on, about 480, and
throughout the following centuries, the Armenians rejected the decrees
of Chalcedon and held that the assertion of two natures in Christ was a
relapse into the heresy of Nestor. From the close of the 5th century the
Armenians have remained monophysite, like the Copts and Abyssinians, and
have only broken the record with occasional short interludes of
orthodoxy, as when in 633 the emperor Heraclius forced reunion on them,
under a catholicus named Esdras, at a council held in Erzerum. Even then
all parties were careful not to mention Chalcedon. The march of Arab
conquest kept the Armenians friendly to Byzantium for a few years; but
in 718 the catholicus John of Odsun ascended the throne and at the
council of Manazkert in 728 repeated and confirmed the anathemas against
Chalcedon and the tome of Leo, that had been first pronounced by the
catholicus Babken in 491 at a synod held in Valarshapat by the united
Armenian, Georgian or Iberian, and Albanian churches. The Armenians
marked their complete disruption with the Greeks by starting an era of
their own at the synod of Dvin. The era began on the 11th of July 552,
and their year is vague, that is to say, it does not intercalate a day
in February every fourth year, like the Julian calendar.
The two churches of Iberia and Albania at first depended on the Armenian
for ordination of their primates or _catholici_, and in large part owed
their first constitution to Armenian missionaries sent by Gregory the
Illuminator. The Iberians still reverence as saints the Armenian doctors
of the 5th century, but as early as 552 they began to resent the
dictatorial methods of the Armenians, as well might a proud race of
mountaineers who never wholly lost their political independence; and
they broke off their allegiance to the Armenian see very soon
afterwards, accepted Chalcedon and joined the Byzantine church. The
Albanians of the Caucasus were also converted in the age of Gregory,
early in the 4th century, and were loyal to the Armenians in the great
struggle against Mazdaism in the 5th; but broke away for a time towards
600, and chose a patriarch without sending him to Armenia for
ordination. Eventually this interesting church was engulfed by the
rising tide of Mahommedan conquest, but not before one of their bishops,
named Israel, had converted (677-703) the Huns who lay to the north of
the Caspian and had translated the Bible and liturgies into their
language. If the Albanian and Hunnish versions could be found, they
would be of the greatest linguistic importance.
The mother church of Armenia was established by Gregory at Ashtishat in
the province of Taron, on the site of the great temple of Wahagn, whose
festival on the seventh of the month Sahmi was reconsecrated to John the
Baptist and Athenogenes, an Armenian martyr and Greek hymn writer. The
first of Navasard, the Armenian new year's day, was the feast of a god
Vanatur or Wanadur (who answered to [Greek: Zeus xenios]) in the holy
pilgrim city of Bagawan. His day was reconsecrated to the Baptist, whose
relics were brought to Bagawan. The feast of Anahite, the Armenian Venus
and spouse of the chief god Aramazd, was in the same way rededicated to
the Virgin Mary, who for long was not very clearly distinguished by the
Armenians from the virgin mother church. The old cult of sacred stones
and trees by an easy transition became cross-worship, but a cross was
not sacred until the Christ had been, by priestly prayer and invocation,
transferred into it.
What was the earliest doctrine of the churches of Armenia? If we could
believe the fathers of the 5th and succeeding centuries Nicene orthodoxy
prevailed in their country from the first; and in the 5th century they
certainly chose for translation the works of orthodox fathers alone,
such as Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa and Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril
of Jerusalem and Cyril of Alexandria, Athanasius, Julius of Rome,
Hippolytus, Irenaeus, avoiding Origen and other fathers who were
becoming suspect. However, we do hear of versions of Nestorian writers
like Diodore of Tarsus being in circulation, and the _Disputation_ of
Archelaus proves that the current orthodoxy of eastern Armenia was
Adoptianist, if not Ebionite in tone. The Persian Armenians as late as
the 6th century had not heard of the faith of Nicaea, and only then
received it from the catholicus Babken. They sent a copy of their old
creed to Babken, and it closely resembles the Adoptianist creed of
Archelaus, the gist of which was that Jesus, until his thirtieth year,
was a man mortal like other men; then, because he was righteous above
all others, he was promoted to the honour and name of Son of God. He
received the title by grace, but was not equal to God the Father.
Because the Spirit worked with him, he was able to vanquish Satan and
all desires, and because of his righteousness and good works he was made
worthy of grace and became a Temple of God the Word, which came down
from heaven in Jordan, dwelt in him and through him wrought miracles.
From such a standpoint the baptism of Jesus was the moment of the divine
incarnation. The man righteous above all others was then reborn of the
Spirit, was illuminated, was spiritually anointed, became the Christ and
Son of God. In effect the fathers of the Armenian church often fell back
into such language, far removed as it is from orthodoxy; and they
emphasized the importance of the baptismal feast of the Epiphany on the
6th of January by refusing to accept the feast of the physical birth of
the 25th of December. As late as 1165 their patriarch Nerses defends the
Armenian custom of keeping Christmas on the 6th of January on the
express ground that as he was born after the flesh from the Virgin, _so
he was born by way of baptism from the Jordan_. The custom from the
first, he says, had been to feast on one and the same day the two
births, much as they differed in sacramental import and in point of
time. We see how deep the early Adoptianism had struck its roots, when a
primate of the 12th century could still appeal to the baptismal
regeneration of Jesus. The same Nerses held that the second Adam, Jesus
Christ, received a new body and nature and the sevenfold grace of the
Spirit _in the Jordan_. The Armenian doctors also taught that John by
laying hands on Jesus and ordaining him at his baptism sacramentally
transferred to him the three graces or _charismata_ of kingship,
prophecy and priesthood which had belonged to ancient Israel. After
baptism, if not before, the flesh of Christ was incorruptible. It
consisted of ethereal fire, and he was not subject to the ordinary
phenomena of digestion, secretions and evacuations.
Monastic institutions were hardly introduced in Armenia before the 5th
century, though Christian rest-houses had been erected along the
high-roads long before and are mentioned in the _Disputation_ of
Archelaus. The Armenians called them _wanq_, and out of them grew the
monasteries. The monks were, strictly speaking, penitents wearing the
cowl, and not allowed to take a part in church government. This belonged
to the elders. At first there was no separate episcopal ordination, and
the one rite of elder or priest (Armen. _Qahanay_, Heb. _cohen_)
sufficed. There were also deacons, half-deacons and readers. Besides
these there was a class of _wardapets_ or teachers, answering to the
_didascalos_ of the earliest church, whose province it was to guard the
doctrine and for whom no rite of ordination is found in the older
rituals.
A few other peculiarities of Armenian church usage or belief deserve
notice. In baptism the rubric ordains that the baptized be plunged three
times in the font in commemoration of the entombment during three days
of the Lord. In the West trine immersion was generally held to be
symbolic of the triune name of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost." This name
the Armenians have used, at least since the year 700; before which date
their fathers often speak of baptism into the death of Christ as the one
essential. As late as about 1300 a traveller hostile to the Armenians
reported to the pope that he had witnessed baptisms without any
trinitarian invocation in as many as three hundred parish churches.
The paschal lamb is now eaten on Sunday, but until the 11th century, and
even later, it was eaten with the Eucharist at a Lord's Supper
celebrated on the evening of Maundy Thursday after the rite of
_pedilavium_ or washing of feet. On the morning of the same day the
penitents were released from their fast.
The rite of extreme unction was introduced in the crusading epoch,
although it was already usual to anoint the bodies of dead priests. The
worship of images never seems to have taken root among Armenians; indeed
they supplied the Greek world with iconoclast soldiers and emperors. The
worship of crosses into which the Spirit or Christ had been inserted by
the priest must have satisfied the religious needs of a people who, save
in architecture, showed little artistic faculty. In their older rituals
we find a rite for blessing a painted church, but no word of statues.
Frescoes in their churches are rare, and mostly too high up for
veneration to be paid to them.
On certain days the cross was washed, and the water in which it had been
washed was a sovereign charm for curing sickness in men and animals and
for bringing fertility to the land.
In the older rituals we find a rite of _exhomologesis_, for restoring
those who had sinned after baptism. It was a medicine of sin that could
only be used once and not a second time. In form it is a rehearsal of
the first baptismal rite, but with omission of the water. It involved
like the first rite open confession and repentance, and absolution by
the church. In a later and less rigorous age this rite was abridged and
adjusted to constant repetition, in such wise that a sinner could be
restored to grace not once only, but as often as the clergy chose to
accept his repentance and confession. Thus the whole development of the
penitentiary system is traceable in the MSS.
The confession of a dying man might be taken by any layman present, and
written down in order to be shown to the priest when he arrived. It then
was the duty of the latter to supplicate for his forgiveness, and
administer to him the Eucharist.
