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
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon

We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 11, Slice 8 - "Germany" to "Gibson, William"
Author: Various
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 11, Slice 8 - "Germany" to "Gibson, William"" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.

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

(4) Macrons and breves above letters and dots below letters were not

(5) [root] stands for the root symbol; [alpha], [beta], etc. for greek

(6) The following typographical errors have been corrected:

    ARTICLE GERMANY: "After Rupert's death two cousins, Jobst, margrave
      of Moravia, and Sigismund, king of Hungary, were in the autumn of
      1410 both chosen to fill the vacant throne by opposing parties ..."
      'After' amended from "After's".

    ARTICLE GERMANY: "... others--like the landgraves of Hesse and the
      cities of Magdeburg and Strassburg--refused to sign it, and thus it
      served only to emphasize the divisions among the Protestants.
      Moreover ..." 'Magdeburg' amended from 'Madgeburg'.

    ARTICLE GERMANY: "These Articles, embodying the more important
      terms, were included with slight verbal alterations in the treaty
      of peace signed at Prague on the 23rd of August." 'embodying'
      amended from 'enbodying'.

    ARTICLE GERMANY: "... Die Entwicklung des gelehrten Richtertums in
      deutschen Territorien (Stuttgart, 1872) ..." 'Entwicklung' amended
      from 'Entwickelung'.

    ARTICLE GETTYSBURG: "That no decisive success had been obtained by
      Lee was clear to all, but Ewell's men on Culp's Hill, and
      Longstreet's corps below Round Top, threatened to turn both flanks
      of the Federal position, which was no longer a compact horseshoe
      but had been considerably prolonged to the left ..." 'horseshoe'
      amended from 'horsehoe'.

    ARTICLE GHAZNI: "In 997 Mahmud, son of Sabuktagin, succeeded to the
      government, and with his name Ghazni and the Ghaznevid dynasty have
      become perpetually associated. Issuing forth year after year from
      that capital ..." 'become' amended from 'beome'.

    ARTICLE GHOST: "... on the other hand, the phrase 925 "ghostly man"
      for a clergyman (cf. the Ger. Geistlicher) is an archaism the use
      of which could only be justified by poetic licence, as in
      Tennyson's Elaine (1842)." '1842' amended from '1094'.



              ELEVENTH EDITION


        Germany to Gibson, William


  GERMANY (part)                   GHADAMES
  GERMERSHEIM                      GHAT
  GERMISTON                        GHATS
  GERO                             GHAZI
  GEROLSTEIN                       GHAZIABAD
  GERONA (province of Spain)       GHAZNI
  GERONA (town of Spain)           GHEE
  GEROUSIA                         GHEEL
  GERRESHEIM                       GHENT
  GERRHA                           GHETTO
  GERRÚS                           GHIBERTI, LORENZO
  GERRY, ELBRIDGE                  GHICA
  GERRYMANDER                      GHILZAI
  GERS                             GHIRLANDAJO, DOMENICO
  GERSONIDES                       GHOR
  GERSOPPA, FALLS OF               GHOST
  GERVAIS, PAUL                    GIANNONE, PIETRO
  GERVEX, HENRI                    GIANT'S CAUSEWAY
  GERYON                           GIAOUR
  GESNER, ABRAHAM                  GIBARA
  GESSO                            GIBBONS, JAMES
  GETAE                            GIBBS, OLIVER WOLCOTT
  GETHSEMANE                       GIBEON
  GETTYSBURG                       GIBEONITES
  GEUM                             GIBSON, CHARLES DANA
  GEVELSBERG                       GIBSON, EDMUND
  GEX                              GIBSON, JOHN
  GEYSER                           GIBSON, THOMAS MILNER
  GEZER                            GIBSON, WILLIAM HAMILTON

GERMANY (Continued from volume 11 slice 7).

  Decay of the royal power.

Nothing could indicate more clearly than this fact how much of their old
power the German kings had lost. It was not past hope that even yet some
of their former splendour might be restored, and for a brief period
monarchy did again stand high. Still, its foundations were sapped.
Incessant war, both at home and in Italy, had deprived it of its force;
it had lost moral influence by humiliations, of which the scene at
Canossa was an extreme type. Steadily, with unwearied energy, letting no
opportunity escape, the princes had advanced towards independence, and
they might well look forward to such a bearing in regard to the kings as
the kings had formerly adopted in regard to them.

  Conrad III.

Henry the Proud was confident that he would succeed Lothair, who had
died on his return from Italy in December 1137; but, by a hasty and
irregular election, Conrad of Hohenstaufen, duke of Franconia, was
chosen king in March 1138. Henry the Proud rebelled and was declared to
have forfeited his two duchies, Saxony and Bavaria, the former being
given to Albert the Bear, margrave of Brandenburg, and the latter to
Leopold IV., margrave of Austria. Henry defended his rights with vigour
and once again Germany was ravaged by war, for although he was unpopular
in Bavaria he was strongly supported by the Saxons, who, since the time
of Henry IV., had always been ready to join in an attack on the
monarchy, and he had little difficulty in driving Albert the Bear from
the land. However, in October 1139 Henry died suddenly, but his young
son, Henry the Lion, was recognized at once as duke of Saxony, while his
brother, Welf, upheld the fortunes of his house in Bavaria. The struggle
went on until May 1142, when peace was made at Frankfort. Saxony, with
the assent of Albert the Bear, was granted by Conrad to Henry the Lion,
and Bavaria was given to Henry Jasomirgott, who had just succeeded his
brother Leopold as margrave of Austria. But this was only a lull in the
civil strife, which was renewed after the king had made a successful
expedition into Bohemia. The princes clerical and lay were fighting
against each other, and the Bavarians were at war with the Hungarians,
who gained a great victory in 1146. Notwithstanding the many sources of
confusion Conrad was persuaded by the passionate eloquence of Bernard of
Clairvaux to take part in the second crusade; he left for the East in
1147 and returned to Germany in 1149, to find Welf again in arms and
Henry the Lion claiming Bavaria. The king had done nothing to stem the
rising tide of disorder when he died at Bamberg in February 1152. During
this reign the work of conquering and Germanizing the Slavonic tribes
east of the Elbe was seriously taken in hand under the lead of Albert
the Bear and Henry the Lion, and the foundation of the margraviate of
Brandenburg by Albert tended to make life and property more secure in
the north-east of Germany.

  Frederick I. becomes king.

After Conrad's death Germany passed under the rule of one of the
greatest of her sovereigns, Frederick I., called Barbarossa, nephew of
the late king and son of Frederick, that duke of Swabia who had fought
along with Conrad against Henry the Proud. Frederick himself had also
been closely associated with Conrad, who advised the princes to choose
his nephew as his successor. This was done, and the new king was crowned
at Aix-la-Chapelle in March 1152. Allied through his mother to the Welfs
of Bavaria, and anxious to put an end to the unrest which dominated
Germany, especially to the strife between the families of Welf and
Hohenstaufen, Frederick began his reign by promising to secure for Henry
the Lion the duchy of Bavaria, and by appeasing Henry's uncle, Count
Welf, by making him duke of Spoleto and margrave of Tuscany. But the new
king had another, and perhaps a more potent, reason for wishing to see
peace restored in Germany. For his adventurous and imaginative spirit
Italy and the imperial title had an irresistible charm, and in 1154, two
years after he had ascended the throne, he crossed the Alps, being
crowned emperor at Rome in June 1155. After this event the best years of
his life were spent in Italy, where, in his long and obstinate struggle
with the Lombard cities and with Pope Alexander III., he chiefly
acquired his fame. Although on the emperor's side this struggle was
conducted mainly with German troops it falls properly under the history
of Italy. In that country the record of this reign is a blood-stained
page, while in the history of Germany, on the contrary, Frederick's name
is associated with a peaceful and prosperous period.

  Bavaria and Saxony.

The promise that Bavaria should be granted to Henry the Lion was not
easily fulfilled, as Henry Jasomirgott refused to give up the duchy. At
last, however, in 1156, after his return from his first expedition to
Italy, Frederick reconciled the latter prince by making Austria into a
duchy with certain special privileges, an important step in the process
by which that country became the centre of a powerful state. Henry
Jasomirgott then renounced Bavaria, and Henry the Lion became its duke.
It was, however, in his other duchy of Saxony that the latter duke's
most important work was done. Although he often gave offence by his
haughty and aggressive disposition, few German princes have earned so
thoroughly the goodwill of posterity. Since the death of Otto the Great
the Slavonic lands to the east of the Elbe had been very imperfectly
held in subjection by the Germans. Devoting himself to the conquest of
the lands lying along the shore of the Baltic, Henry succeeded as no one
before him had ever done. But he was not only a conqueror. He built
towns and encouraged those which already existed; he founded and
restored bishoprics in his new territories; and between the Elbe and the
Oder he planted bodies of industrious colonists. While he was thus at
work a similar task was being performed to the south-east of Saxony by
Albert the Bear, the first margrave of Brandenburg, who, by his
energetic rule was preparing this country for its great destinies.

  Frederick in Poland and Germany.

Early in his reign, by settling a dispute over the crown of Denmark,
Frederick brought the king of that country once more into the position
of a German vassal. Having spent the year 1156 in settling the Bavarian
question and in enforcing order in the Rhineland and elsewhere, the
emperor marched into Poland in 1157, compelled its ruler, Boleslaus IV.,
to do the homage which he had previously refused to perform, and in
return for services rendered during the campaign and for promises of
future aid, raised the duke of Bohemia to the rank of a king, a change
which in no way affected his duties to the German crown, but which gave
him a certain precedence over other vassal princes. The king of Hungary,
too, although no attempt was made to subdue him, became a useful ally.
Thus the fame of Germany in the neighbouring countries, which had been
nearly destroyed during the confusion of Henry IV.'s reign, was to a
large extent restored. Frederick asserted his authority in Burgundy or,
as it was sometimes called, Franche Comté. In Germany itself internal
order was established by a strict appliance of the existing laws against
those who broke the peace, fresh orders for its observance were issued,
and in Frederick the robber nobles found a most implacable enemy. The
cities, too, flourished during this reign. The emperor attached them to
himself by granting to many of them the very liberties which, by a
strained interpretation of his imperial rights, he withheld from the
cities of Lombardy. Yet, notwithstanding his policy, in these directions
the German nobles appear to have been enthusiastically devoted to
Frederick. Time after time they followed him to Italy, enduring serious
losses and hardships in order that he might enforce claims which were of
no advantage to them, and which, previously, had been a curse to their
nation. Their loyalty is well illustrated by the famous scene at
Besançon in October 1157. During a meeting of the diet a papal legate
read a letter from Pope Adrian IV., which seemed to imply that the
Empire was a papal fief. Indignant murmurs rose from the assembled
nobles, and the life of the legate was only saved from their fury by the
intervention of the emperor himself. The secret of Frederick's great
popularity was partly the national pride excited by his foreign
achievements, partly the ascendance over other minds which his genius
gave him, and partly the conviction that while he would forego none of
his rights he would demand from his vassals nothing more than was
sanctioned by the laws of the Empire.

  Frederick and Alexander III.

Having suppressed a rising at Mainz Frederick set out in the autumn of
1163 for Italy, which country was now distracted by a papal schism. This
incident was bound to affect German politics. After the death of Adrian
IV. in 1159 the imperial party put forward an anti-pope, Victor IV.,
against Alexander III., who had been canonically elected. The emperor
made stupendous efforts to secure for Victor and then for his successor,
Paschal III., recognition by the sovereigns of Europe, but in vain; and
almost the only support which the anti-pope received came from the
German clergy. In May 1165 Frederick held a diet at Würzburg, where the
princes lay and clerical swore to be faithful to Paschal and never to
recognize Alexander. But Alexander soon found partisans among the German
clergy, hitherto the most loyal of the emperor's friends; and Frederick
retaliated by driving the offending prelates from their sees, a
proceeding which tended to disturb the peace of the land. Then in August
1167, in the midst of the struggle in Italy, came the pestilence which
destroyed the imperial army in Rome, and drove the emperor as a fugitive
across the Alps. After this humiliation Frederick remained for six years
in Germany. He was fully occupied in restoring order in Saxony, in the
diocese of Salzburg and elsewhere; in adding to his hereditary lands; in
negotiating for a better understanding with France and England; and in
reminding the vassal states, Hungary, Poland and Bohemia, of their
duties towards the Empire. The success with which he carried out this
work shows clearly that, in Germany at least, the disaster at Rome had
not seriously affected his prestige. Again in Italy in 1174 the contest
with the Papacy was abruptly ended by Frederick's overwhelming defeat at
Legnano in May 1176, and by the treaty of Venice made about a year later
with Alexander III.

  Frederick and Henry the Lion.

In the later years of his reign the emperor's chief enemy was Henry the
Lion. Rendered arrogant by success and confident that his interests were
in northern, and not in southern Europe, the Saxon duke refused to
assist Frederick in the campaign which ended so disastrously at Legnano.
Ascribing his defeat to Henry's defection, Frederick returned to Germany
full of anger against the Saxon duke and firmly resolved to punish him.
The immediate cause of Henry's downfall, however, was not his failure to
appear in Italy, but his refusal to restore some lands to the bishop of
Halberstadt, and it was on this charge that he was summoned before the
diet. Three times he refused to appear, and early in 1180 sentence was
pronounced against him; he was condemned to lose all his lands and to go
into banishment. For some time he resisted, but at length the emperor in
person marched against him and he was forced to submit; the only favour
he could secure when peace was made at Erfurt in November 1181 was
permission to retain Brunswick and Lüneburg, which have remained in the
possession of his descendants until our own day. Bavaria was granted to
Otto of Wittelsbach, but it lost some of its importance because Styria
was taken from it and made into a separate duchy. The extensive duchy of
Saxony was completely dismembered. The name was taken by the small
portion of the former duchy which was given to Bernard, son of Albert
the Bear, the founder of a new Saxon line, and the extensive western
part was added to the archbishopric of Cologne. The chief prelates of
Saxony and many of the late duke's most important feudatories were made
virtually independent of all control save that of the crown. Frederick's
object in thus breaking up the two greatest duchies in his kingdom was
doubtless to strengthen the imperial authority. But in reality he made
it certain that the princes would one day shake off the imperial power
altogether; for it was perhaps more difficult for the sovereign to
contend with scores of petty nobles than with two or three great

  Frederick and Philip of Heinsberg.

Less serious than the struggle with Henry the Lion was Frederick's
struggle with Philip of Heinsberg, archbishop of Cologne (d. 1191), on
whom he had just conferred a great part of Saxony. When the emperor went
to Italy in 1184 he left the government of Germany to his son Henry,
afterwards the emperor Henry VI., who had been crowned German king in
1169. On all sides, but especially in the north-west, Henry was faced
with incipient revolution, and while he was combating this the quarrel
between Frederick and the Papacy broke out again in Italy. At this
juncture Philip of Cologne united the German and the Italian
oppositions. Several princes rallied to his standard and foreign powers
promised aid, but although very formidable in appearance the combination
had no vestige of popular support. The greater part of the German clergy
again proved their loyalty to Frederick, who hurried to Germany only to
see the opposition vanish before him. In March 1188 Philip of Cologne
submitted at Mainz.

  Frederick's death.

Germany was now at peace. With the accession of Gregory VIII. pope and
emperor were reconciled, and by the marriage of his son Henry with
Constance, daughter of Roger I., king of Sicily, the emperor had reason
to hope that the Empire would soon include Naples and Sicily. Resolving
that the sunset of his life should be even more splendid than its dawn
he decided to go on crusade, and in 1189 he started with a great army
for the Holy Land. When the news reached Germany that he had been
drowned, an event which took place in Cilicia in June 1190, men felt
that evil days were coming upon the country, for the elements of discord
would no longer be controlled by the strong hand of the great emperor.

  Henry VI.