The clergy of all grades were originally married. The parish priests, or
white clergy, are so still, except some of the Latinizing ones. But
since the 12th century, or even earlier, the higher clergy, i.e.
patriarchs and bishops, have taken monkish vows and worn the cowl.
There were abortive attempts to unite the Armenian church with the
Byzantine in the 9th century under the patriarch Photius, and again late
in the 12th under the emperor Manuel Comnenus, when a joint council met
at Romkla, near Tarsus, but ended in nothing (A.D. 1179). Neither could
the Armenians keep on good terms even with the Syriac monophysites. From
the age of the crusades on, the Armenians of Cilicia, whose patriarch
sat at Sis, improved their acquaintance with Rome; and more than one of
their patriarchs adopted the Roman faith, at least in words. Dominican
missions went to Armenia, and in 1328 under their auspices was formed a
regular order called the United Brethren, the forerunners of the Uniats
of the present day, who have convents at Venice and Vienna, a college in
Rome and a numerous following in Turkey. They retain their Armenian
liturgies and rites, pruned to suit the Vatican standards of orthodoxy,
and they recognize the pope as head of the church.
The patriarchs of Great Armenia first resided at Ashtishat, on the
Araxes. From 478 to 931 they occupied Dvin in the same neighbourhood,
then Aghthamar, an island in the Lake of Van, 931-967, the city of Ani,
992-1054, where are still visible the magnificent ruins of their
churches and palaces. Since 1441 the chief catholicus has sat at
Echmiadzin, the convent of Valarshapat, now part of Russian Armenia. A
rival catholicus, with a small following, still has his cathedral and
see at Sis. The catholicus of Valarshapat is nominally chosen by all
Armenians. A synod of bishops, monks and doctors meets regularly to
transact under his eye the business of the convent and the oecumenical
affairs of the church; but its decisions are subject to the veto of a
Russian procurator. There are Armenian patriarchs, subject to the
spiritual jurisdiction of Echmiadzin, in Constantinople and Jerusalem.
In the latter place the Armenians occupy a convent on Mount Sion, and
keep up in the churches of the Sepulchre and of Bethlehem their own
distinct rites and feasts, the only ones there which at all resemble
those of the 4th century.
The following list of councils was compiled by John, catholicus about
the year 728, and read at the council of Manazkert, when the dogmatic
and disciplinary attitude of the Armenian church was defined once and
for all:--
1. In twentieth year of catholicate of Gregory and thirty-seventh of
Trdat, the king, on return of Aristaces from council of Nice, bringing
the Nicene creed and canons.
2. Council held by St Nerses on his return from the council of the 150
fathers at Constantinople against Macedonius.
3. Held by St Sahak and Mesrop on receipt of letters from Proclus and
Cyril after the council of Ephesus, when the "Glory in the Highest" was
adopted. Held against Nestorianism.
4. Held by Joseph, disciple of Mashdotz (Mesrop) and St Sahak, in
Shahapiwan in the sixth year of King Yazkert (i.e. Yazdegerd) of Persia,
for the regulation of the church. Forty bishops present. (The Massalians
were anathematized.)
5. Held by Babken, catholicus, in the City-plain (i.e. Dvin), in the
18th year of King Kavat (i.e. Kavadh), against the heresy of Acacius and
Barsuma (Bar-sauma), the friends of Nestorius. The true (Nicene) faith
was sent to the Armenians of the farther East (shortly afterwards a
slightly different creed was adopted, identical with a pseudo-Athanasian
symbol used by Evagrius of Pontus and given in Greek in Patr. Gr. xxvi.
Col. 1232).
6. At the beginning of the Armenian era, held by Nerses in Dvin, in the
fourth year of his catholicate, in the fourteenth of Chosroes' reign and
in the fourteenth of Justinian Caesar. Held against Chalcedon, uniting
the Baptism and Christmas feasts on the 6th of January (Epiphany),
declaring for mono-physitism, and adopting in the _Trisagion_ the words
"who wast crucified for us." This settlement lasted for about
seventy-four years.
7. After the retaking of Jerusalem and recovery of the Cross from the
Persians in the eighteenth year of his reign, Heraclius called a mixed
council at Karin (Theodosiopolis) of Greeks and Armenians under Ezr
(Esdras), catholicus, at which the preceding council of Dvin was cursed,
its reforms repudiated and the confession of Chalcedon adopted. This
remained the official attitude of the Armenian church until the
catholicate of Elias (703-717). John, catholicus, denies to Ezr's
meeting the name of council, and so makes his own the seventh.
8. Under John, catholicus, in Manazkert, in the one hundred and
seventieth year of the Armenian era (= A.D. 728) under the presidency of
Gregory Asharuni Chorepiscopos (Gregory Asheruni). All the Armenian
bishops attended, as also the metropolitan of Urhha (Edessa), Jacobite
bishops of Gartman, of Nfrkert, Amasia, by command of the archbishop of
Antioch. Chalcedon was repudiated afresh, union with the Jacobites
instituted, use of water and leaven in the Eucharist condemned, the five
days' preliminary fast before Lent restored, Saturday as well as Sunday
made a day of feasting and synaxis, any but the orthodox excluded from
the Maundy Thursday Communion, the first communion of the new
catechumens; union of the Baptismal and Christmas feasts was restored,
and the faithful forbidden to fast on Fridays from Easter until
Pentecost. In general these rules have been observed in the Armenian
church ever since.
For list of authorities on the Armenian church see the works
enumerated at the end of ARMENIAN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE. For the
relations of the Armenian church to the Persian kings see PERSIA:
_Ancient History_, section viii. §§ 2 and 3. (F. C. C.)
FOOTNOTE:
[1] If a forgery, why should this letter have been assigned to
Macarius, a comparatively obscure person whose name is not even found
in the menaea of the Eastern church? But convincing proof of its
authenticity lies in Macarius' reference to himself as merely
archbishop of Jerusalem, and his avowal that he was unwilling to
advise the Armenians, "being oppressed by the weakness of the
authority conceded him by the weighty usages of the church."
Jerusalem was only allowed to rank as a patriarchate in 451, and the
seventh canon of Nice subordinated the see to that of Caesarea in
Palestine. To this decree Macarius somewhat bitterly alludes.
ARMENIAN LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE.
Language.
The Armenian language belongs to the group called Indo-European, of
which the Iranic and Indic tongues formed one branch, and Greek,
Albanian, Italian, Celtic, Germanic and Baltic-Slavonic dialects the
other great branch. Unlike most of these, Armenian lost its genders long
before the year A.D. 400, when the existing literature begins. Modern
Persian similarly has lost gender; and in both cases the liberation must
have been due to attrition of other tongues which had a different system
of gender or none at all. So the Armenians were ever in contact on the
north with the Iberians of the Caucasus who had none, and with the
Semitic races on the south and east which had other ways of forming
genders than the Indo-European tongues.
From the original Armenian stock can be readily distinguished a mass of
Old and Middle Persian loan-words. These are so numerous that for a time
Armenian was classed as an Iranian tongue. For more than a thousand
years, say until A.D. 640, Armenia was an appanage of the realm of the
Persians and Parthians. Until A.D. 428 the Armenian throne was occupied
by a younger branch of the Arsacid dynasty that ruled in Persia until
the advent of the Sassanids (c. A.D. 226), and the internal polity and
court administration of Armenia were modelled on the Persian or
Parthian. Accordingly over 200 proper and personal names in Armenia were
Old Persian, as well as 700 names of things. If we count in the
derivative forms of these words we get at least 2000 Old Persian words.
Often the same Persian word was borrowed twice over in an earlier and
later form at an interval of centuries, just as in English we inherit a
word direct or have taken it from Latin, and have also assimilated from
French a later form of the same. The Persian influence in Armenian was
already strong as early as 400 B.C., when Xenophon used a Persian
interpreter to converse. In some of the Armenian villages they answered
him in Persian. The Persian loan-words already present in Armenian as
early as A.D. 400 mirror the earlier political and social life of
Armenia. Thus many of their kings and nobles had Persian names; Persian
also were most words used in connexion with horses and the chase, with
war and army, with dress, trade and coinage, calendar, weights and
measures, with court and political institutions, with music, medicine,
school, education, literature and the arts. Many everyday words were of
the same origin, e.g. the words for village, desert, building and build,
need, rich or liberal, arm (of body), rod or goad, face, opposite,
wicked, unfriendly, discontented, difficult, daughter, eulogy, a youth,
wary, enjoy, unhappy, volition, voluntary, unwilling, blind, cautious,
blood-kin, coquet with, slumber, humble, mad, grace or favour, memory or
attention, grandfather, old woman, prepared, duty, necessary, end,
endless, superior, confident, mistake, warmth, heat, glory. The language
of their old religion was mainly Persian, but in the 4th century they
derived numerous ecclesiological words from the Syrians, from whom by
way of Edessa and Nisibis Christianity penetrated eastern Armenia. The
language of the garden and the names of plants were also Persian. They
had their own numerals, but the words for one thousand and for ten
thousand are Persian.
Yet more indicative of the extent of the Persian influence is the
adoption of the adjectival ending -_akan_ and -_zan_, added to purely
Armenian words; also of the preposition _ham_, answering to _con_ in
"conjoin," "conspire," added to purely Armenian words, as in
_hambarnam_, I take away, and _hamboir_, a kiss, a word which, strange
to say, the Iberians in turn borrowed from the Armenians. From Persia
also the Armenians took their names for surrounding races, e.g.
_Tatshik_ or _Tajik_, first for Arab and then for Turk, _Ariq_ for
Persians, _Kapkoh_ for Caucasus, _Hrazdan_, _Vaspuragan_, &c. The
Armenians call themselves _Hay_, plural _Hayq_; their country
_Hayasdan_. The Iberians they called _Virq_ or _Wirq_ (where q marks the
plural), the Medes _Marq_, the Cappadocians _Gamirq_ (Cimmerians), the
Greeks Yûnes or Ionians; Ararat they call _Masis_, the Euphrates the
_Aradsan_, the Tigris _Teglath_, Erzerum is _Karin_, Edessa _Urhha_,
Nisibis _Mdsbin_, Ctesiphon _Tizbon_, &c.
When the Persian and other loan-words are removed, a stock remains of
native words and forms governed by other phonetic laws than those which
govern the Aryan, i.e. Indian and Iranic, branch of the Indo-European
tongues. Armenian appears to be a half-way dialect between the Aryan
branch and Slavo-lettic. Much, however, in Armenian philology remains
unexplained. For example the plural of nouns, pronouns and the first and
second persons plural of verbs are all formed by adding a q or k, which
has no parallel in any Indo-Germanic tongue. The genitive plural again
is formed by adding a _tz_ or c, and the same consonant characterizes
the composite aorist and the conjunctive. In all three cases it is
unexplained. In the verbs the termination m for the first singular at
once explains itself, and the n of the third plural is the Indo-Germanic
_nti_. But not so the second person singular ending in s, e.g. _berem_,
I bear, _beres_, thou bearest. This has a superficial likeness to the
I.-G. _esi_ in _bheresi_, "thou bearest." Yet we should expect the s
between vowels to vanish, and give us in Armenian _berê_. Perhaps,
therefore, an old variant of _esi_, similar to the [Greek: essi], lies
behind the Armenian _es_, thou art, and the _es_ in _beres_, thou
bearest. In any case it is clear that many of the oldest forms which
Armenian shared with other Indo-Germanic dialects were lost and replaced
by forms of which the origin is obscure. Perhaps a closer study of
Mingrelian and Georgian will explain some of these peculiarities, for
these and their cognate tongues must have had a wider range in the 7th
and 8th centuries B.C. than they had later when clear history begins.
The attempts made by S. Bugge to assimilate Old Armenian to Etruscan,
and by P. Jensen to explain from it the Hittite inscriptions, appear to
be fanciful. There is a large Semitic influence traceable in Armenian
due to their early contact with the Syriac-speaking peoples to the south
and east of them, and later to the Arab conquest. Much remains to be
done in the way of collecting Armenian dialects, for which task there
are written materials as far back as the 12th century over and above the
work to be done by an intelligent traveller armed with a phonograph. Two
main dialects of Armenian are distinguishable to-day, that of Ararat and
Tiflis, and that of Stambul and the coast cities of Asia Minor. The
latter is much overlaid with Tatar or Turkish words, and the Tatar order
of words distinguishes the modern Armenian sentence from the ancient.
It remains to say that classical Armenian resembles rather the modern
idiom of Van than of western Armenia. It was a plastic and noble
language, capable of rendering faithfully, yet not servilely, the Greek
Bible and Greek fathers. Often the Armenian translators, and especially
after the 5th century, rendered word for word, preserving the order of
the Greek. This literalness, though unpleasing from a literary
standpoint, gives to many of their ancient versions the value almost of
a Greek codex of the age in which the version was made. The same
literalness also characterizes their translations from Syriac.
Literature.
The Armenians had a temple literature of their own, which was destroyed
in the 4th and 5th centuries by the Christian clergy, so thoroughly that
barely twenty lines of it survive in the history of Moses of Khoren
(Chorene). Their Christian literature begins about 400 with the
invention of the Armenian alphabet by Mesrop. This was probably an older
alphabet to which Mesrop merely added vowels; but, in order to pacify
the Greek ecclesiastics and the emperor Theodosius the Less, the
Armenians concocted a story that it had been divinely revealed. Once
their alphabet perfected, the catholicus Sahak formed a school of
translators who were sent to Edessa, Athens, Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch, Caesarea in Cappadocia, and elsewhere, to procure codices both
in Syriac and Greek and translate them. From Syriac were made the first
version of the New Testament, the version of Eusebius' History and his
Life of Constantine (unless this be from the original Greek), the
homilies of Aphraates, the Acts of Gurias and Samuna, the works of
Ephrem Syrus (partly published in four volumes by the Mechitharists of
Venice). They include the commentaries on the _Diatessaron_ and the
Paulines, Laboubna and History of Addai, the Syriac canons of the
Apostles.
From the original Greek were rendered in the 5th century the following
authors and works. An asterisk is prefixed to those which have been
printed:--*Eusebius' _Chronicon_; *Philo's lost commentaries on Genesis
and Exodus, and his lost treatises on Providence and Animals, as well as
a great number of his works still preserved in Greek; *the entire Bible
(the New Testament is a recension after Antiochene Greek texts of an
older version made from the oldest Syriac text); *the Alexander romance
of the pseudo-Callisthenes; *_Epistles_ and _Acts_ of Ignatius of
Antioch; *many homilies of Gregory Thaumaturgus; *Athanasius (a large
number of works, many of them wrongly attributed); Irenaeus, _Adversus
Haereses_ and _Ad Marcianum_ (recently found); *Hippolytus' commentaries
on the Song of Songs and Daniel, and many fragments; *Timotheus' life of
Athanasius; Theophilus of Alexandria, various homilies; *Eusebius of
Gabala or Severianus, fifteen Homilies; *Cyril of Jerusalem,
_Catecheses_ and Letter to Constantine; *_Wisdom of Ahikar_; *the
_Apology_ of Aristides; Gregory of Nazianzus, thirty-four Homilies;
*Nonnus' work on Gregory (perhaps a version of 6th century); Basil of
Caesarea, *_Hexaëmeron_, fifteen Homilies on faith, epistle to
Terentius, ascetic writings and canons, on the Holy Spirit, to
Cledonius, &c. Helladius of Caesarea's life of Basil; Gregory of Nyssa's
treatise on the Beatitudes, and many other homilies, Commentaries on
Song of Songs, *On Human Nature (Nemesius), panegyrics on sundry
Martyrs, and other works (but some of these versions belong to the
beginning of the 8th century); Epiphanius of Salamis, Commentary on the
Gospels, *_On weights and measures_, *_Physiologus_, canons and many
homilies; Evagrius of Pontus, Homilies and Ascetic works, Letters to
Melania, &c.; John Chrysostom, *Homilies and Prayers, in very beautiful
language; *Proclus, patriarch of Constantinople, many homilies; *Nilus
the Ascete, _On the Eight Spirits of Evil_; *Josephus, _On the Jewish
War_; Dionysius of Alexandria, *_Against Paul of Samosata_ and other
fragments; Acacius, bishop of Melitene, *_Letters_ to Sahak; Julius of
Rome (fragments); Zenobius, Homilies (? from Syriac); the _History_ of
Julius Africanus was perhaps also translated in this century, but it is
lost. To the 5th century belong the versions of the Nicene canons, of
which the Armenian text as preserved is barely intelligible, of the
eucharistic rites called of *Basil, *Chrysostom, *Ignatius and others;
also the *Hours or Breviary, the *Rites of Ordination, Baptism, of the
making and release of Penitents, of Epiphany, and perhaps the many rites
of animal sacrifice, for these are partly originals, partly versions of
lost Greek texts. A mass of martyrs' acts were also rendered in this
century, including parts of the lost collection made by Eusebius. Among
these the *_Acts and Apology_ of Apollonius restore a lost 2nd-century
text. The *_Canons_ of Sahak also purport to be translated from a Greek
original about the year 330.
The Armenians were so busy in this century translating Greek and Syriac
fathers that they have left little that is original. Still a number of
historical works survive: *Faustus of Byzantium relates the events of
the period A.D. 344-392 in a work instinct with life and racy of the
soil. It was perhaps first composed in Greek, but it gives a faithful
picture of the court of the petty sovereigns of Armenia, of the
political organization, of the blood feuds of the clans, of the planting
of Christianity. Procopius preserves some fragments of the Greek.