Evil days did not, however, come in the time of Henry VI., who, although
without his father's greatness, had some of his determination and
energy, and was at least his equal in ambition. Having in 1190 reduced
Henry the Lion once more to submission, the new king set out to take
possession of his Sicilian kingdom, being on the way crowned emperor at
Rome. At the end of 1191 he returned to Germany, where he was soon faced
by two serious risings. The first of these centred round the restless
and unruly Welfs; after a time these insurgents were joined by their
former enemies, the rulers of Saxony, of Thuringia and of Meissen, who
were angered by Henry's conduct. The Welfs also gained the assistance of
Canute VI., king of Denmark. Equally dangerous was a rebellion in the
Lower Rhineland, where the emperor made many foes by appointing,
regardless of their fitness, his own candidates to vacant bishoprics. At
Liége this led to serious complications; and when Bishop Albert, who had
been chosen against Henry's wish, was murdered at Reims in November
1192, the emperor was openly accused of having instigated the crime. At
once the rulers of Brabant, of Limburg and of Flanders, with the
archbishops of Cologne and Trier, were in arms. In the east of Germany
Ottakar I. of Bohemia joined the circle of Henry's enemies, and the
southern duchies, Bavaria, Swabia and Austria, were too much occupied
with internal quarrels to send help to the harassed emperor. But
formidable as were these risings they were crushed, although not
entirely by force of arms. In 1193 Richard I. of England passed as a
prisoner into Henry's keeping, and with rare skill the emperor used him
as a means of compelling his enemies to come to terms. Henry the Lion
was the last to submit. He made his peace in 1194, when his son Henry
was promised the succession to the Rhenish Palatinate. Returning from
another visit to Sicily, the emperor was now so powerful that, in
pursuance of his plan for making himself the head of a great world
monarchy, he put forward the suggestion that the imperial crown should
be declared hereditary in his family. This proposal aroused much
opposition, but Henry persisted with it; he promised important
concessions to the princes, many of whom were induced to consent, and
but for his sudden death, which occurred in Sicily in September 1197, it
is probable that he would have attained his end.

  Philip of Swabia and Otto of Brunswick.

Great as was Henry's authority many of the princes, chief among them
being Adolph, archbishop of Cologne (d. 1220), refused to recognize his
son, Frederick, who had been chosen king of the Romans in 1196. This
attitude was possibly owing to the fact that Frederick was young and
inexperienced; it was, however, more probably due to a revival of the
fear that the German princes would be entangled in Italian politics. For
a time Adolph and his friends, who were mainly princes of the Rhineland,
sought in vain for a new king. While they were thus employed the
friends of the house of Hohenstaufen, convinced that Frederick's
kingship was not possible, chose the late emperor's brother, Philip,
duke of Swabia, to fill the vacant throne; soon afterwards the enemies
of the house found a candidate in the person of Henry the Lion's son,
Otto of Brunswick, who was also chosen German king. Thus the struggle
between Welf and Hohenstaufen was renewed and civil war broke out at
once. Philip's supporters were the nobles of southern and eastern
Germany, while a few cities in the west owned his authority; Otto's
friends were found mainly in the north and the north-west of the
country. The number of available warriors was increased by the return of
many crusaders, among them being the famous soldier, Henry von Kalden,
who was mainly responsible for the success of Philip's cause in 1199. If
Germany had been unconnected with the Papacy, or even if the Papacy had
been as weak as in the days of Henry VI., the issue of the strife would
almost certainly have been an early victory for Philip. A majority of
the princes were on his side and the French king Philip Augustus was his
ally, while his personal character commanded general respect. Otto,
whose chief supporter outside Germany was his uncle Richard I. of
England, on the other hand was a harsh and violent man. But
unfortunately for Germany the papal chair at this time was occupied by
Innocent III., a pope who emulated Hildebrand in ambition and in
statesmanship. At first vacillating, but by no means indifferent,
Innocent was spurred to action when a number of princes met at Spires in
May 1200, declared Philip to be the lawful king, and denied the right of
the pope to interfere. He was also annoyed by Philip's attitude with
regard to a vacancy in the archbishopric of Cologne, and in March 1201
he declared definitely for Otto. The efforts of the pope helped to
rekindle the expiring flames of war, and for a year or two success
completely deserted Philip. He lost the support of Ottakar of Bohemia
and of Hermann I., landgrave of Thuringia; he was driven from North
Germany into Swabia and Otto's triumph seemed assured. From 1204
onwards, however, fortune again veered round, and Philip's prospects
began to improve. Deserted by Ottakar and even by Adolph of Cologne and
his own brother Henry, count palatine of the Rhine, Otto was forced to
take refuge in Brunswick, his last line of defence, and was only saved
by Philip's murder, which occurred at Bamberg in June 1208. A feature of
this struggle was the reckless way in which the rival kings gave away
the property of the crown in order to gain adherents, thus enriching the
princes and weakening the central government.

  Otto IV. becomes sole king.

Otto was now again chosen German king, and to aid and mark the general
reconciliation he was betrothed to the murdered king's daughter Beatrix.
Nearly all the princes acknowledged him, and as pope and king were at
peace, Germany enjoyed a period of comparative quiet. This however, did
not last long. Having secured his coronation at Rome in October 1209,
Otto repudiated the many pledges he had made to Innocent and began to
act in defiance of the papal wishes. To punish him the pope put forward
his own ward, Henry VI.'s son Frederick, who was living in Sicily, as a
rival king. While Otto was warring in Italy a number of influential
princes met at Nuremberg, at the instigation of Innocent and of his ally
Philip Augustus of France, and invited Frederick to come to Germany.
Otto then left Italy hurriedly, but he was quickly followed by his young
rival, who in the warfare which had already broken out proved himself a
formidable opponent. Seeking to mend his failing fortunes, the Welf went
to France to support his ally, the English king John, against Philip
Augustus, and at the battle of Bouvines (July 27, 1214) memorable in the
history alike of Germany, of England and of France, his fate was sealed,
although until his death in May 1218 he maintained a desultory warfare
against Frederick.

  Frederick II.

Frederick II. was, if not the strongest, certainly the most brilliant of
German kings. With the medieval passion for adventure he combined the
intellectual culture and freedom of a modern gentleman. A lover of
poetry, of art and of science, he was also a great statesman; he knew
how to adapt his policy to changing circumstances and how to move men by
appealing at one time to their selfishness and weakness and at another
time to the nobler qualities of human nature. For outward splendour his
position was never surpassed, and before he died he possessed six
crowns, those of the Empire, Germany, Sicily, Lombardy, Burgundy and
Jerusalem. But Germany profited neither by his gifts nor by his
prestige. After Bouvines he purchased the assistance of Valdemar II.,
king of Denmark, by ceding to him a large stretch of land along the
Baltic coast; and, promising to go on crusade, he secured his coronation
at Aix-la-Chapelle in July 1215. Then being generally recognized as king
he was able to do something to quell disturbances in various parts of
the country, and, in April 1220, to bring about the election of his
young son Henry as king of the Romans. But for this favour he had been
compelled to pay a high price. Seven years before, at Eger in July 1213,
he had made extensive concessions to the church, undertaking to take no
part in episcopal elections, thus surrendering the advantages gained by
the concordat of Worms, and to allow to German bishops the right of
appeal to Rome. Proceeding a step farther in the same direction, he now
promised to erect no new toll-centre, or mint, on the lands of the
spiritual princes, and to allow no towns to be built thereon. Thus the
prelates possessed nearly all the rights of sovereigns, and regarded the
pope in Italy and not the king in Germany as their head, a state of
affairs which was fatal to the unity, nay, even to the existence of the

  Germany in Frederick's absence.

Having made peace with Henry, count palatine of the Rhine and brother of
Otto IV., and settled a dispute about the lands of the extinct family of
Zähringen in the south-west of the country, Frederick left Germany in
August 1220; engaged in his bitter contest with the Papacy and the
Lombard cities, in ruling Sicily, and, after several real or imaginary
delays, in fulfilling his crusading vow, he did not return to it for
fifteen years. During this period he was represented by his son Henry,
in whose name the government of Germany was carried on by the regent
Engelbert, archbishop of Cologne. While Engelbert lived the country was
in a fairly peaceable condition, although, thanks to the emperor's
concessions, the spiritual princes were predominant, and all possible
means were taken to check the growth of the towns, whose interests and
aspirations were not favourable to this state of affairs. There was,
moreover, a struggle between Valdemar of Denmark and some neighbouring
German nobles. But after Engelbert's murder (November 1225) there was a
change for the worse, and the only success which can be placed to the
credit of the German arms during the next few years was the regaining of
the lands ceded to Denmark in 1215, lands which included the cities of
Hamburg and Lübeck. Under the rule of the new regent, Louis I., duke of
Bavaria, confusion reigned supreme, and civil war prevailed in nearly
every part of the country.

  Rebellion of King Henry.

After the treaty of San Germano, which was made with Pope Gregory in
1230, and the consequent lull in the struggle with the Papacy, Frederick
was able to devote some little attention to Germany, and in 1231 he
sanctioned the great Privilege of Worms. This was a reward to the
princes for their efforts in bringing about the peace, and an extension
of the concessions made in 1220. The princes, now for the first time
referred to officially as _domini terrae_, were given full rights of
jurisdiction over their lands and all the inferior officers of justice
were made subservient to them. Practically they became independent
sovereigns, and to make their victory more complete serious restraints
were laid upon the freedom of the towns. Before this date King Henry had
begun to take a personal part in the government and was already involved
in a quarrel with Otto II., duke of Bavaria. He disliked the Privilege
of Worms and, favouring the towns against the princes, his policy was
diametrically opposed to that of the emperor; however, in 1232 he went
to Italy and promised to obey his father's commands. But in 1234, at a
time of great and increasing disorder in Germany, he rebelled; he
appealed publicly to the princes for support, gained some followers,
especially in his own duchy of Swabia, and made an alliance with the
Lombard cities. Confident of his strength Frederick entered Germany with
a few attendants in the middle of 1235, and his presence had the
anticipated effect of quelling the insurrection; Henry was sent a
prisoner to Italy and disappeared from history. Then, in August 1235,
amid surroundings of great splendour, the emperor held a diet at Mainz,
which was attended by a large number of princes. This diet is very
important in the legal history of Germany, because here was issued that
great "land peace" (_Landfrieden_) which became the model for all
subsequent enactments of the kind. By it private war was declared
unlawful, except in cases where justice could not be obtained; a chief
justiciar was appointed for the Empire; all tolls and mints erected
since the death of Henry VI. were to be removed; and other provisions
dealt with the maintenance of order.

  Frederick in Germany.

In 1236, during another short stay in Germany, Frederick in person led
the imperial army against Frederick II., duke of Austria, who had defied
and overcome his representatives; having taken possession of Vienna and
the Austrian duchies he there secured the election of his son Conrad,
who had already succeeded his brother as duke of Swabia, as king of the
Romans (May 1237). But in spite of these imposing displays of power the
princes looked with suspicion upon an emperor who was almost a stranger
to their country and who was believed to be a renegade from their faith,
and soon after Frederick's return to Italy the gulf between him and his
German subjects was widened by his indifference to a great danger which
threatened them. This came from the Mongols who ravaged the eastern
frontiers of the country, but the peril was warded off by the efforts of
Henry II., duke of Silesia, who lost his life in a fight against these
foes near Liegnitz in April 1241, and of Wenceslaus I., king of Bohemia.

  Frederick and the pope.

The emperor's attitude with regard to the Mongol invasion is explained
by events in Italy where Frederick was engaged in a new and, if
possible, a more virulent struggle with the Lombard cities and with
Gregory IX. As usual, the course of politics in Germany, which at this
time was ruled by King Conrad and by the regent Siegfried, archbishop of
Mainz (d. 1249), was influenced by this quarrel. Frederick of Austria
had allied himself with Wenceslaus of Bohemia, and spurred on by the
papal emissary had tried to set up a rival king; but both the Danish and
the French princes who were asked to accept this thankless position
declined the invitation, and Frederick and Wenceslaus made their peace,
the former receiving back his duchies. After the defeat of the Mongols,
however, there was again the danger of a rebellion based upon a union
between the princes and the pope. Siegfried of Mainz deserted his
master, and visiting Germany in 1242 Frederick found it necessary to
purchase the support of the towns by a grant of extensive privileges;
but, although this had the desired effect, Conrad could make but little
headway against the increasing number of his enemies. At last the Papacy
found an anti-king. Having declared Frederick deposed at the council of
Lyons in 1245, Gregory's successor, Innocent IV., induced a number of
princes to choose as their king the landgrave of Thuringia, Henry Raspe,
who had served as regent of Germany. This happened in May 1246, and the
conduct of the struggle against the _Pfaffenkönig_, as Henry was called,
was left to Conrad, who was aided by the Bavarians, until February 1247,
when the anti-king died. The papal party then elected William II., count
of Holland, as Henry Raspe's successor, and during the state of anarchy
which now prevailed in Germany the emperor died in Italy in December

  Conrad IV.

Upon his father's death Conrad IV. was acknowledged by many as king in
Germany, but in 1251 he went to Italy, where he was fully occupied in
fighting against the enemies of his house until his death in May 1254.
The struggle to maintain the position of the Hohenstaufen in Italy was
continued after this event; but in October 1268, by the execution of
Conrad's son Conradin, the family became extinct.

  The interregnum.

After Conrad's death William of Holland received a certain allegiance,
especially in the north of the country, and was recognized by the
Rhenish cities which had just formed a league for mutual protection, a
league which for a short time gave promise of great strength and
usefulness. In January 1256, however, William was killed, and in the
following year there was a double election for the German crown,
Alphonso X., king of Castile, a grandson of Philip of Swabia, and
Richard, earl of Cornwall, brother of the English king Henry III., being
each chosen by parties of electors. Richard was crowned in May 1257, but
the majority of his subjects were probably ignorant of his very name;
Alphonso did not even visit the country over which he claimed to rule.

  The Teutonic Order in Prussia.

During the reign of Frederick II. Prussia was conquered for Christianity
and civilization by the knights of the Teutonic Order, who here built up
the state which was later, in association with Brandenburg, deeply to
influence the course of history. This work was begun in 1230. Knights
eager to win fame by engaging in the war against the heathen Prussians
flocked hither from all lands; towns, Königsberg, Thorn, Kulm and
others, were founded; and in alliance with the Brothers of the Sword,
the order was soon pressing farther eastwards. Courland and Livonia were
brought into subjection, and into these lands also Christian
institutions were introduced and German settlers brought the arts of

  Period of Hohenstaufen dynasty.

The age of the Hohenstaufen emperors is, in many respects, the most
interesting in the medieval history of Germany. It was a period of great
men and great ideas, of dramatic contrasts of character and opinion--on
the one side a broad humanitarianism combined with a gay enjoyment of
the world, on the other side an almost superhuman spirituality which
sought its ideal in the rejection of all that the world could give. It
saw the new-birth of poetry and of art; it witnessed the rise of the
friars. The contest between Empire and Papacy was more than a mere
struggle for supremacy between two world-powers; it was a war to the
death between two fundamentally opposite conceptions of life, which in
many respects anticipated and prepared the way for the Renaissance and
the Reformation. The emperor Frederick II. himself stands out as the
type of the one tendency; Innocent III., Francis of Assisi and Dominic,
in their various degrees, are types of the other. Frederick himself, of
course, was Italian rather than German, akin to the despots of the
Renaissance in his many-sided culture, his tolerant scepticism and his
policy of "cruelty well applied." The culture of which he was the
supreme representative, that of Italy and of Provence, took a more
serious shade when it penetrated into Germany. The German _Minnesinger_
and romance-writers, whose golden age corresponded with that of the
Hohenstaufen, were not content only to sing the joy of life or the
chivalrous virtues of courage, courtesy and reverence for women; they in
some sort anticipated the underlying ideas of the Reformation by
championing the claims of the German nation against the papal monarchy
and pure religion, as they conceived it, against the arrogance and
corruption of the clergy. In them the medieval lay point of view became
articulate, finding perhaps its most remarkable expression in the ideas
of religious toleration proclaimed by Walther von der Vogelweide and
Wolfram von Eschenbach. In Germany, as elsewhere, the victory of the
Papacy was the victory of obscurantism. German culture, after a short
revival, perished once more amid the smoke of the fires kindled by
Conrad of Marburg and his fellow inquisitors.