The *_History of Taron_, by Zenobius of Glak, is a somewhat legendary
account of Gregory the Illuminator, and may have been written in Syriac
in the 5th, though it was only Armenized in a later century.
*Elisaeus Wardapet wrote a history of Wardan (Vardan), and of the war
waged for their faith by the Armenians against the Sassanids. He was an
eye-witness of this struggle, and gives a good account of the
contemporary Mazdaism which the Persians tried to force on the
Armenians. *Lazar of Pharp wrote a history embracing the events of the
5th century up to the year 485, as a continuation of the work of
Faustus.
*A history of St Gregory and of the conversion of Armenia by
Agathangelus is preserved in Greek, Armenian and Arabic. The Arabic
edited by Professor Marr of St Petersburg seems to be the oldest form of
text. The Greek is a rendering of the Armenian. It is a compilation, and
the second part which contains the _Acts_ of Gregory and of St Rhipsima
seems wholly legendary. The Greek and Armenian texts were edited
together by Lagarde.
*The _History of Armenia_ by Moses of Khoren (Chorene) relates events up
to about the year 450. It is a compilation, devoid of historical method,
value or veracity, from all sorts of previous authors, mostly from those
which already existed in an Armenian dress. Some critics put down the
date of composition as low as about 700, and it was certainly retouched
in the late 6th century.
*A long volume of rhetorical exercises, based on Aphthonius, is also
ascribed to Moses of Khoren, and appears to be of the 5th century. The
*geography which passes under his name may belong to the 7th century.
Various homilies of Moses survive, as also of Elisaeus.
Gorium wrote in this century a *_Life of Mesrop_, and Eznik a
*_Refutation of the Sects_, based largely on antecedent Greek works. The
sects in question are Paganism, Mazdaism, Greek Philosophy and
Manicheism. A volume of *homilies under the name of Gregory the
Illuminator, but not his, also belongs to this century, and a series of
ascetic discourses attributed to John Mandakuni, who was patriarch
478-500.
Of the 6th and 7th centuries few works survive except anonymous versions
of the *_Acts of Thomas_ (perhaps from the Syriac), of the *_Acts of
Peter and Paul_, *of John (pseudo-Prochorus), *of Bartholomew, and of
other apostles; also of *the Acts of Paul and Thekla, *of Titus, *of the
Protevangel, *of the Testaments of the patriarchs, of the *_Gospel of
Nicodemus_, or _Acts of Pilate_, of the *_Book of Adam_, of the *_Deaths
of the Prophets_, of the *_History of Baruch_, of the *Apocalypses of
Paul and of the Virgin Mary, of the *Acts of Sylvester, and of an
enormous number of other similar apocryphs. Some of these may be of the
5th century. Two volumes of these apocryphs of the Old and New
Testaments have recently been published at Venice. To these centuries
belong also the versions of the Acts of the council of Ephesus, of
Gangra, Laodicea and of other councils. To the late 7th century belong
the *calendarial works of Ananiah of Shirak, who also has left a
*_chronicon_ compiled from Eusebius, Andreas of Crete, Hippolytus and
other sources. In the *_Letter-book of the Patriarchs_, lately printed
at Tiflis, are to be found a number of controversial monophysite tracts
of these and the succeeding three centuries, important for church
history. It includes a mass of documents relative to the churches of
Iberia and Albania. The chief literary monument of the 7th century is
the history of the wars of Heraclius and of the early Mahommedan
conquests in Asia Minor, by the bishop Sebeos, who was an eye-witness.
The *history of the Albanians of the Caucasus, by Moses Kalankatuatzi,
also belongs to the end of this century. To the middle of the 7th
century also belong the translations of Aristotle's treatises *_On the
Categories_, and *_On Interpretation_, and of *Porphyry's _Isagoge_, as
well as of voluminous Greek commentaries on these books; the version of
the *Grammar of Dionysius Thrax and an incomplete Euclid. The translator
was one David called the Invincible, who also wrote monophysite tracts.
At the end of this 7th century one Philo of Tirak is supposed to have
made the version of the *History of Socrates, unless indeed it was made
earlier. To this century also seems to belong the Armenian version of a
*history of the Iberians, by Djuansher, a work full of valuable
information.
The early 8th century was a time of great literary activity. Gregory
Asheruni wrote an important *commentary on the Jerusalem Lectionary, and
his friend *John the catholicus (717-728) commentaries on the other
liturgical works of his church; he also collected all existing canon
law, Greek or Armenian, respected in his church, wrote *against the
Paulicians and Docetae, and composed many beautiful hymns. *Leoncius the
priest has left a history of the first caliphs, and Stephanus, bishop of
Siunik, translated the *controversial works of Cyril of Alexandria
(whose _Glaphyra_ and commentaries, however, seem to have been
translated at an earlier period). He also translated the works of
Dionysius the Areopagite, commented on the Armenian breviary and wrote
hymns.
In the 9th century Zachariah, catholicus, the correspondent of Photius,
wrote many eloquent homilies for the various church feasts. Shapuh
Bagratuni wrote a history of his age, now lost. Mashtotz, catholicus,
collected in one volume the Armenian rituals.
In the 10th century (c. 925) the catholicus John VI. issued his *history
of Armenia, and Thomas Artsruni a *history of his clan carried up to the
year 936. Ananias of Mok (943-965) wrote a great work against the
Paulicians, unfortunately lost. Chosroes wrote a *commentary on the
eucharistic rites and breviary, *Mesrop a history of Nerses the Great;
*Stephen of Asolik wrote a history of the world, and a commentary on
Jeremiah; *Gregory of Narek his famous meditations and hymns; Samuel
Kamrdjtsoretzi a commentary on the Lectionary based on Gregory Asheruni.
In the 11th century the catholicus Gregory translated many Acts of
Martyrs, and John Kozerhn wrote a history, now lost, as well as a work
on the Armenian calendar; Stephen Asolik a *history of Armenia up to the
year 1004; *Aristaces of Lastiverd a valuable history of the conquest of
Armenia by the Seljuk caliphs. We may also mention a *monophysite work
against the Greek doctor Theopistus by Paul of Taron; *letters and poems
of Gregory Magistros, who also was the translator of the *_Laws,
Timaeus_ and other dialogues of Plato.
The 12th century saw many remarkable writers, mostly in Cilician
Armenia, viz. Nerses the Graceful (d. 1165), author of an *_Elegy_ on
the taking of Edessa, of *voluminous hymns, of long *Pastoral Letters
and Synodal orations of value for the historian of eastern churches.
*Samuel of Ani composed a chronicle up to 1179. Nerses of Lambron,
archbishop of Tarsus, left a *Synodal oration, a *Commentary on the
liturgy, &c., and his contemporary Gregory of Tlay an *_Elegy_ on the
capture of Jerusalem, and various *dogmatic works. In this century the
*history of Michael the Syrian was translated; Ignatius and Sargis
composed *commentaries on Luke and *the catholic epistles, and *Matthew
of Edessa a valuable history of the years 952-1136, continued up to
1176 by Gregory the priest. Mechithar (Mekhitar) Kosh (d. 1207) wrote an
elegant *_Book of Fables_, and compiled a *corpus of civil and canon law
(partly from Byzantine codes).
In the 13th century the following works or authors are to be
noticed:--*history of Kiriakos of Ganzak, which contains much about the
Mongols, Georgians and Albanians; *Malakia the monk's history of the
Tatars up to 1272; *Chronicle of Mechithar of Ani (fragmentary);
*Vahram's rhymed chronicle of the kings of Lesser Armenia; *history of
the world, by Vartan, up to 1269. In this century mostly falls the
redaction of a large fable literature, recently edited in three volumes
by Professor Marr of St Petersburg.
14th century: *history of Siunik, by Stephen Orbelian, archbishop of
that province 1287-1304; *Sempat's chronicle of Lesser Armenia
(952-1274), carried on by a continuator to 1331; *Mechithar of Airivanq,
a chronography; *Hethoum's account of the Tatars, and chronography of
the years 1076-1307. John of Orotn (d. 1388) compiled commentaries on
John's gospel and the Paulines, and wrote homilies and monophysite
works; his disciple Gregory of Dathev (b. 1340) compiled a *_Summa
theologiae_ called the _Book of Questions_, in the style of the _Summa_
of Aquinas, which had been translated into Armenian c. 1330, as were a
little later the *_Summa_ of Albertus and works of other schoolmen.
15th century: *_History of Tamerlane_, by Thomas of Medsoph, carried up
to 1447.
17th century, Araqel of Tabriz wrote a *history of the Persian invasions
of Armenia in the years 1602-1661.
In the above list are not included a number of medical, astrological,
calendarial and philological or lexicographic works, mostly written
during or since the Cilician or crusading epoch. The hymns used in
Armenian worship rarely go back to the 5th century; and they were still
few in number and brief in length when Nerses the Graceful and his
contemporaries more than doubled their number and bulk in the 12th
century. Most Armenian poems embody acrostics, and their poets began to
rhyme in the 8th century or thereabouts. Since the 15th century a
certain number of profane poets have arisen, whose work is less jejune
on the whole than that of the hymn and canticle writers of an earlier
age. Gregory Magistros (d. 1058) abridged the whole of the Old and New
Testaments in a *rhyming poem, and set a fashion to later writers. Such
works as *_Barlaam and Josaphat_. the *_History of the Seven Sages_, the
*_Wisdom of Ahikar_, the *_Tale of the City of Bronze_, were freely
turned into verse in the 13th and following centuries.
It will be realized from the above enumeration of works written in each
century that Armenian literature was purely monkish. There was no epic
or romance literature; although this was not lacking in the contiguous
country of Georgia, where there seem to have always been knights and
ladies willing to read and keep alive a literature of poetry and
narrative, not altogether suitable for monks, and more akin to Persian
literature.
Other forms of faith than the orthodox had a hold in Armenia,
particularly the Nestorian and the Manichean. Sundry works of Mani were
translated in the year 588, but are lost. Perhaps certain works of
Diodore of Tarsus survive, but the orthodox monks were so vigilant that
there is little chance of finding any other monuments than those of the
stereotyped orthodoxy.
The 16th century saw the first books printed in Armenian. A press was
set up at Venice in 1565, and the psalms and breviary were printed. In
1584 the Roman propaganda began its issue of Armenian books with a
Gregorian calendar. In the 17th century presses were working at
Lembourg, Milan, Paris, Isfahan (where in 1640 a large folio of the
_Lives of the Fathers of the Desert_ appeared), in Leghorn, Amsterdam
(where in 1664 the first edition of the Hymn-book, in 1666 the first
Bible, and in 1667 the first Ritual were printed), Marseilles,
Constantinople, Leipzig and Padua.
The press which has done most in printing Armenian authors is that of
the Mechitharists of Venice. Here in 1836 was issued a magnificent
thesaurus of the Armenian language, with the Latin and Greek equivalents
of each word. At that time there was no dictionary of any language and
literature to be compared with this for exhaustiveness and accuracy.
There are now Armenian presses all over the world, reprinting old books
or issuing new works, often translations of modern writers, English,
French, Russian and German.
The chief collections of old Armenian MSS. are: at the convent of
*Echmiadzin at Valarshapat; at Stambul in the library of the fathers of
St Anthony; at Venice in the Mechitharist convent of San Lazaro; at the
*Mechitharist convent in Vienna; in the *Royal library at Vienna; in the
*Paris Bibliothèque Nationale; in the Vatican library; in the British
Museum; in the *Bodleian; in the Rylands library; in the *Berlin and
*Munich libraries; *in Tübingen; in St Petersburg, and in the *Lazarev
institute at Moscow; at New Joulfa, the Armenian suburb of Isfahan.
Private collections have been made by Mr Rendel Harris in Birmingham
(presented to the university of Leiden); at Parham and elsewhere. A
printed catalogue exists of those marked with an asterisk.
AUTHORITIES.--F. Combefis, _Historia Monothelitarum_ (Paris, 1648);
Arshak Ter Mikelian, _Die armen. Kirche, iv. bis zum xiii.
Jahrhundert_ (Leipzig, 1892); H. Gelzer, "Die Anfänge der armenischen
Kirche" in the _Berichte der Königlich. Sachsischen Gesellschaft der
Wissenschaften: Historisch-philologische Classe_ (1895), p. 171;
Gutschmid, _Kleine Schriften_ (Leipzig, 1892), t. iii.; Langlois,
_Collection d'historiens arméniens_ (Paris, 1867) (the translations
often careless); E.W. Brooks, _The Syriac Chronicle_ known as
_Zachariah of Mitylene_ (London, 1899), p. 24; Dulaurier, _Recherches
sur la chronologie arménienne_ (Paris, 1859); Agop Manandian,
_Beiträge zur albanischen Geschichte_ (Leipzig, 1897); G. Owsepian,
_Die Entstehungsgeschichte des Monotheletismus_ (Leipzig, 1897);
Cardinal Angelo Mai, _Nova SS. patrum bibliotheca_, 6 vols. (Rome,
1844-1871), vol. ii. contains Latin version of Armenian canons;
Hergenrother, _Photius_ (Regensburg, 1867); Tchamchian, _History of
Armenia_ (in Armenian at Venice and English abridged translation
entitled _M. Chamich_ by John Audall, Calcutta, 1827); Domini Joannis
Onziensis, _Opera Latine_ (Venice, 1834); Nersetis Clajensis, _Opera
omnia Latine_ (Venice, 1833); A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus in the _Recueil
de la société orthodoxe de Palestine_ (St Petersburg, 1892) (Armenian
correspondence with Photius translated); Enthymius Zigabenus,
_Panoplia, Patrol. Gr._ vol. 130, col. 1173; E. Dulaurier, _Histoire
de l'église armén._ (Paris, 1857); le Quien, _Oriens christianus_;
Mansi, _Concilia_, vol. 25; Steph. Azarian, _Ecclesiae Armenae
Traditio_ (Rome, 1870); A. Balgy, _Historia doctrinae catholicae inter
Armenos_ (Vienna, 1878); Clemens Galanus, _Conciliatio Ecclesiae
Armenae cum Romana_ (Rome, 1690); L. Alishan, _Sissouan, contrée de
l'Arménie_ (Venice, 1893), in Armenian, but also in French
translation; _Recueil d'actes relatifs aux Arméniens_ (3 vols.,
Moscow, 1833); St Martin, _Mémoires historiques sur l'Arménie_ (Paris,
1818); V. Langlois, _Voyage dans la Cilicie_ (Paris, 1861); H.G.O.
Dwight, _Christianity in Turkey_ (London, 1854); De Damas, _Coup
d'oeil sur l'Arménie_ (Lyon, 1887); H.F.B. Lynch, _Armenia_ (2
vols., London, 1902); J. Issaverdens, _Armenia, Ecclesiastical
History_ (Venice, 1875); E. Dulaurier, _Historiens arméniens des
Croisades_ (Paris); Giovanni de Serpos, _Compendio Storico_ (Venice,
1786); Garabed Chahnazarian, _Esquisse de l'histoire de l'Arménie_
(Paris, 1856); Gelzer, "Armenien" in Herzog-Hauck, _Realencyklopadie
für protestantische Theologie_ (ed. 3, Leipzig, 1897); Hefele, _Hist.
of Councils_, vols. 3 and 9; F. Néve, _L'Arménie chrétienne_ (Paris);
P. Hunanian, _Histoire des canciles d'Orient_ (Vienna, 1847); Gr.
Chalathianz, _Apocryphes_ (Moscow, 1897), and other works; Brosset,
_Collection d'historiens arméniens_ (St Petersburg, 1874), and
numerous other works by the same author; J. Catergian, _De fidei
symbolo quo Armenii utuntur_ (Vienna, 1893); Ricaut, _The present
state of the Greek and Armenian Churches_ (London, 1679); H.
Denzinger, _Ritus orientalium_ (Würzburg, 1863); Fred. C. Conybeare,
_Rituale Armenorum_ (Oxford, 1905); F.E. Brightman, _Eastern
Liturgies_ (Oxford, 1896); P. Vetter, _Chosroae magni explicatio
missae_ (Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1880); L. Petit, articles on Armenian
religious history, councils, literature, creed and discipline in
_Diction. de théologie catholique_, cols. 1888-1968; F.C. Conybeare,
"The Armenian canons of St Sahak" in the _American Journal of
Theology_ (Chicago, 1898), p. 828; C.F. Neumann, _Geschichte der
armenischen Literatur_ (Leipzig, 1836); Simon Weber, _Die katholische
Kirche in Armenien_ (Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1903); Sukias Somal,
_Quadro della Storia Letteraria di Armenia_ (Venice, 1829); M.V.
Ermoni, "L'Arménie" in _Revue de l'orient chrétien_ (for year 1896);
F. Tournebize, "Histoire de l'Arménie" (_ib._ 1902-3-4-5); R.P.D.
Girard, "Les Madag" (_ib._ for year 1902); H. Hübschmann, _Armenische
Studien_ and _Grammatik_ (Leipzig, 1883 and 1895). Grammars by
Petermann (in _Porta Orientalium Linguarum_ series), by Prof. Meillet
of Paris, by Prof. N. Marr of St Petersburg (in Russian), by Joseph
Karst (of the Cilician dialect). Texts of most of the Armenian fathers
and historians have been printed by the Mechitharists of San Lazaro,
Venice, and are readily procurable at their convent. (F. C. C.)