In architecture, as in literature, this period was also one of great
achievement in Germany. Of the noble palaces which it produced the
castle of the Wartburg (q.v.) remains a perfect specimen, while the many
magnificent churches dating from this time that still survive, prove the
taste, wealth and piety of the burghers. For the science of government,
too, much was done, partly by the introduction from Italy of the study
of Roman law, partly by the collection of native customs in the
_Sachsenspiegel_ compiled by Eike von Repgow early in the 13th century,
and the less valuable _Deutschenspiegel_ and _Schwabenspiegel_.
Altogether, Germany has seen no more fascinating epoch, none more full
of life, movement and colour.

  Political character of Germany settled.

Yet it was in this age that the German nation utterly lost its political
strength. Even after Lothair the Saxon, a line of sovereigns rigidly
confining themselves to their own kingdom might have mastered the many
influences which were making for disunion. But the Hohenstaufen family,
like their Saxon and Franconian predecessors, would be content with
nothing short of universal dominion; and thus the crown which had once
been significant of power and splendour gradually sank into contempt.
Under the strong rule of Frederick Barbarossa and his son this process
was temporarily stopped, but only to advance more rapidly when they were
gone. During the confusion of the civil war carried on by Otto IV. and
Philip, the princes, being subject to hardly any check, freely obtained
crown lands and crown rights, and the mischief was too extensive to be
undone by Frederick II. In 1220, in order to secure the adhesion of the
church to his son Henry, he formally confirmed the spiritual princes in
their usurpations; eleven years later at Worms still more extensive
advantages were granted to the princes, both spiritual and secular, and
these formal concessions formed the lawful basis of the independence of
the princely class. Such authority as the emperor reserved for himself
he could exercise but feebly from a distant land in which his energies
were otherwise occupied. His immediate successors can hardly be said to
have exercised any authority whatever; and they lost hold of the border
countries which had hitherto been dependent upon or connected with
Germany. Thenceforth Denmark and Poland rendered no homage to the German
crown, and Burgundy was gradually absorbed by France.

  Classes of the population.

The country was not now divided into a few duchies which, with skilful
management, might still in times of emergency have been made to act
together. The age of the great duchies was past. As we have seen,
Bavaria was shorn of extensive lands, over which new dukes were placed,
and the duchy of Saxony was altogether broken up. Swabia and Franconia
ceased to have dukes, and Lorraine gave place to the duchy of Brabant
and other smaller states. Thus there were archbishops, bishops, abbots,
dukes, margraves, landgraves, counts--forming together a large
body--each of whom claimed to have no superior save the emperor, whose
authority they and their predecessors had slowly destroyed. All
immediate nobles were not princes; but even petty knights or barons, who
possessed little more than the rude towers from which they descended
upon passing travellers, if their only lord was the emperor, recognized
no law save their own will. Another independent element of the state was
composed of the imperial cities. So long as the emperor really reigned,
they enjoyed only such liberties as they could wring from him, or as he
voluntarily conferred. But when the sovereign's power decayed, the
imperial cities were really free republics, governing themselves
according to their own ideas of law and justice (see COMMUNE). Besides
the imperial cities, and the princes and other immediate nobles, there
were the mediate nobles, the men who held land in fief of the highest
classes of the aristocracy, and who, in virtue of this feudal relation,
looked down upon the allodial proprietors or freemen, and upon the
burghers. There were also mediate towns, acknowledging the supremacy of
some lord other than the sovereign. Beneath all these, forming the mass
of the agricultural population, were the peasantry and the serfs, the
latter attached to the land, the former ground down by heavy taxes.
There was another class, large and increasing in number, which was drawn
from various sections of society. This was composed of men who, being
without land, attached themselves to the emperor or to some powerful
noble; they performed services, generally of a military nature, for
their lord, and were called _Dienstmannen_ (_ministeriales_). They were
often transformed into "free knights" by the grant of a fief, and the
class ultimately became absorbed in that of the knights.

  The electors.

The period from the death of Conrad IV. to the election of Rudolph of
Habsburg in 1273 is generally called the Great Interregnum, and it was
used by the princes to extend their territories and to increase their
authority. On several occasions it had seemed as if the German crown
would become hereditary, but it had been kept elective by a variety of
causes, among them being the jealousy of the Papacy and the growing
strength of the aristocracy. In theory the election of each king needed
the sanction of the whole of the immediate nobles, but in practice the
right to choose the king had passed into the hands of a small but
varying number of the leading princes. During the 13th century several
attempts were made to enumerate these princes, and at the contested
election of 1257 seven of them took part. This was the real beginning of
the electoral college whose members at this time were the archbishops of
Mainz, Cologne and Trier, the duke of Saxony, the duke of Bavaria, who
was also count palatine of the Rhine, the margrave of Brandenburg and
the king of Bohemia. After this event the electors became a distinct
element in the state. They were important because they could maintain
the impotence of the crown to check disorder by imposing conditions upon
candidates for the throne, and by taking care that no prince powerful
enough to be dangerous to themselves should be elected to this position.

  Divisions of the princely lands.

Until the time of the interregnum the territories of a prince were rarely
divided among his descendants, the reason being that, although the
private fiefs of the nobles were hereditary, their offices--margrave,
count and the like--were in theory at the disposal of the king. There was
now a tendency to set this principle aside. Otto II., duke of Bavaria, a
member of the Wittelsbach family, had become by marriage ruler of the
Rhenish Palatinate, and after his death these extensive lands were ruled
in common by his two sons; but in 1255 a formal division took place and
the powerful family of Wittelsbach was divided into two branches. About
the same time the small duchy of Saxony was divided into two duchies,
those of Wittenberg and Lauenburg, the former to the south and the latter
to the north of the great mark of Brandenburg, and there were similar
divisions in the less important states. It was thus practically settled
that the offices and territories, as well as the private fiefs, of the
princes were hereditary, to be disposed of by them at their pleasure.
This being thoroughly established it would have been hard, perhaps
impossible, even for a sovereign of the greatest genius, to reassert in
anything like its full extent the royal authority. The process of
division and subdivision which steadily went on broke up Germany into a
bewildering multitude of principalities; but as a rule the members of
each princely house held together against common enemies, and ultimately
they learned to arrange by private treaties that no territory should pass
from the family while a single representative survived.

  The cities.

The consolidation of the power of the princes was contemporary with the
rise of the cities into new importance. Several of them, especially
Mainz, Worms and Spires, had received valuable rights from the kings and
other lords; they were becoming self-governing and to some extent
independent communities and an important and growing element in the
state. The increase of trade and a system of taxation provided the
governing body with funds, which were used to fortify the city and in
other ways to make life and property more secure. The destruction of
imperial authority compelled them to organize their resources, so as to
be at all times prepared against ambitious neighbours. They began to
form leagues which the greatest princes and combinations of princes
could not afford to despise. Of these leagues the chief at this time was
the Rhenish Confederation, which has been already mentioned. Great
importance was also acquired by the Hanseatic League, which had
originated during the interregnum in a treaty of alliance between Lübeck
and Hamburg. It ultimately included more than eighty cities and became
one of the greatest commercial powers in Europe (see HANSEATIC LEAGUE).

  Rudolph of Habsburg.

A political system which allowed the princes to do as they pleased was
very much to their liking, and if they had followed their own impulse it
is possible that they would never have placed a king over their country.
But the pope intervened. He found from his troubles in Italy and from
his diminished revenues from Germany that it would be still convenient
to have in the latter country a sovereign who, like some of his
predecessors, would be the protector of the church. Therefore, after the
death of Richard of Cornwall in April 1272, Pope Gregory X., ignoring
the absent Alphonso of Castile, told the electors that if they did not
choose a king he himself would appoint one. The threat was effective. In
September 1273 the electors met and raised to the throne a Swabian
noble, Rudolph, count of Habsburg, who proved to possess more energy
than they had imagined possible. For some time before this event the
most powerful prince in Germany had been Ottakar II., king of Bohemia,
who by marriage and conquest had obtained large territories outside his
native kingdom, including the duchy of Austria and other possessions of
the extinct family of Babenberg. Having himself cherished some hopes of
receiving the German crown Ottakar refused to do homage to the new
sovereign; after a time war broke out between them, and in August 1278
in a battle at Dürnkrut on the March Ottakar was defeated and slain, his
lands, save Bohemia, passing into the possession of the victor. Rudolph
had been able to give his whole attention to this enterprise owing to
the good understanding which had been reached between himself and the
pope, to whom he had promised to allow a free hand in Italy.

  His reign.

Rudolph has often been called the restorer of the German kingdom, but he
has little real claim to this honourable title. He marched once or twice
against law-breakers, but in all the German duchies there were frequent
disturbances which he did very little to check. In his later years he
made some attempts to maintain the public peace, and he distinguished
himself by the vigour with which he punished robber barons in Thuringia;
he also won back some of the crown lands and dues which had been stolen
during the interregnum. But he made no essential change in the condition
of Germany. There seemed to be only one way in which a king could hope
to overcome the arrogance of the princes, and that was to encourage the
towns by forming with them a close and enduring alliance. Rudolph,
however, almost invariably favoured the princes and not the towns. The
latter had a class of burgher called _Pfahlbürger_, men who lived in the
open country outside the _Pfähle_, or palisades of the town, but who
could claim the protection of the municipal authorities. By becoming
_Pfahlbürger_ men were able of escape from the tyranny of the large
landholders, and consequently the princes strongly opposed the right of
the towns to receive them. Not only did the king take the part of the
princes in this important struggle, but he harassed the towns by
subjecting them to severe imposts, a proceeding which led to several
risings. About this time the princes were gaining influence in another
direction. Their assent to all important acts of state, especially to
grants of crown property, was now regarded as necessary and was conveyed
by means of _Willebriefe_; henceforward they were not merely the
advisers of the king, they were rather partners with him in the business
of government.

  The Habsburg family.

Rudolph had all the sympathies and prejudices of the noble class, and
the supreme object of his life was not to increase the power of the
state but to add to the greatness of his own family, a policy which was
perhaps justified by the condition of the German kingdom, the ruler of
which had practically no strength save that which he derived from his
hereditary lands. In this he was very successful. Four years after the
fall of Ottakar he obtained from the princes a tardy and reluctant
assent to the granting of Austria, Styria and Carniola to his own sons,
Rudolph and Albert. In 1286 Carinthia was given to Meinhard, count of
Tirol, on condition that when his male line became extinct it should
pass to the Habsburgs. Thus Rudolph made himself memorable as the real
founder of the house of Habsburg.

  Adolph of Nassau.

It was in vain that Rudolph sought to obtain the succession to the crown
for one of his sons; the electors would not take a step which might
endanger their own rights, and nearly a year after the king's death in
July 1291 they chose Adolph, count of Nassau, and not Rudolph's
surviving son Albert, as their sovereign. Adolph, an insignificant
prince, having been obliged to reward his supporters richly, wished to
follow the lines laid down by his predecessor and to secure an extensive
territory for his family. Meissen, which he claimed as a vacant fief of
the Empire, and Thuringia, which he bought from the landgrave Albert
II., seemed to offer a favourable field for this undertaking, and he
spent a large part of his short reign in a futile attempt to carry out
his plan. In his foreign policy Adolph allied himself with Edward I. of
England against Philip IV. of France, but after declaring war on France
in August 1294 he did nothing to assist his ally. At home he relieved
the cities of some of their burdens and upheld them in the quarrel about
the _Pfahlbürger_; and he sought to isolate Albert of Habsburg, who was
treating with Philip of France. But many of the princes were disgusted
with him and, led by Albert of Habsburg, Gerhard, archbishop of Mainz,
and Wenceslaus II., king of Bohemia, they decided to overthrow him, and
at Mainz in June 1298 he was declared deposed. He resisted the sentence,
but Albert, who had been chosen his successor, marched against him, and
in July 1298, at Göllheim near Worms, Adolph was defeated and killed.

  Albert I.

After Adolph's death Albert was again chosen German king, and was
crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle in August 1298. Like his father Rudolph, the
new king made it the principal object of his reign to increase the power
of his house, but he failed in his attempts to add Bohemia and Thuringia
to the hereditary lands of the Habsburgs, and he was equally
unsuccessful in his endeavour to seize the countries of Holland and
Zealand as vacant fiefs of the Empire. In other directions, however, he
was more fortunate. He recovered some of the lost crown lands and sought
to abolish new and unauthorized tolls on the Rhine; he encouraged the
towns and took measures to repress private wars; he befriended the serfs
and protected the persecuted Jews. For a time Albert allied himself with
Philip IV. of France against Pope Boniface VIII., who had refused to
recognize him as king, but in 1303 he made peace with the pope, a step
which enabled him to turn his attention to Bohemia and Thuringia. The
greatest danger which he had to face during his reign came from a league
which was formed against him in 1300 by the four Rhenish electors--the
three archbishops and the count palatine of the Rhine--who disliked his
foreign policy and resented his action with regard to the tolls. Albert,
however, supported by the towns, was victorious; and the revolting
electors soon made their peace.

  Henry VII.

After Albert's murder, which took place in May 1308, Henry, count of
Luxemburg, a brother of Baldwin (1285-1354), the powerful archbishop of
Trier, became king as Henry VII. Although fortunate enough to obtain for
his son John the crown of Bohemia, the aggrandizement of his family was
not the main object of this remarkable sovereign, the last German king
of the old, ambitious type. It was the memory of the Empire which
stirred his blood; from the beginning of his reign he looked forward to
securing the Lombard and the imperial crowns. His purpose to cross the
Alps at the head of a great force was hailed with delight by the
Ghibellines, whose aspirations found utterance in Dante's noble prose,
but his life was too short for him to fulfil the hopes of his friends.
Having restored the Rhine tolls to the Rhenish archbishops and made his
peace with the Habsburgs, Henry went to Italy in the autumn of 1310,
not, however, with a large army, and remained in the peninsula until his
death in August 1313. As in former times the effect of the connexion of
Germany with Italy was altogether mischievous, because to expedite his
Italian journey the king had added to the great privileges of the
princes and had repressed the energies of the towns.

  Louis the Bavarian and Frederick of Austria.

After Henry's death the electors, again fearing lest the German crown
should become hereditary, refused to choose the late king's young son,
John of Bohemia, as their ruler, although the candidature of this prince
was supported by the powerful archbishops Baldwin of Trier and Peter of
Mainz. They failed, in fact, to agree upon any one candidate, and after
a long delay there was a double election for the throne. This took place
in October 1314, when the larger party chose Louis IV., duke of Upper
Bavaria, while the smaller party gave their votes to Frederick the Fair,
duke of Austria, a son of King Albert I. Although related to each other,
Louis and Frederick had come to blows before this event; they
represented two rival houses, those of Wittelsbach and Habsburg, and the
election only served to feed the flame of their antagonism. A second
time war broke out between them. The struggle, marked by numerous raids,
sieges and skirmishes, lasted for nine years, being practically ended by
Frederick's decisive defeat at Mühldorf in September 1322. The
vanquished king remained in captivity until 1325, when, during the
contest between the Empire and the Papacy, Louis came to terms with him.
Frederick acknowledged his rival, and later the suggestion was put
forward that they should rule Germany jointly, but this arrangement
aroused much opposition and it came to nothing. Frederick returned into
an honourable captivity and died in January 1330.

  Causes of the success of Louis.

The success of Louis in his war with Frederick was to some extent due to
the imperial cities, which supported him from the first. Not only did
they pay high taxes, but they made splendid voluntary contributions,
thus enabling the sovereign of their choice to continue the fight. But
Louis was perhaps still more indebted for his victory to the memorable
conflict between the Swiss and the Habsburgs, the defeat of Leopold of
Austria at Morgarten in 1315 striking a heavy blow at his position. Thus
this struggle for freedom, although belonging properly to the history of
Switzerland, exercised much influence on the course of German history.

  Louis IV. and the pope.

Had Louis been wise and prudent, it would have been fairly easy for him
to attain a strong position after his victory at Mühldorf. But he threw
away his advantages. He offended John of Bohemia, who had aided him at
Mühldorf, thus converting a useful friend into a formidable foe, and his
other actions were hardly more judicious. John was probably alarmed at
the increase in the power of the German king, and about the same time a
similar fear had begun to possess Pope John XXII. and Charles IV. of
France. About 1323 Louis had secured the mark of Brandenburg for his son
Louis, and he was eager to aggrandize his family in other directions. It
was just at the time when he had estranged John of Bohemia that the pope
made his decisive move. Asserting that the German crown could only be
worn by one who had received the papal approbation he called upon Louis
to lay it down; the answer was an indignant refusal, and in 1324 the
king was declared deposed and excommunicate. Thus the ancient struggle
between the Papacy and the Empire was renewed, a struggle in which the
pen, wielded by Marsiglio of Padua, William of Occam, John of Jandun and
others, played an important part, and in which the new ideas in religion
and politics worked steadily against the arrogant papal claim. The pope
and his French ally, Charles IV., whom it was proposed to seat upon the
German throne, had completely misread the signs of the times, and their
schemes met with very little favour in Germany. No longer had the
princes as in former years any reason to dread the designs of an
ambitious king; the destinies of the kingdom were in their own hands and
they would not permit them to be controlled by an alien power. Such was
the attitude of most of the temporal princes, and many spiritual princes
took the same view. As for the electors, they had the strongest possible
motive for resisting the papal claim, because if this were once admitted
they would quickly lose their growing importance in the state. Lastly,
the cities which had stood behind the Empire in the most difficult
crises of its contest with Rome were not likely to desert it now.

  Louis in Italy.

Thus encouraged, or rather driven forward, by the national sentiment
Louis continued to assert the independence of the crown against the
pope. In 1327 he marched into Italy, where he had powerful and numerous
friends in the Ghibelline party, the Visconti family and others; in
January 1328 he was crowned emperor at Rome, and after this event he
declared Pope John deposed and raised Peter of Corvara to the papal
chair as Nicholas V. The concluding stages of this expedition were not
favourable to the new emperor, but his humiliation was only slight and
it did not appreciably affect the conditions of the controversy.

  Louis in Germany.

For a short time after the emperor's return to Germany there was peace.
But this was soon broken by a dispute over the succession to the duchy
of Carinthia and the county of Tirol, then ruled by Henry V., who was
without sons, and whose daughter, Margaret Maultasch, was married to
John Henry, margrave of Moravia, a son of John of Bohemia. Upon these
lands the three great families in Germany, those of Wittelsbach, of
Habsburg and of Luxemburg, were already casting covetous eyes;
Carinthia, moreover, was claimed by the Habsburgs in virtue of an
arrangement made in 1286. Thus a struggle between the Luxemburgs and the
Habsburgs appeared certain, and Louis, anxious to secure for his house a
share of the spoil, hesitated for a time between these rivals. In 1335
Duke Henry died and the emperor adjudged his lands to the Habsburgs;
wars broke out, and the result was that John Henry secured Tirol while
the other contending family added Carinthia to its Austrian possessions.

  The pope and the electors.

During this time Louis had been negotiating continually with Pope John
and with his successor Benedict XII. to regain the favour of the church,
and so to secure a free hand for his designs in Germany. But the pope
was not equally complaisant, and in 1337 the emperor allied himself with
Edward III. of England against Philip VI. of France, whom he regarded as
primarily responsible for the unyielding attitude of the Papacy. This
move was very popular in Germany, and the papal party received a further
rebuff in July 1338 when the electors met at Rense and declared that in
no possible manner could they allow any control over, or limitation of,
their electoral rights. As a sequel to this declaration the diet,
meeting at Frankfort a month later, asserted that the imperial power
proceeded from God alone and that the individual chosen by a majority of
the electors to occupy this high station needed no confirmation from the
pope, or from any one else, to make his election valid. Contrary
opinions they denounced as _pestifera dogmata_.

  Louis and the Luxemburgs.

But in spite of this support Louis threw away his advantages; he
abandoned Edward III. in 1341, although this step did not win for him,
as he desired, the goodwill of the pope, and he was soon involved in a
more serious struggle with John of Bohemia and the Luxemburgs. With his
Bohemian followers John Henry had made himself very unpopular in Tirol,
where his wife soon counted herself among his enemies, and in 1341 he
was driven from the land, while Margaret announced her intention of
repudiating him and marrying the emperor's son Louis, margrave of
Brandenburg. The emperor himself entered heartily into this scheme for
increasing the power of his family; he declared the marriage with John
Henry void, and bestowed upon his son and his bride Margaret not only
Tirol, but also Carinthia, now in the hands of the Habsburgs. Nothing
more was needed to unite together all the emperor's foes, including Pope
Clement VI., who, like his predecessors, had rejected the advances of
Louis; but in 1345, before the gathering storm broke, the emperor took
possession of the counties of Holland, Zealand and Friesland, which had
been left without a ruler by the death of his brother-in-law, Count
William IV. By this time John of Bohemia and his allies had completed
their plans. In July 1346 five of the electors met, and, having declared
Louis deposed, they raised John's son Charles, margrave of Moravia, to
the German throne. For a time no serious steps were taken against Louis,
but after King John had met his death at Crécy Charles, who succeeded
him as king of Bohemia, began to make vigorous preparations for war, and
only the sudden death of the emperor (October 1347) saved Germany from
civil strife.

  The domestic policy of Louis.

Notwithstanding the defects of Louis's personal character his reign is
one of the most important in German history. The claim of the Papacy to
political supremacy received in his time its death-blow, and the popes
themselves sowed the seeds of the alienation from Rome which was
effected at the Reformation. With regard to the public peace Louis
persistently followed the lines laid down by Albert I. He encouraged the
princes to form alliances for its maintenance, and at the time of his
death such alliances existed in all parts of the country. To the cities
he usually showed himself a faithful friend. In many of them there had
been for more than a century a struggle between the old patrician
families and the democratic gilds. Louis could not always follow his own
impulses, but whenever he could he associated himself with the latter
party. Thus in his day the government of the imperial cities became more
democratic and industry and trade flourished as they had never before
done. The steady dislike of the princes was the best proof of the
importance of the cities. They contained elements capable of enormous
development; and had a great king arisen he might even yet, by their
means, have secured for Germany a truly national life.

  Charles IV. becomes king.

In January 1349 the friends of the late emperor elected Günther, count
of Schwarzburg, as their king, but before this occurrence Charles of
Moravia, by a liberal use of gifts and promises, had won over many of
his enemies, prominent among whom were the cities. In a few months
Günther himself abandoned the struggle, dying shortly afterwards, and
about the same time his victorious rival was recognized by Louis of
Brandenburg, the head of the Wittelsbach family. As king of Bohemia
Charles was an enlightened and capable ruler, but he was indifferent
towards Germany, although this country never stood in more urgent need
of a strong and beneficent sovereign. In the early years of the reign
the people, especially in the south and west, attacked and plundered the
Jews; and the consequent disorder was greatly increased by the ravages
of the Black Death and by the practices and preaching of the
Flagellants, both events serving to spur the maddened populace to
renewed outrages on the Jews. In dealing with this outburst of
fanaticism many of the princes, both spiritual and secular, displayed
vigour and humanity, but Charles saw only in the sufferings of this
people an excuse for robbing them of their wealth.

  The Golden Bull.

Charles's most famous achievement was the issue of the Golden Bull
(q.v.). Although the principle of election had long been admitted and
practised with regard to the German crown, yet it was surrounded by many
practical difficulties. For instance, if the territory belonging to an
electoral family were divided, as was often the case, it had never been
settled whether all the ruling princes were to vote, or, if one only
were entitled to this privilege, by what principle the choice was to be
made. Over these and other similar points many disputes had arisen, and,
having been crowned emperor at Rome in April 1355, Charles decided to
set these doubts at rest. The Golden Bull, promulgated in January 1356
and again after some tedious negotiations in December of the same year,
fixed the number of electors at seven, Saxe-Wittenberg and not
Saxe-Lauenburg obtaining the Saxon vote, and the vote of the
Wittelsbachs being given to the ruler of the Rhenish Palatinate and not
to the duke of Bavaria. The votes of a majority of the electors were
held to make an election valid. In order that there might be no
possibility of dispute between the princes of a single house, the
countries ruled by the four secular electors--Bohemia, the Rhenish
Palatinate, Saxony and Brandenburg--were declared to be indivisible and
to be heritable only by the accepted rules of primogeniture. The
electors were granted full sovereign rights over their lands, and their
subjects were allowed to appeal to the royal or the imperial tribunals
only in case they could not obtain justice elsewhere. A blow was struck
at the cities, which were forbidden to form leagues or to receive

  Fehmic Courts.

If the Golden Bull be excepted, the true interest of this reign is in
the movements beyond the range of the emperor's influence. It is
significant that at this time the _Femgerichte_, or Fehmic Courts
(q.v.), vastly extended the sphere of their activities, and that in the
absence of a strong central authority they were respected as a check
upon the lawlessness of the princes. The cities, notwithstanding every
kind of discouragement, formed new associations for mutual defence or
strengthened those which already existed. The Hanseatic League carried
on war with Valdemar V., king of Denmark, and his ally, the king of
Norway, seventy-seven towns declaring war on these monarchs in 1367, and
emerged victorious from the struggle, while its commerce extended to
nearly all parts of the known world. In 1376 some Swabian towns formed a
league which, in spite of the imperial prohibition, soon became powerful
in south-west Germany and defeated the forces of the count of
Württemberg at Reutlingen in May 1377. The emperor, meanwhile, was
occupied in numerous intrigues to strengthen his personal position and
to increase the power of his house. In these he was very fortunate,
managing far more than his predecessors to avoid conflicts with the
Papacy and the princes. The result was that when he died in November
1378 he wore the crowns of the Empire, of Germany, of Bohemia, of
Lombardy and of Burgundy; he had added Lower Lusatia and parts of
Silesia to Bohemia; he had secured the mark of Brandenburg for his son
Wenceslaus in 1373; and he had bought part of the Upper Palatinate and
territories in all parts of Germany.


After the death of Charles, his son Wenceslaus, who had been crowned
German king in July 1376, was recognized by the princes as their ruler,
but the new sovereign was careless and indolent and in a few years he
left Germany to look after itself. During his reign the struggle between
the princes and the cities reached its climax. Following the example set
by the electors at Rense both parties formed associations for
protection, prominent among these being the Swabian League on the one
side and the League of the Lion (_Löwenbund_)[1] on the other. The
result was that the central authority was almost entirely disregarded.
Wenceslaus favoured first one of the antagonists and then the other, but
although he showed some desire to put an end to the increasing amount of
disorder he was unable, or unwilling, to take a strong and definite line
of action. The cities entered upon the approaching contest at a
considerable disadvantage. Often they were separated one from the other
by large stretches of territory under the rule of a hostile prince and
their trade was peculiarly liable to attack by an adventurous body of
knights. The citizens, who were called upon to fight their battles, were
usually unable to contend successfully with men whose whole lives had
been passed in warfare; the isolation of the cities was not favourable
to the creation or mobilization of an active and homogeneous force; and,
moreover, at this time many of them were disturbed by internal troubles.
However, they minimized this handicap by joining league to league; in
1381 the Swabian and the Rhenish cities formed an alliance for three
years, while the Swabian League obtained promises of help from the

  General disorder in Germany.

The Swiss opened the fight. Attacked by the Habsburgs they defeated and
killed Duke Leopold of Austria at Sempach in July 1386 and gained
another victory at Näfels two years later; but their allies, the Swabian
cities, were not equally prompt or equally fortunate. The decisive year
was 1388, when the strife became general all over south-west Germany. In
August 1388 the princes, under Count Eberhard of Württemberg, completely
defeated their foes at Döffingen, while in the following November Rupert
II., elector palatine of the Rhine, was equally successful in his attack
on the forces of the Rhenish cities near Worms. Exhaustion soon
compelled the combatants to come to terms, and greatly to the
disadvantage of the cities peace was made in 1389. The main result of
this struggle was everywhere to strengthen the power of the princes and
to incite them to fresh acts of aggression. During the same time the
Hanse towns were passing through a period of difficulty. They were
disturbed by democratic movements in many of the cities and they were
threatened by the changing politics of the three northern kingdoms,
Norway, Sweden and Denmark, and by their union in 1397; their trading
successes had raised up powerful enemies and had embroiled them with
England and with Flanders, and the Teutonic Order and neighbouring
princes were not slow to take advantage of their other difficulties.

  Rupert chosen king.

Towards the close of the century the discontent felt at the incompetent
and absent German king took a decided form. The movement was led by the
four Rhenish electors, and after some preliminary proceedings these
princes met in August 1400; having declared Wenceslaus dethroned they
chose one of their number, the elector palatine Rupert III., in his
stead, and the deposed monarch accepted the sentence almost without
demur. Rupert was an excellent elector, and under more favourable
circumstances would have made a good king, but so serious were the
jealousies and divisions in the kingdom that he found little scope for
his energies outside the Palatinate. In spite of the peace of 1389 the
cities had again begun to form leagues for peace; but, having secured a
certain amount of recognition in the south and west of Germany, the new
king turned aside from the pressing problems of government and in 1401
made a futile attempt to reach Rome, an enterprise which covered him
with ridicule. After his return to Germany he had to face the hostility
of many of the princes, and this contest, together with vain attempts to
restore order, occupied him until his death in May 1410.

  Sigismund is chosen king.

After Rupert's death two cousins, Jobst, margrave of Moravia, and
Sigismund, king of Hungary, were in the autumn of 1410 both chosen to
fill the vacant throne by opposing parties; and the position was further
complicated by the fact that the deposed king, Wenceslaus, was still
alive. Jobst, however, died in January 1411, and in the succeeding July
Sigismund, having come to terms with Wenceslaus, was again elected king
and was generally recognized. The commanding questions of this reign
were ecclesiastical. It was the age of the great schism, three popes
claiming the allegiance of Christendom, and of the councils of Constance
and of Basel; in all ranks of the Church there was an urgent cry for
reform. Unfortunately the council of Constance, which met mainly through
the efforts of Sigismund in 1414, marred its labours by the judicial
murders of John Huss and of Jerome of Prague. This act greatly incensed
the Bohemians, who broke into revolt in 1419, and a new and fiercer
outburst occurred in 1420 when Sigismund, who had succeeded his brother
Wenceslaus as king of Bohemia in the preceding August, announced his
intention of crushing the Hussites. Led by their famous general, John
Zizka, the Bohemians won several battles and spread havoc and terror
through the neighbouring German lands. During the progress of this
revolt Germany was so divided and her king was so poor that it was
impossible to collect an army of sufficient strength to crush the
malcontents. At the diet of Nuremberg in 1422 and at that of Frankfort
in 1427 Sigismund endeavoured to raise men and money by means of
contributions from the estates, but the plan failed owing to mutual
jealousies and especially to the resistance of the cities. He secured
some help from Frederick of Brandenburg, from Albert of Austria,
afterwards the German king Albert II., and from Frederick of Meissen, to
whom he granted the electoral duchy of Saxe-Wittenberg; but it was only
when the Hussites were split into two factions, and when Zizka was dead,
that Germany was in any way relieved from a crushing and intolerable

  Brandenburg and the Hohenzollerns.