ARMENTIÈRES, a town of northern France, in the department of Nord, on
the Lys, 13 m. W.N.W. of Lille on the Northern railway from that city to
Dunkirk. Pop. (1906) 25,408. The chief building is the hôtel de ville
with a 17th-century belfry. There are communal colleges for girls and
boys, a board of trade-arbitrators, a chamber of commerce and a national
technical school. The town is an important centre for the spinning and
weaving of flax and cotton; bleaching, dyeing and the manufacture of
machinery are among the other industries. Its industrial prosperity
dates from the middle ages, when, however, woollen, not cotton, goods
were the staple product.
ARMET (diminutive of Fr. _arme_), a form of helmet, which was developed
out of existing forms in the latter part of the 15th century. It was
round in shape, and often had a narrow ridge or comb along the top. It
had a pivoted or hinged vizor and nosepiece, and complete chin, neck and
cheek protection, closely connected with the gorget. It is distinguished
from the basinet by its roundness, and by the fact that it protects the
neck and chin by strong plates, instead of a "camail" or loose collar of
mail; from the salade and heaume by its close fit and skull-cap shape;
and from the various forms of vizored burgonets by the absence of the
projecting brim. It remained in use until the final abandonment of the
complete closed head-piece.
ARMFELT, GUSTAF MAURITZ, COUNT (1757-1814), son of Charles II.'s
general, Carl Gustaf Armfelt, was born in Finland on the 31st of March
1757. In 1774 he became an ensign in the guards, but his frivolity
provoked the displeasure of Gustavus III. and he thought it prudent to
go abroad. Subsequently, however, (1780) he met the king again at Spa
and completely won the monarch's favour by his natural amiability,
intelligence and brilliant social gifts. Henceforth his fortune was
made. At first he was the _maître des plaisirs_ of the Swedish court,
but it was not long before more serious affairs were entrusted to him.
He took part in the negotiations with Catherine II. (1783) and with the
Danish government (1787), and during the Russian war of 1788-90 he was
one of the king's most trusted and active counsellors. He also displayed
great valour in the field. In 1788 when the Danes unexpectedly invaded
Sweden and threatened Gothenburg, it was Armfelt who under the king's
directions organized the Dalecarlian levies and led them to victory. He
remained absolutely faithful to Gustavus when nearly the whole of the
nobility fell away from him; brilliantly distinguished himself in the
later phases of the Russian war; and was the Swedish plenipotentiary at
the conclusion of the peace of Verelä. During the last years of Gustavus
III. his influence was paramount, though he protested against his
master's headstrong championship of the Bourbons. On his deathbed
Gustavus III. (1792) committed the care of his infant son to Armfelt and
appointed him a member of the council of regency; but the anti-Gustavian
duke-regent Charles sent Armfelt as Swedish ambassador to Naples to get
rid of him. From Naples Armfelt communicated with Catherine II., urging
her to bring about by means of a military demonstration a change in the
Swedish government in favour of the Gustavians. The plot was discovered
by the regent's spies, and Armfelt only escaped from the man-of-war sent
to Naples to seize him, with the assistance of Queen Caroline. He now
fled to Russia, where he was interned at Kaluga, while at home he was
condemned to confiscation and death as a traitor, and his unjustly
accused mistress Magdalena Rudenschöld was publicly whipped to gratify
an old grudge of the regent's. When Gustavus IV. attained his majority,
Armfelt was completely rehabilitated and sent as Swedish ambassador to
Vienna (1802), but was obliged to quit that post two years later for
sharply attacking the Austrian government's attitude towards Bonaparte.
From 1805 to 1807 he was commander-in-chief of the Swedish forces in
Pomerania, where he displayed great ability and retarded the conquest of
the duchy as long as it was humanly possible. On his return home, he was
appointed commander-in-chief on the Norwegian frontier, but could do
nothing owing to the _ordres, contre-ordres et désordres_ of his lunatic
master. He would have nothing to say to the revolutionaries who in 1809
deposed Gustavus IV. and his whole family. Armfelt was the most
courageous of the supporters of the crown prince Gustavus, and when
Bernadotte was elected resolved to retire to Finland. His departure was
accelerated by a decree of expulsion as a conspirator (1811). Over the
impressionable Alexander I. of Russia, Armfelt exercised almost as great
an influence as Czartoryski, especially as regards Finnish affairs. He
contributed more than any one else to the erection of the grand-duchy
into an autonomous state, and was its first and best governor-general.
The plan of the Russian defensive campaigns is, with great probability,
also attributed to him, and he gained Alexander over to the plan of
uniting Norway with Sweden. He died at Tsarskoe Selo on the 19th of
August 1814.
See Robert Nisbet Bain, _Gustavus III._ vol. ii. (London, 1895); Elof
Tegner, _Gustaf Mauritz Armfelt_ (Stockholm, 1883-1887). (R. N. B.)
ARMIDALE, a town in Sandon county, New South Wales, Australia, 313 m. by
rail N. of Sydney. Pop. (1901) 4249. It lies at an elevation of 3313
ft., in a picturesque mountainous district, for the most part pastoral
and agricultural, though it contains some alluvial gold diggings.
Antimony is found in large quantities near the town. Armidale is a
cathedral town, being the seat of a Roman Catholic bishop and belonging
to the joint Anglican diocese of Grafton; Armidale St Peter's, the
Anglican cathedral, and St Mary's, the Roman Catholic, are both fine
buildings. The town is the centre of great educational activity, its
schools including the New England girls' school, St Patrick's college,
the high school, the Ursuline convent and state schools. Armidale became
a municipality in 1863.
ARMILLA, ARMIL or ARMILLARY SPHERE (from the Lat. _armilla_, a
bracelet), an instrument used in astronomy. In its simplest form,
consisting of a ring fixed in the plane of the equator, the _armilla_ is
one of the most ancient of astronomical instruments. Slightly developed,
it was crossed by another ring fixed in the plane of the meridian. The
first was an equinoctial, the second a solstitial armilla. Shadows were
used as indices of the sun's position, in combination with angular
divisions. When several rings or circles were combined representing the
great circles of the heavens, the instrument became an armillary sphere.
Armillae are said to have been in early use in China. Eratosthenes
(276-196 B.C.) used most probably a solstitial armilla for measuring the
obliquity of the ecliptic. Hipparchus (160-125 B.C.) probably used an
armillary sphere of four rings. Ptolemy (c. A.D. 107-161) describes his
instrument in the _Syntaxis_ (book v. chap, i.), and it is of great
interest as an example of the armillary sphere passing into the
spherical astrolabe. It consisted of a graduated circle inside which
another could slide, carrying two small tubes diametrically opposite,
the instrument being kept vertical by a plumb-line.
[Illustration: From M. Blundeville's _Treatise of the first principles
of Cosmography and specially of the Spheare._
Armillary Sphere. A.D. 1636.]
No material advance was made on Ptolemy's instrument until Tycho Brahe,
whose elaborate armillary spheres passing into astrolabes are figured in
his _Astronomiae Instauratae Mechanica_. The armillary sphere survives
as useful for teaching, and may be described as a skeleton celestial
globe, the series of rings representing the great circles of the
heavens, and revolving on an axis within a horizon. With the earth as
centre such a sphere is known as Ptolemaic; with the sun as centre, as
Copernican.
The designer of the instrument shown no doubt thought that the north
pole might suitably have the same ornament as was used to mark N. on the
compass card, and so surmounted it with the _fleur-de-lys_,
traditionally chosen for that purpose on the compass by Flavio Gioja in
honour of Charles of Anjou, king of Sicily and Naples.
Armillary spheres occur in many old sculptures, paintings and
engravings; and from these sources we know that they were made for
suspension, for resting on the ground or on a table, for holding by a
short handle, or either for holding or for resting on a stand.
AUTHORITIES.--Tycho Brahe, _Astronomiae Instauratae Mechanica; M.
Blundeville, his Exercises_; N. Bion, _Traité des instrumens de
mathématique_; also _L'Usage des globes célestes_; Sédillot, _Mémoire
sur les instrumens_; J.B. Delambre, _Histoire de l'astronomie
ancienne_; R. Grant, _History of Physical Astronomy_. (M. L. H.)
ARMINIUS, the Latinized form of the name of HERMANN, or more probably
ARMIN (17 B.C.-A.D. 21), the German national hero. He was a son of a
certain Segimer, a prince of the tribe of the Cherusci, and in early
life served with distinction as an officer in the Roman armies.
Returning to his own people he found them chafing under the yoke of the
Roman governor, Quintilius Varus; he entertained for them hopes of
freedom, and cautiously inducing neighbouring tribes to join his
standard he led the rebellion which broke out in the autumn of A.D. 9.