The continual poverty which hindered the successful prosecution of the
war against the Hussites, and which at times placed Sigismund in the
undignified position of having to force himself as an unwelcome guest
upon princes and cities, had, however, one good result. In 1415 he
granted, or rather sold, the mark of Brandenburg to his friend Frederick
of Hohenzollern, burgrave of Nuremberg, this land thus passing into the
hands of the family under whom it was destined to develop into the
kingdom of Prussia. During this reign the princes, especially the
electors, continued their endeavours to gain a greater share in the
government of Germany, and to some extent they succeeded. Sigismund, on
his part, tried to enforce peace upon the country by forming leagues of
the cities, but to no purpose; in fact all his plans for reform came to

  Albert II.

Sigismund, who died in December 1437, was succeeded on the German throne
and also in Hungary and Bohemia by his son-in-law Albert of Austria, and
from this time, although remaining in theory elective, the German crown
was always conferred upon a member of the house of Habsburg until the
extinction of the male line of this family in 1740. The reign of Albert
II. was too short to enable him to do more than indicate his good
intentions; he acted in general with the electors in observing a neutral
attitude with regard to the dispute between the council of Basel and
Pope Eugenius IV., and he put forward a scheme to improve the
administration of justice. He died in October 1439, and was succeeded by
his kinsman Frederick, duke of Styria, who became German king as
Frederick IV. and, after his coronation at Rome in 1452, emperor as
Frederick III.

  Frederick III. and the Papacy.

The first concern of the new king was with the papal schism. The council
of Basel was still sitting, and had elected an anti-pope, Felix V., in
opposition to Eugenius IV., while the electors, adhering to their
neutral attitude, sought to bring Frederick into line with them on this
question. Some years were occupied in negotiations, but the king soon
showed himself anxious to come to terms with Eugenius, and about 1446
the electors ceased to act together. At length peace was made. The
consent of several of the electors having been purchased by concessions,
Frederick signed with Pope Nicholas V., the successor of Eugenius, in
February 1448 the concordat of Vienna, an arrangement which bound the
German Church afresh to Rome and perpetuated the very evils from which
earnest churchmen had been seeking deliverance. Thus Germany lost the
opportunity of reforming the Church from within, and the upheaval of the
16th century was rendered inevitable.

  Germany under Frederick.

Frederick's reign is one of great importance in the history of Austria
and of the house of Habsburg, but under him the fortunes of Germany sank
to the lowest possible point. Without any interference from the central
authority wars were waged in every part of the country, and disputes of
every kind were referred to the decision of the sword. The old enmity
between the cities and the princes blazed out afresh; grievances of
every kind were brought forward and many struggles were the result.
Perhaps the most famous of these was one between a confederation of
Franconian and Swabian cities under the leadership of Nuremberg on the
one side, and Albert Achilles, afterwards elector of Brandenburg, and a
number of princes on the other. The war was carried on with great
barbarity for about four years (1449-1453), and was in every respect a
critical one. If the cities had gained the day they might still have
aimed at balancing the power of the princes, but owing partly to their
imperfect union, partly to the necessity of fighting with hired troops,
they did not gain any serious advantage. On the whole, indeed, in spite
of temporary successes, they decidedly lost ground, and on the
conclusion of peace there was no doubt that the balance of power in the
state inclined to the princes. Frederick meanwhile was involved in wars
with the Swiss, with his brother Albert and his Austrian subjects, and
later with the Hungarians. He had no influence in Italy; in Burgundy he
could neither stop Duke Philip the Good from adding Luxemburg to his
possessions, nor check the towering ambition of Charles the Bold; while
after the death of Charles in 1477 he was equally unable to prevent the
king of France from seizing a large part of his lands. Torn by
dissensions the Teutonic Order was unsuccessful in checking the
encroachments of the Poles, and in 1466 the land which it had won in the
north-east of Germany passed under the suzerainty of Poland, care being
taken to root out all traces of German influence therein. Another loss
took place in 1460, when Schleswig and Holstein were united with
Denmark. In Germany itself the king made scarcely any pretence of
exercising the supreme authority; for nearly thirty years he never
attended the imperial diet, and the suggestions which were made for his
deposition failed only because the electors could not agree upon a
successor. In his later years he became more of a recluse than ever, and
even before February 1486, when his son Maximilian was chosen German
king, he had practically ceased to take any part in the business of the
Empire, although he survived until August 1493.

  The power of the princes.

During the reign of Frederick the electors and the greater princes
continued the process of consolidating and increasing their power. Lands
under their rule, which were technically imperial fiefs, were divided
and devised by them at will like other forms of private property; they
had nearly all the rights of a sovereign with regard to levying tolls,
coining money, administering justice and granting privileges to towns;
they were assisted in the work of government by a privy council, while
their courts with their numerous officials began to resemble that of the
king or emperor. They did not, however, have everything their own way.
During this century their power was limited by the formation of diets in
many of the principalities. These bodies were composed of the mediate
prelates, the mediate nobles and representatives of the mediate cities.
They were not summoned because the princes desired their aid, but
because arms could only be obtained from the nobles and money from the
cities, at least on an adequate scale. Once having been formed these
local diets soon extended their functions. They claimed the right of
sanctioning taxation; they made their voice heard about the expenditure
of public money; they insisted, although perhaps not very effectually,
on justice being administered. Such institutions as these were clearly
of the highest importance, and for two centuries they did something to
atone for the lack of a genuine monarchy.

  Methods of warfare.

During this reign the conditions of warfare began to change. The
discovery of gunpowder made small bodies of men, adequately armed, more
than a match for great forces equipped in medieval fashion. Hence the
custom of hiring mercenary troops was introduced, and a prince could
never be certain, however numerous his vassals might be, that the
advantage would not rest with his opponent. This fact, added to the
influence of the local diets, made even the princes weary of war, and a
universal and continuous demand arose for some reform of the machinery
of government. Partly at the instance of the emperor a great Swabian
confederation was formed in 1488. This consisted of both princes and
cities and was intended to enforce the public peace in the south-western
parts of Germany. Its effects were excellent; but obviously no partial
remedy was sufficient. It was essential that there should be some great
reform which would affect every part of the kingdom, and for the present
this was not to be secured.

  Maximilian I.

Maximilian came to the throne in 1486 with exceptional advantages. He
was heir to the extensive Austrian lands, and as the widowed husband of
Charles the Bold's daughter Mary he administered the Netherlands.
Although he soon gave up these provinces to his son Philip, the fact
that they were in the possession of his family added to his influence,
and this was further increased when Philip married Joanna, the heiress
of the Spanish kingdoms. From Maximilian's accession the Empire
exercised in the affairs of Europe an authority which had not belonged
to it for centuries. The reason for this was not that the Empire was
stronger, but that its crown was worn by a succession of princes who
were great sovereigns in their own right.

  Reforms in Germany. 1495.

Having in 1490 driven the Hungarians from Vienna and recovered his
hereditary lands, and having ordered the affairs of the Netherlands,
Maximilian turned his attention to Italy, whither he was drawn owing to
the invasion of that country by Charles VIII. of France in 1494. But
before he could take any steps to check the progress of Charles
pecuniary necessities compelled him to meet the diet. At this time the
German, or imperial, diet consisted of three colleges, one of the
electors, another of the princes, both spiritual and secular, and a
third of representatives of the free cities, who had, however, only just
gained the right to sit beside the other two estates. The diet was an
extremely clumsy instrument of government, and it was perhaps never more
discredited or more impotent than when it met Maximilian at Worms in
March 1495. But in spite of repeated rebuffs the party of reform was
valorous and undaunted; its members knew that their case was
overwhelmingly strong. Although disappointed in the hope which they had
nourished until about 1490 that Maximilian himself would lead them, they
had found a capable head in Bertold, elector of Mainz. The king lost no
time in acquainting the diet with his demands. He wished for men and
money to encounter the French in Italy and to resist the Turks. Bertold
retorted that redress of grievances must precede supply, and Maximilian
and the princes were soon discussing the proposals put forward by the
sagacious elector. His first suggestion that a council nominated by the
estates should be set up with the power of vetoing the acts of the king
was abandoned because of the strenuous opposition of Maximilian; but
Bertold was successful in getting the diet to proclaim an eternal
_Landfriede_, that is, to forbid private war without any limitation of
time, and it was agreed that the diet should meet annually to advise the
king on matters of moment. The idea of a council, however, was not given
up although it took a different form. An imperial court of justice, the
_Reichskammergericht_, was established; this consisted of sixteen
members nominated by the estates and a president appointed by the king.
Its duties were to judge between princes of the Empire and to act as the
supreme court of appeal in cases where humbler persons were concerned.
Partly to provide for the expenses of this court, partly to furnish
Maximilian with the promised monetary aid, a tax called the common penny
was instituted, this impost taking the form both of a property tax and
of a poll tax. Such in outline were the reforms effected by the
important diet of Worms.

  Difficulties and further reforms.

The practical difficulties of the reformers, however, were only just
beginning. Although Maximilian took some interest in the collection of
the common penny it was difficult, and from some classes impossible, to
obtain payment of this tax, and the king was persistently hostile to the
imperial court of justice, his hostility and the want of money being
indeed successful in preventing that institution for a time from doing
any real service to Germany. In 1497 he set up a new Aulic council or
_Hofrat_, the members of which were chosen by himself, and to this body
he gave authority to deal with all the business of the Empire. Thus he
undermined the foundations of the _Reichskammergericht_ and stole a
march upon Bertold and his friends. A series of diets between 1495 and
1499 produced only mutual recriminations, and then Maximilian met with a
serious rebuff. The Swiss refused to pay the common penny and to submit
to the jurisdiction of the imperial court of justice. Consequently, in
1499, Maximilian sent such troops as he could collect against them, but
his forces were beaten, and by the peace of Basel he was forced to
concede all the demands made by the Swiss, who became virtually
independent of the Empire. Heartened by this circumstance Bertold and
his followers returned to the attack when the diet met at Augsburg in
1500. The common penny as a means of taxation fell into the background,
and in its place a scheme was accepted which it was thought would
provide the king with an army of about 30,000 men. But more important
perhaps was the administrative council, or _Reichsregiment_, which was
established by the diet at this time. A revival of the idea put forward
by the elector of Mainz at Worms in 1495, this council was to consist of
twenty members appointed by the electors and other princes and by
representatives of the cities, with a president named by the king. Its
work was practically that of governing Germany, and it was the most
considerable encroachment which had yet been made on the power of the
king. It is not surprising therefore that Maximilian hated the new body,
to the establishment of which he had only consented under great

  Maximilian hampers the reformers.

In 1500 the _Reichsregiment_ met at Nuremberg and began at once to treat
for peace with France. Maximilian was not slow to resent this
interference; he refused to appoint a president, and soon succeeded in
making the meetings of the council impossible. The relations between the
king and the princes were now very strained. Bertold called the electors
together to decide upon a plan of campaign; Maximilian on his part tried
to destroy the electoral union by winning over individual members. The
result was that when the elector of Mainz died in 1504 the king's victory
was complete. The _Reichskammergericht_ and the _Reichsregiment_ were for
all practical purposes destroyed, and greater authority had been given to
the _Hofrat_. Henceforward it was the king who put forward schemes of
reform and the diet which modified or rejected them. When the diet met at
Cologne in 1505 Maximilian asked for an army and the request was granted,
the necessary funds being raised by the old plan of a levy on the
estates. At Constance, two years later, the diet raised men and money in
a similar fashion, and on this occasion the imperial court of justice was
restored, with some slight alteration in the method of appointing its
members. After Maximilian had taken the novel step of assuming the title
of Roman emperor at Trent in 1508 the last of the reforming diets met at
Cologne in 1512. In 1500 Germany had been divided into six circles
(_Kreise_) or districts, for the purpose of sending representatives to
the _Reichsregiment_. These circles were now increased in number to ten
and an official (_Hauptmann_) was placed over each, his duties being to
enforce the decisions of the _Reichskammergericht_. But it was some time
before the circles came into working order; the only permanent reform of
the reign was the establishment of the imperial court of justice, and
even this was not entirely satisfactory, Maximilian's remaining diets
loudly denouncing it for delay and incompetence. The period marked by the
attempted reform of Bertold of Mainz was that of the last struggle
between the supporters of a united Germany and those who preferred a
loose confederation of states. Victory remained with the latter party.
Maximilian himself had done a great deal to promote the unity of his
Austrian lands and, incidentally, to cut them off from the remainder of
the German kingdom, and other princes were following his example. This
movement spelled danger to the small principalities and to the free
cities, but it gave a powerful impetus to the growth of Brandenburg, of
Saxony, of Bavaria and of the Palatinate, and the future of the country
seemed likely to remain with the particularist and not with the national

  Maximilian's wars in Italy.

During the period of these constitutional struggles the king's chief
energies were spent in warring against the French kings Charles VIII.
and Louis XII. in Italy, where he hoped to restore the claims, dormant,
perhaps even extinct, of the German kings. In 1508 he helped to promote
the league of Cambrai, formed to despoil Venice, but he soon returned to
his former policy of waging war against France, and he continued to do
this until peace was made in 1516. The princes of Germany showed
themselves singularly indifferent to this struggle, and their king's
battles were largely fought with mercenary troops. Maximilian gained his
most conspicuous success in his own kingdom in 1504, when he interfered
in a struggle over the succession to the duchy of Bavaria-Landshut. He
gained some additions of territory, but his victory was more important
because it gave him the prestige which enabled him to break down the
opposition of the princes and to get his own way with regard to his
domestic policy.

  Decay of feudal relations.

In many respects the reign of Maximilian must be regarded as the end of
the middle ages. The feudal relation between the king and the princes
and between the princes and their vassals had become purely nominal. No
real control was exerted by the crown over the heads of the various
states, and, now that war was carried on mainly by mercenary troops, the
mediate nobles did not hold their lands on condition of military
service. The princes were sovereigns, not merely feudal lords; and by
the institution of local diets in their territories an approach was made
to modern conceptions of government. The age of war was far indeed from
being over, but men were at least beginning to see that unnecessary
bloodshed is an evil, and that the true outlet for the mass of human
energies is not conflict but industry. By the growth of the cities in
social, if not in political, importance the products of labour were more
and more widely diffused; and it was easier than at any previous time
for the nation to be moved by common ideas and impulses. The discovery
of America, the invention of printing, the revival of learning and many
other causes had contributed to effect a radical change in the point of
view from which the world was regarded; and the strongest of all
medieval relations, that of the nation to the Church, was about to pass
through the fiery trial of the Reformation. This vast movement, which
began in the later years of Maximilian, definitely severed the medieval
from the modern world.

  The Reformation.

The seeds of the Reformation were laid during the time of the great
conflict between the Papacy and the Empire. The arrogance and the
ambition of the popes then stamped upon the minds of the people an
impression that was never effaced. During the struggle of Louis IV. with
the popes of his day the feeling revived with fresh intensity; all
classes, clerical as well as lay, looked upon resistance to papal
pretensions as a necessity imposed by the national honour. At the same
time the spiritual teaching of the mystics awakened in many minds an
aspiration which the Church, in its corrupt state, could not satisfy,
and which was in any case unfavourable to an external authority. The
Hussite movement further weakened the spell of the Church. Still more
powerful, because touching other elements of human nature and affecting
a more important class, was the influence of the Renaissance, which,
towards the end of the 15th century, passed from Italy to the
universities of Germany. The men of the new learning did not sever
themselves from Christianity, but they became indifferent to it; its
conceptions seemed to them dim and faded, while there was a constantly
increasing charm in literature, in philosophy and in art. No kind of
effort was made by the Church to prepare for the storm. The spiritual
princes, besides displaying all the faults of the secular princes, had
special defects of their own; and as simony was universally practised,
the lives of multitudes of the inferior clergy were a public scandal,
while their services were cold and unimpressive. The moral sense was
outraged by such a pope as Alexander VI.; and neither the military
ambition of Julius II. nor the refined paganism of Leo X. could revive
the decaying faith in the spirituality of their office. Pope Leo, by his
incessant demands for money and his unscrupulous methods of obtaining
it, awakened bitter hostility in every class of the community.