Heavily laden with baggage the troops of Varus were decoyed into the
fastnesses of the Teutoburger Wald, and there attacked, the completeness
of the barbarian victory being attested by the virtual annihilation of
three legions, by the voluntary death of Varus, and by the terror which
reigned in Rome when the news of the defeat became known, a terror which
found utterance in the emperor's despairing cry: "Varus, give me back my
legions!" Then in A.D. 15 Germanicus Caesar led the Romans against
Arminius, and captured his wife, Thusnelda. An indecisive battle was
fought in the Teutoburger Wald, where Germanicus narrowly escaped the
fate of Varus, and in the following year Arminius was defeated. The
hero's later years were spent in fighting against Marbod, prince of the
Marcomanni, and in disputes with his own people occasioned probably by
his desire to found a powerful kingdom. He was murdered in A.D. 21.
In 1875 a great monument to Arminius was completed. This stands on the
Grotenburg mountain near Detmold. Klopstock and other poets have used
his exploits as material for dramas.
Much discussion has taken place with regard to the exact spot in the
Teutoburger Wald where the great battle between Arminius and Varus was
fought. There is an immense literature on this subject, and the
following may be consulted:--T. Mommsen, _Die Ortlichkeit der
Varusschlacht_ (1885); E. Meyer, _Untersuchungen über die Schlacht im
Teutoburger Walde_ (1893); A. Wilms, _Die Schlacht im Teutoburger
Walde_ (1899); F. Knoke, _Das Schlachtfeld im Teutoburger Walde_
(1899); E. Dünzelmann, _Der Schauplatz der Varusschlacht_ (1889); and
P. Höfer, _Die Varusschlacht_ (1888). For more general accounts of
Arminius see: Tacitus, _Annals_, edited by H. Furneaux (1884-1891); O.
Kemmer, _Arminius_ (1893); F.W. Fischer, _Armin und die Römer_
(1893); W. Uhl, _Das Portrait des Arminius_ (1898); and F. Knoke, _Die
Kriegszüge des Germanicus in Deutschland_ (1887).
ARMINIUS, JACOBUS (1560-1609), Dutch theologian, author of the modified
reformed theology that receives its name of Arminian from him, was born
at Oudewater, South Holland, on the 10th of October 1560. Arminius is a
Latinized form of his patronymic Hermanns or Hermansen. His father,
Hermann Jakobs, a cutler, died while he was an infant, leaving a widow
and three children. Theodorus Aemilius, a priest, who had turned
Protestant, adopting Jakob, sent him to school at Utrecht, but died when
his charge was in his fifteenth year. Rudolf Snellius (Snel van Roijen,
1546-1613), the mathematician, a native of Oudewater, then a professor
at Marburg, happening at the time to visit his early home, met the boy,
saw promise in him and undertook his maintenance and education. But
hardly was he settled at Marburg when the news came that the Spaniards
had besieged and taken Oudewater, and murdered its inhabitants almost
without exception. Arminius hurried home, but only to find all his
relatives slain. In February the same year (1575), the university of
Leiden had been founded, and thither, by the kindness of friends,
Arminius was sent to study theology. The six years he remained at Leiden
(1576-1582) were years of active and innovating thought in Holland. The
War of Independence had started conflicting tendencies in men's minds.
To some it seemed to illustrate the necessity of the state tolerating
only one religion, but to others the necessity of the state tolerating
all. Dirck Coornhert argued, in private conferences and public
disputations, that it was wrong to punish heretics, and his great
opponents were, as a rule, the ministers, who maintained that there was
no room for more than one religion in a state. Caspar Koolhaes, the
heroic minister of Leiden--its first lecturer, too, in divinity--pleaded
against a too rigid uniformity, for such an agreement on "fundamentals"
as had allowed Reformed, Lutherans and Anabaptists to unite. Leiden had
been happy, too, in its first professors. There taught in theology
Guillaume Feuguières or Feuguereius (d. 1613), a mild divine, who had
written a treatise on persuasion in religion, urging that as to it "men
could be led, not driven"; Lambert Danaeus, who deserves remembrance as
the first to discuss Christian ethics scientifically, apart from
dogmatics; Johannes Drusius, the Orientalist, one of the most
enlightened and advanced scholars of his day, settled later at Franeker;
Johann Kolmann the younger, best known by his saying that high Calvinism
made God "both a tyrant and an executioner." Snellius, Arminius's old
patron, now removed to Leiden, expounded the Ramist philosophy, and did
his best to start his students on the search after truth, unimpeded by
the authority of Aristotle. Under these men and influences, Arminius
studied with signal success; and the promise he gave induced the
merchants' gild of Amsterdam to bear the further expenses of his
education. In 1582 he went to Geneva, studied there awhile under
Theodore Beza, but had soon, owing to his active advocacy of the Ramist
philosophy, to remove to Basel. After a short but brilliant career there
he turned to Geneva, studied for three years, travelled, in 1586, in
Italy, heard Giacomo Zarabella (1533-1589) lecture on philosophy in
Padua, visited Rome, and, open-minded enough to see its good as well as
its evil, was suspected by the stern Dutch Calvinists of "popish"
leanings. Next year he was called to Amsterdam, and there, in 1588, was
ordained. He soon acquired the reputation of being a good preacher and
faithful pastor. He was commissioned to organize the educational system
of the city, and is said to have done it well. He greatly distinguished
himself by fidelity to duty during a plague that devastated Amsterdam in
1602. In 1603 he was called, in succession to Franz Junius, to a
theological professorship at Leiden, which he held till his death on the
19th of October 1609.
Arminius is best known as the founder of the anti-Calvinistic school in
Reformed theology, which created the Remonstrant Church in Holland (see
REMONSTRANTS), and contributed to form the Arminian tendency or party in
England. He was a man of mild and liberal spirit, broadened by varied
culture, constitutionally averse from narrow views and enforced
uniformity. He lived in a period of severe systematizing. The Reformed
strengthened itself against the Roman Catholic theology by working
itself, on the one hand, into vigorous logical consistency, and
supporting itself, on the other, on the supreme authority of the
Scriptures. Calvin's first principle, the absolute sovereignty of God,
had been so applied as to make the divine decree determine alike the
acts and the destinies of men; and his formal principle had been so
construed as to invest his system with the authority of the source
whence it professed to have been drawn. Calvinism had become, towards
the close of the 16th century, supreme in Holland, but the very rigour
of the uniformity it exacted provoked a reaction. Coornhert could not
plead for the toleration of heretics without assailing the dominant
Calvinism, and so he opposed a conditional to its unconditional
predestination. The two ministers of Delft, who had debated the point
with him, had, the better to turn his arguments, descended from the
supralapsarian to the infralapsarian position, i.e. made the divine
decree, instead of precede and determine, succeed the Fall. This seemed
to the high Calvinists of Holland a grave heresy. Arminius, fresh from
Geneva, familiar with the dialectics of Beza, appeared to many the man
able to speak the needed word, and so, in 1589, he was simultaneously
invited by the ecclesiastical court of Amsterdam to refute Coornhert,
and by Martin Lydius, professor at Franeker, to combat the two
infralapsarian ministers of Delft. Thus led to confront the questions of
necessity and free will, his own views became unsettled, and the further
he pursued his inquiries the more he was inclined to assert the freedom
of man and limit the range of the unconditional decrees of God. This
change became gradually more apparent in his preaching and in his
conferences with his clerical associates, and occasioned much
controversy in the ecclesiastical courts where, however, he successfully
defended his position. The controversy was embittered and the
differences sharpened by his appointment to the professorship at Leiden.
He had as colleague Franz Gomarus, a strong supralapsarian, perfervid,
irrepressible; and their collisions, personal, official, political,
tended to develop and define their respective positions.
Arminius died, worn out by uncongenial controversy and ecclesiastical
persecution, before his system had been elaborated into the logical
consistency it attained in the hands of his celebrated successor, Simon
Episcopius; but though inchoate in detail, it was in its principles
clear and coherent enough. These may be thus stated:
1. The decree of God is, when it concerns His own actions, absolute, but
when it concerns man's, conditional, i.e. the decree relative to the
Saviour to be appointed and the salvation to be provided is absolute,
but the decree relative to the persons saved or condemned is made to
depend on the acts--belief and repentance in the one case, unbelief and
impenitence in the other--of the persons themselves.
2. The providence or government of God, while sovereign, is exercised in
harmony with the nature of the creatures governed, i.e. the sovereignty
of God is so exercised as to be compatible with the freedom of man.
3. Man is by original nature, through the assistance of divine grace,
free, able to will and perform the right; but is in his fallen state, of
and by himself, unable to do so; he needs to be regenerated in all his
powers before he can do what is good and pleasing to God.
4. Divine grace originates, maintains and perfects all the good in man,
so much so that he cannot, though regenerate, conceive, will or do any
good thing without it.
5. The saints possess, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, sufficient
strength to persevere to the end in spite of sin and the flesh, but may
so decline from sound doctrine as to cause divine grace to be
ineffectual.