The popular feeling for the first time found expression when Luther, on
All Saints' day 1517, nailed to a church door in Wittenberg the theses
in which he contested the doctrine which lay at the root of the
scandalous traffic in indulgences carried on in the pope's name by
Tetzel and his like. This episode, derided at first at Rome as the act
of an obscure Augustinian friar intent on scoring a point in a
scholastic disputation, was in reality an event of vast significance,
for it brought to the front, as the exponent of the national sentiment,
one of the mightiest spirits whom Germany has produced. Under the
influence of Luther's strong personality the most active and progressive
elements of the nation were soon in more or less open antagonism to the

  Charles V. and Luther.

When Maximilian died in January 1519 his throne was competed for by his
grandson Charles, king of Spain, and by Francis I. of France, and after
a long and costly contest the former was chosen in the following June.
By the time Charles reached Germany and was crowned at Aix-la-Chapelle
(October 1520) Luther had confronted the cardinal legate Cajetan, had
passed through his famous controversy at Leipzig with Johann Eck, and
was about to burn the bull of excommunication. After this daring step
retreat was impossible, and with keen excitement both the reformer's
followers and his enemies waited for the new sovereign to declare
himself on one side or on the other. Charles soon made up his mind about
the general lines of his policy, although he was completely ignorant of
the strength of the feeling which had been aroused. He fancied that he
had to deal with a mere monkish quarrel; at one time he even imagined
that a little money would set the difficulty at rest. It was not likely,
however, in any case that he would turn against the Roman Church, and
that for various reasons. He was by far the most important ruler of the
time, and the peoples under his direct sway were still adherents of the
old faith. He was king of Spain, of Sicily, of Naples and of Sardinia;
he was lord of the Netherlands, of the free county of Burgundy and of
the Austrian archduchies; he had at his command the immense resources of
the New World; and he had been chosen king of Germany, thus gaining a
title to the imperial crown. Following the example set by Maximilian he
called himself emperor without waiting for the formality of a coronation
at Rome. Now the protection of the Church had always been regarded as
one of the chief functions of the emperors; Charles could not,
therefore, desert it when it was so greatly in need of his services.
Like his predecessors he reserved to himself the right to resist it in
the realm of politics; in the realm of faith he considered that he owed
to it his entire allegiance. Moreover, he intended to undertake the
subjugation of northern Italy, a task which had baffled his imperial
grandfather, and in order to realize this scheme it was of the highest
importance that he should do nothing to offend the pope. Thus it came
about that at the diet of Worms, which met in January 1521, without any
thorough examination of Luther's position, Charles issued the famous
edict, drawn up by Cardinal Aleandro, which denounced the reformer and
his followers. This was accepted by the diet and Luther was placed under
the imperial ban.

  Charles and the movement for reform.

When Charles was chosen German king he was obliged to make certain
promises to the electors. Embodied in a _Wahlkapitulation_, as it was
called, these were practically the conditions on which the new sovereign
was allowed to take the crown, and the precedent was followed at
subsequent elections. At the diet of Worms steps were taken to carry
these promises into effect. By his _Wahlkapitulation_ Charles had
promised to respect the freedom of Germany, for the princes looked upon
him as a foreigner. He was neither to introduce foreign troops into the
country, nor to allow a foreigner to command German soldiers; he must
use the German language and every diet must meet on German soil. An
administrative council, a new _Reichsregiment_, must be established, and
other reforms were to be set on foot. The constitution and powers of
this _Reichsregiment_ were the chief subject of difference between
Charles and the princes at the diet. Eventually it was decided that this
council should consist of twenty-two members with a president named by
the emperor; but it was only to govern Germany during the absence of the
sovereign, at other times its functions were merely advisory. The
imperial chamber was restored on the lines laid down by Bertold of Mainz
in 1495 (it survived until the dissolution of the Empire in 1806), and
the estates undertook to aid the emperor by raising and paying an army.
In April 1521 Charles invested his brother Ferdinand, afterwards the
emperor Ferdinand I., with the Austrian archduchies, and soon afterwards
he left Germany to renew his long struggle with Francis I. of France.

  Sickingen's rising.

While the emperor was thus absent great disturbances took place in
Germany. Among Luther's friends was one, Ulrich von Hutten, at once
penetrated with the spirit of the Renaissance and emphatically a man of
action. The class to which Hutten and his friend, Franz von Sickingen, a
daring and ambitious Rhenish baron, belonged, was that of the small
feudal tenants in chief, the _Ritterschaft_ or knights of the Empire.
This class was subject only to the emperor, but its members lacked the
territorial possessions which gave power to the princes; they were
partly deprived of their employment owing to the suppression of private
wars, and they had suffered through the substitution of Roman law for
the ancient feudal laws and customs. They had no place in the
constitution or in the government of Germany, and they had already
paralysed the administration by refusing to pay the taxes. They were
intensely jealous of the princes, and it occurred to Hutten and
Sickingen that the Reformation might be used to improve the condition of
the knights and to effect a total change in the constitution of the
Empire. No general reform, they maintained, either in church or state,
could be secured while the country was divided into a number of
principalities, and their plan was to combine with all those who were
discontented with the existing order to attack the princes and to place
the emperor at the head of a united nation. Sickingen, who has been
compared to Wallenstein, and who doubtless hoped to secure a great
position for himself, had already collected a large army, which by its
very presence had contributed somewhat to the election of Charles at
Frankfort in 1519. He had also earned renown by carrying on feuds with
the citizens of Worms and of Metz, and now, with a view to realizing his
larger ambitions, he opened the campaign (August 1522) by attacking the
elector of Trier, who, as a spiritual prince, would not, it was hoped,
receive any help from the religious reformers. For a moment it seemed as
if Hutten's dream would be realized, but it was soon evident that it was
too late to make so great a change. Luther and other persons of
influence stood aloof from the movement; on the other hand, several
princes, including Philip, landgrave of Hesse, united their forces
against the knights, and in May 1523 Sickingen was defeated and slain. A
few weeks later Hutten died on an island in the lake of Zürich.

  The causes of the Peasants' War.

This war was followed by another of a much more serious nature. The
German peasants had grievances compared with which those of the knights
and lesser barons were imaginary. For about a century several causes had
tended to make their condition worse and worse. While taxes and other
burdens were increasing the power of the king to protect them was
decreasing; with or without the forms of law they were plundered by
every other class in the community; their traditional privileges were
withdrawn and, as in the case of the knights, their position had
suffered owing to the introduction of Roman law into Germany. In the
west and south-west of the country especially, opportunities of
migration and of expansion had been gradually reduced, and to provide
for their increasing numbers they were compelled to divide their
holdings again and again until these patches of land became too small
for the support of a household. Thus, solely under the influence of
social and economic conditions, various risings of the peasants had
taken place during the latter part of the 15th century, the first one
being in 1461, and at times the insurgents had combined their forces
with those of the lower classes in the towns, men whose condition was
hardly more satisfactory than their own. In the last decade of the 15th
and the first decade of the 16th century there were several
insurrections in the south-west of Germany, each of which was called a
_Bundschuh_, a shoe fastened upon a pole serving as the standard of
revolt. In 1514 Württemberg was disturbed by the rising of "poor
Conrad," but these and other similar revolts in the neighbourhood were
suppressed by the princes. These movements, however, were only preludes
to the great revolution, which is usually known as the Peasants' War

  The Peasants' War.

The Renaissance and the Reformation were awakening extravagant hopes in
the minds of the German peasants, and it is still a matter of
controversy among historians to what extent Luther and the reformers
were responsible for their rising. It may, however, be stated with some
certainty that their condition was sufficiently wretched to drive them
to revolt without any serious pressure from outside. The rising was due
primarily neither to religious nor to political, but to economic
causes. The Peasants' War, properly so called, broke out at Stühlingen
in June 1522. The insurgents found a leader in Hans Müller of
Bulgenbach, who gained some support in the surrounding towns, and soon
all Swabia was in revolt. Quickly the insurrection became general all
over central and southern Germany. In the absence of the emperor and of
his brother, the archduke Ferdinand, the authorities in these parts of
the country were unable to check the movement and, aided by many
knights, prominent among whom was Götz von Berlichingen, the peasants
were everywhere victorious, while another influential recruit, Ulrich,
the dispossessed duke of Württemberg, joined them in the hope of
recovering his duchy. Ulrich's attempt, which was made early in 1525,
was, however, a failure, and about the same time the peasants drew up
twelve articles embodying their demands. These were sufficiently
moderate. They asked for a renewal of their ancient rights of fishing
and hunting freely, for a speedier method of obtaining justice, and for
the removal of new and heavy burdens. In many places the lords yielded
to these demands, among those who granted concessions being the elector
palatine of the Rhine, the bishops of Bamberg and of Spires, and the
abbots of Fulda and of Hersfeld. But meanwhile the movement was
spreading through Franconia to northern Germany and was especially
formidable in Thuringia, where it was led by Thomas Münzer. Here again
success attended the rebel standards. But soon the victorious peasants
became so violent and so destructive that Luther himself urged that they
should be sternly punished, and a number of princes, prominent among
whom was Philip of Hesse, banded themselves together to crush the
rising. Münzer and his followers were defeated at Frankenhausen in May,
the Swabian League gained victories in the area under its control,
successes were gained elsewhere by the princes, and with much cruelty
the revolt of the peasants was suppressed. The general result was that
the power of the territorial lords became greater than ever, although in
some cases, especially in Tirol and in Baden, the condition of the
peasants was somewhat improved. Elsewhere, however, this was not the
case; many of the peasants suffered still greater oppression and some of
the immediate nobles were forced to submit to a detested yoke.

  The Reichsregiment.

Before the suppression of this rising the _Reichsregiment_ had met with
very indifferent success in its efforts to govern Germany. Meeting at
Nuremberg early in 1522 it voted some slight assistance for the campaign
against the invading Turks, but the proposals put forward for raising
the necessary funds aroused much opposition, an opposition which came
mainly from the large and important cities. The citizens appealed to
Charles V., who was in Spain, and after some hesitation the emperor
decided against the _Reichsregiment_. Under such disheartening
conditions it is not surprising that this body was totally unable to
cope with Sickingen's insurrection, and that a few weeks after its
meeting at Nuremberg in 1524 it succumbed to a series of attacks and
disappeared from the history of Germany. But the _Reichsregiment_ had
taken one step, although this was of a negative character. It had shown
some sympathy with the reformers and had declined to put the edict of
Worms into immediate execution. Hardly less lukewarm, the imperial diet
ordered the edict to be enforced, but only as far as possible, and
meanwhile the possibilities of accommodation between the two great
religious parties were becoming more and more remote. A national
assembly to decide the questions at issue was announced to meet at
Spires, but the emperor forbade this gathering. Then the Romanists,
under the guidance of Cardinal Campeggio and the archduke Ferdinand, met
at Regensburg and decided to take strong and aggressive measures to
destroy Lutheranism, while, on the other hand, representatives of the
cities met at Spires and at Ulm, and asserted their intention of
forwarding and protecting the teaching of the reformed doctrines. All
over the country and through all classes of the people men were falling
into line on one side or the other, and everything was thus ready for a
long and bitter religious war.

  Progress of the Reformation.

During these years the religious and political ideas of the Reformation
were rapidly gaining ground, and, aided by a vigorous and violent
polemic literature, opposition to Rome was growing on every side.
Instigated by George of Saxony the Romanist princes formed a defensive
league at Dessau in 1525; the reforming princes took a similar step at
Gotha in 1526. Such were the prevailing conditions when the diet met at
Spires in June 1526 and those who were still loyal to the Roman Church
clamoured for repressive measures. But on this occasion the reformers
were decidedly in the ascendant. Important ecclesiastical reforms were
approved, and instructions forbidding all innovations and calling upon
the diet to execute the edict of Worms, sent by the emperor from Spain,
were brushed aside on the ground that in the preceding March when this
letter was written Charles and the pope were at peace, while now they
were at war. Before its dissolution the diet promulgated a decree
providing that, pending the assembly of a national council, each prince
should order the ecclesiastical affairs of his own state in accordance
with his own conscience, a striking victory for the reformers and
incidentally for separatist ideas. The three years which elapsed between
this diet and another important diet which met in the same city are full
of incident. Guided by Luther and Melanchthon, the principal states and
cities in which the ideas of the reformers prevailed--electoral Saxony,
Brandenburg, Hesse and the Rhenish Palatinate, Strassburg, Nuremberg,
Ulm and Augsburg--began to carry out measures of church reform. The
Romanists saw the significance of this movement and, fortunately for
them, were able to profit by the dissensions which were breaking out in
the ranks of their opponents, especially the doctrinal differences
between the followers of Luther and those of Zwingli. Persecutions for
heresy had begun, the feeling between the two great religious parties
being further embittered by some revelations made by Otto von Pack
(q.v.) to Philip of Hesse. Pack's stories, which concerned the existence
of a powerful league for the purpose of making war upon the reformers,
were proved to be false, but the soreness occasioned thereby remained.
The diet met in February 1529 and soon received orders from the emperor
to repeal the decree of 1526. The supporters of the older faith were now
predominant and, although they were inclined to adopt a somewhat haughty
attitude towards Charles, they were not averse from taking strong
measures against the reformers. The decree of the diet, formulated in
April, forbade the reformers to make further religious changes, while
the toleration which was conceded to Romanists in Lutheran states was
withheld from Lutherans in Romanist states. This decree was strongly
resented by the reforming princes and cities. They drew up a formal
protest against it (hence the name "Protestant"), which they presented
to the archduke Ferdinand, setting forward the somewhat novel theory
that the decree of 1526 could not be annulled by a succeeding diet
unless both the parties concerned assented thereto. By this decree they
declared their firm intention to abide.

  The diet of Augsburg.

The untiring efforts of Philip of Hesse to unite the two wings of the
Protestant forces met with very little success, and the famous
conference at Marburg in the autumn of 1529, for which he was
responsible, revealed the fact that it was practically impossible for
the Lutherans and the Zwinglians to act together even when threatened by
a common danger, while a little later the alliance between the Lutheran
states of north Germany and the Zwinglian cities of the south was
destroyed by differences upon points of doctrine. In 1530 the emperor,
flushed with success in Italy and at peace with his foreign foes, came
to Germany with the express intention of putting an end to heresy. In
June he opened the diet at Augsburg, and here the Lutherans submitted a
summary of their doctrines, afterwards called the Augsburg Confession.
Drawn up by Melanchthon, this pronouncement was intended to widen the
breach between the Lutherans and the Zwinglians, and to narrow that
between the Lutherans and the Romanists; from this time it was regarded
as the chief standard of the Lutheran faith. Four Zwinglian cities,
Strassburg, Constance, Lindau and Memmingen, replied with a confession
of their own and the Romanists also drew up an answer. The period of
negotiation which followed served only to show that no accommodation
was possible. Charles himself made no serious effort to understand the
controversy; he was resolved, whether the Lutherans had right on their
side or not, that they should submit, and he did not doubt but that he
would be able to awe them into submission by an unwonted display of
power. But to his surprise the Lutheran princes who attended the diet
refused to give way. They were, however, outnumbered by their enemies,
and it was the Romanist majority which dictated the terms of the decree,
which was laid before the diet in September, enjoining a return to
religious conformity within seven months. The Protestant princes could
only present a formal protest and leave Augsburg. Finally the decree of
the diet, promulgated in November, ordered the execution of the edict of
Worms, the restoration of all church property, and the maintenance of
the jurisdiction of the bishops. The duty of enforcing the decree was
especially entrusted to the _Reichskammergericht_; thus by the processes
of law the Protestant princes were to be deprived of much of their
property, and it seemed probable that if they did not submit the emperor
would have recourse to arms.

  The league of Schmalkalden.

For the present, however, fresh difficulties with France and an invasion
by the Turks, who had besieged Vienna with an immense army in the autumn
of 1529, forced Charles to mask his designs. Meanwhile some of the
Lutherans, angered and alarmed by the decisions of the
_Reichskammergericht_, abandoned the idea that resistance to the
imperial authority was unlawful and, meeting in December 1530, laid the
foundation of the important league of Schmalkalden, among the first
members of the confederation being the rulers of Saxony and Hesse and
the cities of Bremen and Magdeburg. The league was soon joined by other
strong cities, among them Strassburg, Ulm, Constance, Lübeck and Goslar;
but it was not until after the defeat and death of Zwingli at Kappel in
October 1531 that it was further strengthened by the adhesion of those
towns which had hitherto looked for leadership to the Swiss reformer.
About this time the military forces of the league were organized, their
heads being the elector of Saxony and the landgrave of Hesse. But the
league had a political as well as a religious aspect. It was an alliance
between the enemies of the house of Habsburg, and on this side it gained
the support of the duke of Bavaria and treated with Francis I. of
France. To this its rapid growth was partly due, but more perhaps to the
fact that the Reformation in Germany was above all things a popular
movement, and thus many princes who would not have seceded from the
Roman Church of their own accord were compelled to do so from political
motives. They had been strong enough to undermine the imperial power;
they were not strong enough to resist the pressure put upon them by a
majority of their subjects. It was early in 1532, when faced with the
necessity of resisting the Turkish advance, that Charles met the diet at
Regensburg. He must have men and money for this purpose even at the
price of an arrangement with the Protestants. But the Lutherans were
absent from the diet, and the Romanists, although they voted help,
displayed a very uncompromising temper towards their religious foes.
Under these circumstances the emperor took the matter into his own
hands, and his negotiations with the Protestants resulted in July 1532
in the religious peace of Nuremberg, a measure which granted temporary
toleration to the Lutherans and which was repeatedly confirmed in the
following years. Charles's reward was substantial and immediate. His
subjects vied with each other in hurrying soldiers to his standard, and
in a few weeks the great Turkish host was in full retreat.

  Internal affairs of Germany.

While the probability of an alliance between Pope Clement VII. and
Francis I. of France, together with other international complications,
prevented the emperor from following up his victory over the Turks, or
from reducing the dissenters from the Roman religion to obedience,
Protestantism was making substantial progress in the states, notably in
Anhalt and in Pomerania, and in the cities, and in January 1534 the
Protestant princes were bold enough to declare that they did not regard
the decisions of the _Reichskammergericht_ as binding upon them. About
this time Germany witnessed three events of some importance. Through the
energy of Philip of Hesse, who was aided by Francis I., Ulrich of
Württemberg was forcibly restored to his duchy. The members of the
Romanist league recently founded at Halle would not help the Habsburgs,
and in June 1534, by the treaty of Cadan, King Ferdinand was forced to
recognize the restoration as a _fait accompli_; at the same time he was
compelled to promise that he would stop all proceedings of the
_Reichskammergericht_ against the members of the league of Schmalkalden.
The two other events were less favourable for the new religion, or
rather for its orthodox manifestations. After a struggle, the
Anabaptists obtained control of Münster and for a short time governed
the town in accordance with their own peculiar ideas, while at Lübeck,
under the burgomaster Jürgen Wullenweber, a democratic government was
also established. But the bishop of Münster and his friends crushed the
one movement, and after interfering in the affairs of Denmark the
Lübeckers were compelled to revert to their former mode of government.
The outbreak of the war between the Empire and France in 1536 almost
coincided with the enlargement of the league of Schmalkalden, the
existence of which was prolonged for ten years. All the states and
cities which subscribed to the confession of Augsburg were admitted to
it, and thus a large number of Protestants, including the duchies of
Württemberg and Pomerania and the cities of Augsburg and Frankfort,
secured a needful protection against the decrees of the
_Reichskammergericht_, which the league again repudiated. Among the new
members of the confederation was Christian III., king of Denmark. About
the same time (May 1536) an agreement between the Lutherans and the
Zwinglians was arranged by Martin Bucer, and was embodied in a document
called the Concord of Wittenberg, and for the present the growing
dissensions between the heads of the league, John Frederick, elector of
Saxony, and Philip of Hesse, were checked. Thus strengthened the
Protestant princes declared against the proposed general council at
Mantua, while as a counterpoise to the league of Schmalkalden the
imperial envoy, Mathias Held (d. 1563), persuaded the Romanist princes
in June 1538 to form the league of Nuremberg. But, although he had made
a truce with France at Nice in this very month, Charles V. was more
conciliatory than some of his representatives, and at Frankfort in April
1539 he came to terms with the Protestants, not, however, granting to
them all their demands. In 1539, too, the Protestants received a great
accession of strength, the Lutheran prince Henry succeeding his Romanist
brother George as duke of Saxony. Ducal Saxony was thus completely won
for the reformed faith, and under the politic elector Joachim II. the
same doctrines made rapid advances in Brandenburg. Thus practically all
North Germany was united in supporting the Protestant cause.

  Successes of the Protestants.

  Their defeats.

In 1542, when Charles V. was again involved in war with France and
Turkey, who were helped by Sweden, Denmark and Scotland, the league of
Schmalkalden took advantage of his occupations to drive its stubborn
foe, Henry, duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel, from his duchy and to
enthrone Protestantism completely therein. But this was not the only
victory gained by the Protestants about this time. The citizens of
Regensburg accepted their doctrines, which also made considerable
progress in the Palatinate and in Austria, while the archbishop of
Cologne, Hermann von Wied, and William, duke of Gelderland, Cleves and
Juliers, announced their secession from the Roman religion. The
Protestants were now at the height of their power, but their ascendancy
was about to be destroyed, and that rather by the folly and imprudence
of their leaders than by the skill and valour of their foes. The unity
and the power of the league of Schmalkalden were being undermined by two
important events, the bigamy of Philip of Hesse, which for political
reasons was condoned by the Lutheran divines, and the dissensions
between John Frederick, the ruler of electoral, and Maurice, the new
ruler of ducal Saxony. To save himself from the consequences of his
double marriage, which had provided him with powerful enemies, Philip in
June 1541 came to terms with the emperor, who thus managed to spike the
guns of the league of Schmalkalden, although the strength of this
confederation did not fail until after the campaign against Henry of
Brunswick. But while on the whole the fortunes of the European war, both
in the east and in the west, were unfavourable to the imperialists,
Charles V. found time in 1543 to lead a powerful force against William
of Gelderland, who had joined the circle of his foreign foes. William
was completely crushed; Gelderland was added to the hereditary lands of
the Habsburgs, while the league of Schmalkalden impotently watched the
proceedings. This happened about a year after war between the two
branches of the Saxon house had only been averted by the mediation of
Luther and of Philip of Hesse. The emperor, however, was unable, or
unwilling, to make a more general attack on the Protestants. In
accordance with the promises made to them at Frankfort in 1539,
conferences between the leaders of the two religious parties were held
at Hagenau, at Worms and at Regensburg, but they were practically
futile. The diets at Regensburg and at Nuremberg gave very little aid
for the wars, and did nothing to solve the religious difficulties which
were growing more acute with repeated delays. At the diet of Spires in
1544 Charles purchased military assistance from the Protestants by
making lavish promises to them. With a new army he marched against the
French, but suddenly in September 1544 he concluded the treaty of Crépy
with Francis I. and left himself free to begin a new chapter in the
history of Germany.

  Victory of Charles over the league of Schmalkalden.

Charles was now nearly ready to crush the Protestants, whose influence
and teaching had divided Germany and weakened the imperial power, and
were now endangering the supremacy of the Habsburgs in the Netherlands
and in Alsace. His plan was to bring about the meeting of a general
council to make the necessary reforms in the church, and then at
whatever cost to compel the Protestants to abide by its decisions. While
Pope Paul III., somewhat reluctantly, summoned the council which
ultimately met at Trent, Charles made vigorous preparations for war.
Having made peace with the Turks in October 1545 he began to secure
allies. Assistance was promised by the pope; the emperor purchased the
neutrality of Duke William of Bavaria, and at a high price the active
aid of Maurice of Saxony; he managed to detach from the league of
Schmalkalden those members who were without any enthusiasm for the
Protestant cause and also those who were too timid to enter upon a
serious struggle. Meanwhile the league was inactive. Its chiefs differed
on questions of policy, one section believing that the emperor did not
intend to proceed to extremities, and for some time no measures were
taken to meet the coming peril. At last, in June 1546, during the
meeting of the diet at Regensburg, Philip and John Frederick of Saxony
realized the extent of the danger and began to muster their forces. They
were still much more powerful than the emperor, but they did not work
well together, or with Sebastian Schärtlin von Burtenbach, who led their
troops in South Germany. In July 1546 they were placed under the
imperial ban, and the war began in the valley of the Danube. Charles was
aided by soldiers hurried from Italy and the Netherlands, but he did not
gain any substantial successes until after October 1546, when his ally
Maurice invaded electoral Saxony and forced John Frederick to march
northwards to its defence. The Lutheran cities of southern and central
Germany, among them Strassburg, Augsburg, Ulm and Frankfort, now
submitted to the emperor, while Ulrich of Württemberg and the elector
palatine of the Rhine, Frederick II., followed their example. Having
restored Roman Catholicism in the archbishopric of Cologne and seen
Henry of Brunswick settled in his duchy early in 1547, Charles led his
men against his principal enemies, Philip of Hesse and John Frederick,
who had quickly succeeded in driving Maurice from his electorate. At
Mühlberg in April 1547 he overtook the army of the Saxon elector. His
victory was complete. John Frederick was taken prisoner, and a little
later Philip of Hesse, after vainly prolonging the struggle, was induced
to surrender. The rising in the other parts of northern Germany was
also put down, and the two leaders of political Lutheranism were
prisoners in the emperor's hands.

  The "Interim."

Unable to shake the allegiance of John Frederick to the Lutheran faith,
Charles kept him and Philip of Hesse in captivity and began to take
advantage of his triumph, although Magdeburg was still offering a
stubborn resistance to his allies. By the capitulation of Wittenberg the
electorate of Saxony was transferred to Maurice, and in the mood of a
conqueror the emperor met the diet at Augsburg in September 1547. His
proposals to strengthen and reform the administration of Germany were,
however, not acceptable to the princes, and the main one was not
pressed; but the Netherlands were brought under the protection of the
Empire and some minor reforms were carried through. A serious quarrel
with the pope, who had moved the council from Trent to Bologna, only
increased the determination of Charles to establish religious
conformity. In consultation with both Romanist and Lutheran divines a
confession of faith called the _Interim_ was drawn up; this was in the
nature of a compromise and was issued as an edict in May 1548, but owing
to the opposition of the Romanist princes it was not made binding upon
them, only upon the Lutherans. There was some resistance to the
_Interim_, but force was employed against Augsburg and other
recalcitrant cities, and soon it was generally accepted. Thus all
Germany seemed to lie at the emperor's feet. The Reformation had enabled
him to deal with the princes and the imperial cities in a fashion such
as no sovereign had dealt with them for three centuries.

  The imperial succession.

  The revolt of Maurice of Saxony.

Being now at the height of his power Charles wished to secure the
succession to the imperial throne to his son Philip, afterwards Philip
II. of Spain. This intention produced dissensions among the Habsburgs,
especially between the emperor and his brother Ferdinand, and other
causes were at work, moreover, to undermine the former's position. The
Romanist princes were becoming alarmed at his predominance, the
Protestant princes resented his arbitrary measures and disliked the
harsh treatment meted out to John Frederick and to Philip of Hesse; all
alike, irritated by the presence of Spanish soldiers in their midst,
objected strongly to take Philip for their king and to any extension of
Spanish influence in Germany. Turkey and France were again threatening
war, and although the council had returned to Trent it seemed less
likely than ever to satisfy the Protestants. The general discontent
found expression in the person of Maurice of Saxony, a son-in-law of
Philip of Hesse, whose services to Charles against the league of
Schmalkalden had made him very unpopular in his own country. Caring
little or nothing about doctrinal disputes, but a great deal about
increasing his own importance, Maurice now took the lead in plotting
against the emperor. He entered into an alliance with John, margrave of
Brandenburg-Cüstrin, with another Hohenzollern prince, Albert Alcibiades
of Bayreuth, and with other Lutheran leaders, and also with Henry II. of
France, who eagerly seized this opportunity of profiting by the
dissensions in the Empire and who stipulated for a definite reward.
Charles knew something of these proceedings, but his recent victory had
thrown him partly off his guard. The treaty with France was signed in
January 1552; in March Henry II. invaded Germany as the protector of her
liberties, while Maurice seized Augsburg and marched towards Innsbruck,
where the emperor was residing, with the intention of making him a
prisoner. An attempt at accommodation failed; Charles fled into
Carinthia; and at one stroke all the advantages which he had gained by
his triumph at Mühlberg were lost. Masters of the situation, Maurice and
his associates met their opponents at Passau in May 1552 and arranged
terms of peace, although the emperor did not assent to them until July.
The two captive princes were released, but the main point agreed upon
was that a diet should be called for the purpose of settling the
religious difficulty, and that in the meantime the Lutherans were to
enjoy full religious liberty.

  The peace of Augsburg.

Delayed by the war with France and Turkey, the diet for the settlement
of the religious difficulty did not meet at Augsburg until February
1555. Ferdinand represented his brother, and after a prolonged
discussion conditions of peace were arranged. Romanists and Lutherans
were placed upon an equal footing, but the toleration which was granted
to them was not extended to the Calvinists. Each secular prince had the
right to eject from his land all those who would not accept the form of
religion established therein; thus the principle of _cujus regio ejus
religio_ was set up. Although the Lutherans did not gain all their
demands, they won solid advantages and were allowed to keep all
ecclesiastical property secularized before the peace of Passau. A source
of trouble, however, was the clause in the treaty usually called the
ecclesiastical reservation. This required an ecclesiastical prince, if
he accepted the teaching of the confession of Augsburg, or in other
words became a Lutheran, forthwith to resign his principality. The
Lutherans denied the validity of this clause, and notwithstanding the
protests of the Roman Catholics several prelates became Lutheran and
kept their territories as secular possessions. The peace of Augsburg can
hardly be described as a satisfactory settlement. Individual toleration
was not allowed, or only allowed in unison with exile, and in the treaty
there was abundant material for future discord.

  End of the reign.

After Maurice of Saxony had made terms with Charles at Passau he went to
help Ferdinand against the Turks, but one of his allies, Henry II. of
France, continued the war in Germany while another, Albert Alcibiades,
entered upon a wild campaign of plunder in Franconia. The French king
seized Metz, which was part of the spoil promised to him by his allies,
and Charles made an attempt to regain the city. For this purpose he took
Albert Alcibiades into his service, but after a stubborn fight his
troops were compelled to retreat in January 1553. Albert then renewed
his raids, and these became so terrible that a league of princes, under
Maurice of Saxony, was formed to crush him; although Maurice lost his
life at Sievershausen in July 1553, this purpose was accomplished, and
Albert was driven from Germany. After the peace of Augsburg, which was
published in September 1555, the emperor carried out his intention of
abdicating. He entrusted Spain and the Netherlands to Philip, while
Ferdinand took over the conduct of affairs in Germany; although it was
not until 1558 that he was formally installed as his brother's

  Ferdinand I.