6. Every believer may be assured of his own salvation.
7. It is possible for a regenerate man to live without sin.
Arminius's works are mostly occasional treatises drawn from him by
controversial emergencies, but they everywhere exhibit a calm,
well-furnished, undogmatic and progressive mind. He was essentially an
amiable man, who hated the zeal for an impossible orthodoxy that
constrained "the church to institute a search after crimes which have
not betrayed an existence, yea, and to drag into open contentions those
who are meditating no evil." His friend Peter Bertius, who pronounced
his funeral oration, closed it with these words: "There lived a man whom
it was not possible for those who knew him sufficiently to esteem; those
who entertained no esteem for him are such as never knew him well enough
to appreciate his merits."
The works of Arminius (in Latin) were published in a single quarto
volume at Leiden in 1629, at Frankfort in 1631 and 1635. Two volumes
of an English translation, with copious notes, by James Nichols, were
published at London, 1825-1828; three volumes (complete) at Buffalo,
1853. A life was written by Caspar Brandt, son of Gerard Brandt, the
historian of the Dutch reformation, and published in 1724; republished
and annotated by J.L. Mosheim in 1725; and translated into English by
the Rev. John Guthrie, 1854. James Nichols also wrote a life (London,
1843).
ARMISTICE (from Lat. _arma_, arms, and _sistere_, to stop), a suspension
of hostilities by mutual agreement between two nations at war, or their
respective forces. An armistice may be either general or particular; in
the first case there is a complete cessation of hostile operations in
every part of the dominions of the belligerent powers; in the second
there is merely a temporary truce between two contending armies, or
between a besieged fortress and the force besieging it. Such a temporary
truce, when for a very limited period and for a special purpose, e.g.
the collection of the wounded and the burial of the dead, is termed a
_suspension of arms_. A general armistice cannot be concluded by the
commanders-in-chief unless special authority has been previously
delegated to them by their respective governments; otherwise any
arrangement entered into by them requires subsequent ratification by the
supreme powers of the states. A partial truce may be concluded by the
officers of the respective powers, without any special authority from
their governments, wherever, from the nature and extent of the commands
they exercise, their duties could not be efficiently discharged without
their possession of such a power. The conduct of belligerent parties
during an armistice is usually regulated in modern warfare by express
agreement between the parties, but where this is not the case the
following general conditions may be laid down. (1) Each party may do,
within the limits prescribed by the truce, whatever he could have done
in time of peace. For example, he can raise troops, collect stores,
receive reinforcements and fortify places that are not actually in a
state of siege. (2) Neither party can take advantage of the armistice to
do what he could not have done had military operations continued. Thus
he cannot throw provisions or reinforcements into a besieged town, and
neither besiegers nor besieged are at liberty to repair their
fortifications or erect new works. (3) All things contained in places
the possession of which was contested, must remain in the state in which
they were before the armistice began. Any infringement by either party
of the conditions of the truce entitles the other to recommence hostile
operations without previous intimation.
ARMOIRE, the French name (cf. ALMERY) given to a tall movable cupboard,
or "wardrobe," with one or more doors. It has varied considerably in
shape and size, and the decoration of its doors and sides has faithfully
represented mutations of fashion and modifications of use. It was
originally exceedingly massive and found its chief decoration in
elaborate hinges and locks of beaten iron. The finer ecclesiastical
armoires or aumbries which have come down to us--used in churches for
the safe custody of vestments, eucharistic vessels, reliquaries and
other precious objects--are usually painted, sometimes even upon the
interior, with sacred subjects or with incidents from the lives of the
saints. The cathedrals of Bayeux and Noyon contain famous examples; the
most typical English one is in York minster. By the end of the 14th
century, when the carpenter and the wood-carver had acquired a better
mastery of their material, the taste for painted surfaces appears to
have given place to the vogue of carving, and the simple rectangular
panels gradually became sculptured with a simple motive, such as the
linen-fold or parchment patterns. In the treasury of St Germain
l'Auxerrois the ends of the 15th-century armoires are treated in this
way. In that and the two following centuries the keys and the
escutcheons of the locks became highly ornamental; usually in forged
iron, they were occasionally made of more precious metals. By slow
degrees the shape of this receptacle changed--from breadth was evolved
height, and the tall form of armoire became characteristic. The
Renaissance exercised a notable effect upon this, as upon so many other
varieties of furniture. It became less obviously and aggressively a
thing of utility; its proportions shrank from the massive to the
elegant; its artistic effectiveness was vastly enhanced by its division
into an upper and a lower part. Enriched with columns and pilasters, its
panels carved with mythology, its canopied niches filled with sculptured
statuettes, and terminating with a rich cornice and perhaps a broken
pediment, it was widely removed in appearance, if not in purpose, from
the uncompromising iron-mounted receptacle of earlier generations.
During the 16th century, when the surging impulses of the Renaissance
had died away, the armoire relapsed into plainness, its proportions
increased, and it was again constructed in one piece. Ere long, however,
it grew more sumptuous than ever. Boulle encrusted it with marqueterie
from designs by Bérain; it glowed with _amorini_, with the torches and
arrows of Cupid, with the garlands which he weaves for his captives, and
when allusiveness left a corner vacant, it was filled with arabesques in
ebony or ivory, in brass or white metal. While the royal palaces and the
hôtels of the great nobility were filled with those costly splendours,
the ordinary cabinetmaker continued to construct his modest pieces, and
by the middle of the 18th century the armoire was found in every French
house, ample in width and high in proportion to the lofty rooms of the
period. It is not to be supposed that so useful a piece of furniture was
confined to France. It was used, more or less, throughout a considerable
part of Europe, but it was distinctively Gallic nevertheless, and never
became thoroughly acclimatized elsewhere until about the beginning of
the 19th century, when it developed into the glass-fronted wardrobe
which is now an essential detail in the plenishing of the bed-chamber,
not merely in France and England, but in many other countries. The
_armoire à glace_ was known and occasionally made in France as far back
as the middle of the 18th century, and almost the earliest mention of it
connects it with the scandalous relations of the Maréchal de Richelieu
and the beautiful _fermière générale_, Mme de la Popelinière, who had
one made to mask a secret door. In the conventional and not very
attractive wardrobe of commerce it is difficult to descry the gracious
characteristics of the armoire of the Renaissance or the 17th century,
and it is not altogether surprising that Théodore de Banville should
have condemned one of the most solidly useful of household necessaries
as a "hideous monster."
ARMORICA (AREMORICA), the Roman name, derived from two Celtic words
meaning the "seaside" (_ar_, on, and _mor_, sea), for the land of the
Armorici, roughly the peninsula of Brittany. At the time of the Roman
advance on Gaul there were five principal tribes in Armorica, the
Namneti, the Veneti, the Osismii, the Curiosolitae and the Redones. It
was subdued by Caesar, who entirely destroyed the seafaring tribe of its
south coast, the Veneti. Under the Empire it formed part of the province
of Gallia Lugudunensis (Lugdunensis). It contained hardly any towns,
though many large country houses, and was perhaps less Romanized than
the rest of Gaul. In and after the later part of the 5th century it
received many Celtic immigrants from the British Isles, fleeing (it is
said) from the Saxons; and the Celtic dialect which the Bretons still
speak is thought to owe its origin to these immigrants. (See further
BRITTANY.)
ARMOUR, PHILIP DANFORTH (1832-1901), American merchant and
philanthropist, was born in Stockbridge, New York, on the 16th of May
1832. He was educated at Cazenovia Academy, Cazenovia, N.Y., worked for
several years on his father's farm, and in 1852 with a small party went
overland to California, a large part of the journey being made on foot.
Here during the next four years he laid the foundations of his fortune.
In 1856 he became associated with his friend, Frederick S. Miles, in a
wholesale grocery and commission business at Milwaukee. In 1863 he
became the head of the firm of Armour, Plankington & Co., pork packers,
whose headquarters were at Milwaukee. He also obtained a large interest
in the firm H.O. Armour & Co., which was founded by his brother, Herman
Ossian Armour (1837-1901), and which, starting as a grain commission
business, in 1868 established also a large pork-packing plant. Of this
firm, the name of which was changed to Armour & Co. in 1870, he became
the head in 1875, and thereafter the business made such rapid progress
that in 1901 as many as 11,000 hands were employed. Besides contributing
to many charitable enterprises, Armour founded the Armour Institute of
Technology at Chicago in 1892 and the Armour Flats in Chicago, built for
the purpose of supplying at a low rental good homes for working men and
their families. He also contributed liberally to the Armour Mission in
Chicago, which was founded in 1881 by his brother, Joseph Armour. At the
time of his death, on the 6th of January 1901, Philip D. Armour's
private fortune was supposed to exceed $50,000,000.
*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 2, Slice 5 - "Arculf" to "Armour, Philip"" ***
Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.