Ferdinand I., who like all the German sovereigns after him was
recognized as emperor without being crowned by the pope, made it a prime
object of his short reign to defend and enforce the religious peace of
Augsburg for which he was largely responsible. Although in all
probability numerically superior at this time to the Romanists, the
Protestants were weakened by divisions, which were becoming daily more
pronounced and more serious, and partly owing to this fact the emperor
was able to resist the demands of each party and to moderate their
excesses. He was continually harassed by the Turks until peace was made
in 1562, and connected therewith were troubles in Bohemia and especially
in Hungary, two countries which he had acquired through marriage, while
North Germany was disturbed by the wild schemes of Wilhelm von Grumbach
(q.v.) and his associate John Frederick, duke of Saxony. With regard to
the religious question efforts were made to compose the differences
among the Protestants; but while these ended in failure the Roman
Catholics were gaining ground. Ferdinand sought earnestly to reform the
church from within, and before he died in July 1564 the
Counter-Reformation, fortified by the entrance of the Jesuits into
Germany and by the issue of the decrees of the council of Trent, had

  Administrative changes.

Under Ferdinand's rule there were some changes in the administration of
the Empire. Lutherans sat among the judges of the _Reichskammergericht_,
and the Aulic Council, or _Hofrat_, established by Maximilian I. for the
Austrian lands, extended its authority over the Empire and was known as
the _Reichshofrat_. Side by side with these changes the imperial diet
was becoming more useless and unwieldy, and the electors were gaining
power, owing partly to the _Wahlkapitulation_, by which on election they
circumscribed the power of each occupant of the imperial throne.

  Maximilian II.

Ferdinand's son and successor, the emperor Maximilian II., was a man of
tolerant views; in fact at one time he was suspected of being a
Lutheran, a circumstance which greatly annoyed the Habsburgs and delayed
his own election as king of the Romans. However, having given to the
electors assurances of his fidelity to the Roman Church, he was chosen
king in November 1562, and became ruler of Germany on his father's death
nearly two years later. Like other German sovereigns Maximilian pursued
the phantom of religious union. His first diet, which met at Augsburg in
1566, was, however, unable, or unwilling, to take any steps in this
direction, and while the Roman Catholics urged the enforcement of the
decrees of the council of Trent the serious differences among the
Protestants received fresh proof from the attempt made to exclude the
Calvinist prince Frederick III., elector palatine of the Rhine, from the
benefits of the peace of Augsburg. After this Frederick and the
Calvinists looked for sympathy more and more to the Protestants in
France and the Netherlands, whom they assisted with troops, while the
Lutherans, whose chief prince was Augustus, elector of Saxony, adopted a
more cautious policy and were anxious not to offend the emperor. There
were, moreover, troubles of a personal and private nature between these
two electors and their families, and these embittered their religious
differences. But these divergences of opinion were not only between
Roman Catholic and Lutheran or between Lutheran and Calvinist, they
were, in electoral and ducal Saxony at least, between Lutheran and
Lutheran. Thus the Protestant cause was weakened just when it needed
strengthening, as, on the other side, the Roman Catholics, especially
Albert, duke of Bavaria, were eagerly forwarding the progress of the
older faith, which towards the end of this reign was restored in the
important abbey of Fulda. In secular affairs Maximilian had, just after
his accession, to face a renewal of the Turkish war. Although his first
diet voted liberal assistance for the defence of the country, and a
large and splendid army was collected, he had gained no advantage when
the campaign ended. The diet of Spires, which met in 1570, was mainly
occupied in discussing measures for preventing the abuses caused by the
enlistment by foreigners of German mercenary troops, but nothing was
done to redress this grievance, as the estates were unwilling to accept
proposals which placed more power in the emperor's hands. Maximilian
found time to make earnest but unavailing efforts to mediate between his
cousin, Philip II. of Spain, and the revolted Netherlands, and also to
interfere in the affairs of Poland, where a faction elected him as their
king. He was still dealing with this matter and hoping to gain support
for it from the diet of Regensburg when he died (October 1576).

  Rudolph II.

Maximilian's successor was his son, Rudolph II., who had been chosen
king of the Romans in October 1575, and who in his later years showed
marked traces of insanity. The new emperor had little of his father's
tolerant spirit, and under his feeble and erratic rule religious and
political considerations alike tended to increase the disorder in
Germany. The death of the Calvinist leader, the elector palatine
Frederick III., in October 1576 and the accession of his son Louis, a
prince who held Lutheran opinions, obviously afforded a favourable
opportunity for making another attempt to unite the Protestants. Under
the guidance of Augustus of Saxony a Lutheran confession of faith, the
_Formula concordiae_, was drawn up; but, although this was accepted by
51 princes and 35 towns, others--like the landgraves of Hesse and the
cities of Magdeburg and Strassburg--refused to sign it, and thus it
served only to emphasize the divisions among the Protestants. Moreover,
the friendship between the Saxon and the Palatine houses was soon
destroyed; for, when the elector Louis died in 1583, he was succeeded by
a minor, his son Frederick IV., who was under the guardianship of his
uncle John Casimir (1543-1592), a prince of very marked Calvinist
sympathies and of some military experience. Just before this time much
unrest in the north-west of Germany had been caused by the settlement
there of a number of refugees from the Netherlands. Spreading their
advanced religious views, these settlers were partly responsible for two
serious outbreaks of disorder. At Aix-la-Chapelle the Protestants, not
being allowed freedom of worship, took possession of the city in 1581.
The matter came before the diet, which was opened at Augsburg in July
1582, but the case was left undecided; afterwards, however, the
_Reichshofrat_ declared against the insurgents, although it was not
until 1598 that Protestant worship was abolished and the Roman Catholic
governing body was restored. At Cologne the archbishop, Gebhard
Truchsess von Waldburg, married and announced his intention of retaining
his spiritual office. Had this proceeding passed unchallenged, the
Protestants, among whom Gebhard now counted himself, would have had a
majority in the electoral college. The Roman Catholics, however, secured
the deposition of Gebhard and the election in his stead of Ernest,
bishop of Liége, and war broke out in 1583. Except John Casimir, the
Protestant princes showed no eagerness to assist Gebhard, who in a short
time was driven from his see, and afterwards took up his residence in
Strassburg, where also he instigated a rebellion on a small scale. Thus
these quarrels terminated in victories for the Roman Catholics, who were
successful about this time in restoring their faith in the bishoprics of
Würzburg, Salzburg, Bamberg, Paderborn, Minden and Osnabrück. Another
dispute also ended in a similar way. This was the claim made by the
administrator of the archbishopric of Magdeburg, a Hohenzollern prince,
Joachim Frederick, afterwards elector of Brandenburg, to sit and vote in
the imperial diet; it was not admitted, and the administrator retired
from Augsburg, a similar fate befalling a similar claim made by several
other administrators some years later.

  The Protestant grievances.

After the death of Augustus of Saxony in February 1586 there was another
brief alliance between the Protestant parties, although on this occasion
the lead was taken not by the Saxon, but by the Palatine prince. Less
strict in his adherence to the tenets of Lutheranism than Augustus, the
new elector of Saxony, Christian I., fell under the influence of John
Casimir. The result was that Protestant princes, including the three
temporal electors, united in placing their grievances before the
emperor; obtaining no redress they met at Torgau in 1591 and offered
help to Henry IV. of France, a proceeding which was diametrically
opposed to the past policy of Saxony. But this alliance, like its
forerunner, was of very short duration. Christian I. died in 1591, and
under Christian II. electoral Saxony re-established a rigid Lutheranism
at home and pursued a policy of moderation and neutrality abroad. A
short time afterwards the militant party among the Protestants suffered
a heavy loss by the death of their leader, John Casimir, whose policy,
however, was continued by his nephew and pupil, the elector Frederick
IV. But neither desertion nor death was able to crush entirely the
militant Protestants, among whom Christian, prince of Anhalt
(1568-1630), was rapidly becoming the most prominent figure. They made
themselves very troublesome at the diet of Regensburg in 1593, and also
at the diet held in the same city four years later, putting forward
various demands for greater religious freedom and seeking to hinder, or
delay, the payment of the grant for the Turkish war. Moreover, in 1598
they put forward the theory that the vote of a majority in the diet was
not binding upon the minority; they took up the same position at
Regensburg in 1603, when they raised strong objections to the decisions
of the _Reichshofrat_ and afterwards withdrew from the diet in a body.
Thus, under Maximilian of Bavaria and Christian of Anhalt respectively
the two great parties were gaining a better idea of their own needs and
of each other's aims and were watching vigilantly the position in the
duchies of Cleves, Jülich and Berg, where a dispute over the succession
was impending. While wars and rumours of wars were disturbing the peace
in the west of Germany the Turks were again harassing the east. The war
between them and the Empire, which was renewed in 1593, lasted almost
without interruption until November 1606, when peace was made, the
tribute long paid by the emperor to the sultan being abandoned. This
peace was concluded not by Rudolph, but by his brother, the archduke
Matthias, who owing to the emperor's mental incapacity had just been
declared by his kinsman the head of the house of Habsburg. Rudolph
resented this indignity very greatly, and until his death in January
1612 the relations between the brothers were very strained, but this
mainly concerns the history of Hungary and of Bohemia, which were
sensibly affected by the fraternal discord.

  The Counter-Reformation.

By this time however, there were signs of substantial progress on the
part of the great Catholic reaction, which was to have important
consequences for Germany. This was due mainly to the persistent zeal of
the Jesuits. For a long time the Protestants had absorbed the
intellectual strength of the country, but now many able scholars and
divines among the Jesuits could hold their own with their antagonists.
These devoted missionaries of the church gave their attention mainly to
the young, and during the reign of Rudolph II. they were fortunate
enough to make a deep impression upon two princes, each of whom was
destined to play a great part in the events of his time. These princes
were Maximilian, duke of Bavaria, and Ferdinand, archduke of Styria, the
former a member of the house of Wittelsbach, and the latter of the house
of Habsburg. Maximilian became prominent in 1607 by executing an
imperial mandate against the free city of Donauwörth, where a religious
riot had taken place, and afterwards treating it as his own. Rendered
suspicious by this arbitrary act, the Protestant princes in 1608 formed
a confederation known as the Evangelical Union, and in response the
Roman Catholics, under the guidance of Maximilian, united in a similar
confederation afterwards called the Catholic League. This was founded at
Munich in July 1609. As the Union was headed by the elector palatine of
the Rhine, Frederick IV., who was a Calvinist, many Lutherans, among
them the elector of Saxony, were by no means enthusiastic in its
support. It acquired, however, immense importance through its alliance
with Henry IV. of France, who, like Henry II., wished to profit by the
quarrels in Germany, and who interfered in the disputed succession to
the duchies of Cleves and Jülich. War seemed about to break out between
the two confederations and their foreign allies over this question, but
after the murder of the French king in May 1610 the Union did not
venture to fight.

  Ferdinand II.

Ferdinand was even more vigorous than Maximilian in defence of his
religion. On assuming the government of Styria he set to work to
extirpate Protestantism, which had made considerable progress in the
Austrian archduchies. Soon afterwards he was selected by the Habsburgs
as the heir of the childless emperor Matthias, and on coming to Vienna
after the death of that sovereign in March 1619 he found himself in the
midst of hopeless confusion. The Bohemians refused to acknowledge him as
their king and elected in his stead Frederick V., the elector palatine
of the Rhine, a son-in-law of the English king James I., and the
Hungarians and the Austrians were hardly less disaffected. As Ferdinand
II., however, he succeeded in obtaining the imperial crown in August
1619, and from that time he was dominated by a fixed resolve to secure
the triumph of his church throughout the Empire, a resolve which cost
Germany the Thirty Years' War.

  The congress in Bohemia.

He began with Bohemia. Although supported by Spain he could not obtain
from this quarter an army sufficiently strong to crush the Bohemians,
and for some time he remained powerless and inactive in Vienna. Then at
the beginning of 1620 he came to terms with Maximilian of Bavaria, who,
after carefully securing his own interests, placed the army of the
League, commanded by the celebrated Tilly, at his disposal.
Conditionally the Union promised assistance to Frederick, but he wasted
several months and vaguely hoped that the English king would help him
out of his embarrassments. Meanwhile Tilly advanced into Bohemia, and in
November 1620 Frederick's army was utterly routed at the battle of the
White Hill, near Prague, and the unfortunate elector had just time to
escape from the kingdom he had rashly undertaken to govern. Ferdinand
drove to the uttermost the advantages of his victory. The Union being
destroyed and the Bohemian revolution crushed, attention was turned to
the hereditary lands of the elector palatine. The Spanish troops and the
army of the League invaded the Rhenish Palatinate, which was defended by
Frederick's remaining adherents, Christian of Brunswick and Count Ernst
von Mansfeld, but after several battles it passed completely into the
possession of the imperialists. Having been placed under the imperial
ban Frederick became an exile from his inheritance, and the electorate
which he was declared to have forfeited was conferred on Maximilian.

  Danish interference in the war.

Thus ended the first stage of the Thirty Years' War, although some
desultory fighting continued between the League and its opponents. The
second began in 1625 with the formation, after much fruitless
negotiation, of a Protestant combination, which had the support of
England, although its leading member was Christian IV., king of Denmark,
who as duke of Holstein was a prince of the Empire, and who like other
Lutherans was alarmed at the emperor's successes. It was in this war
that Europe first became familiar with the great name of Wallenstein.
Unable himself to raise and equip a strong army, and restive at his
dependence on the League, Ferdinand gladly accepted Wallenstein's offer
to put an army into the field at no cost to himself. After Wallenstein
had beaten Mansfeld at the bridge of Dessau in April 1626, and Tilly had
defeated Christian of Denmark at Lutter in the succeeding August, the
two generals united their forces. Denmark was invaded, and Wallenstein,
now duke of Friedland, was authorized to govern the conquered duchies of
Mecklenburg and Pomerania; but his ambitious scheme of securing the
whole of the south coast of the Baltic was thwarted by the resistance of
the city of Stralsund, which for five months he vainly tried to take.
Denmark, however, was compelled to conclude peace at Lübeck in May 1629.

  Dismissal of Wallenstein.

Intoxicated by success, Ferdinand had issued two months before the
famous Edict of Restitution. This ordered the restoration of all
ecclesiastical lands which had come into the possession of the
Protestants since the peace of Passau in 1552, and, as several
archbishoprics and bishoprics had become Protestant, it struck a
tremendous blow at the emperor's foes and stirred among them intense and
universal opposition. A little later, yielding to Maximilian and his
colleagues in the League, Ferdinand dismissed Wallenstein, whose
movements had aroused their resentment, from his service. A more
inauspicious moment could not have been chosen for these two serious
steps, because in the summer of 1630 Gustavus Adolphus left Sweden at
the head of a strong army for the purpose of sustaining the Protestant
cause in Germany. At first this great king was coldly received by the
Protestants, who were ignorant of his designs and did not want a
stranger to profit by the internal disputes of their country. A mistake
at the outset would probably have been fatal to him, but he saw the
dangers of his position and moved so warily that in less than a year he
had obtained the alliance of the elector of Saxony, a consequence of the
terrible sack of Magdeburg by the imperialists in May 1631 and of the
devastation of the electorate by Tilly. He had also obtained on his own
terms the assistance of France, and was ready to enter upon his short
but brilliant campaign.

  The campaign of Gustavus Adolphus.

Having captured Frankfort-on-Oder and forced the hesitating elector of
Brandenburg, George William, to grant him some assistance, Gustavus
Adolphus added the Saxon army to his own, and in September 1631 he met
Tilly, at the head of nearly the whole force of the League, at
Breitenfeld, near Leipzig, where he gained a victory which placed North
Germany entirely at his feet. So utterly had he shattered the emperor's
power that he could doubtless have marched straight to Vienna; he
preferred, however, to proceed through central into southern Germany,
while his Saxon ally, the elector John George, recovered Silesia and
Lusatia and invaded Bohemia. Würzburg and Frankfort were among the
cities which opened their gates to the Swedish king as the deliverer of
the Protestants; several princes sought his alliance, and, making the
captured city of Mainz his headquarters, he was busily engaged for some
months in resting and strengthening his army and in negotiating about
the future conduct of the war. Early in 1632 he led his troops into
Bavaria. In April he defeated Tilly at the crossing of the Lech, the
imperialist general being mortally wounded during this fight, and then
he took possession of Augsburg and of Munich. Before these events
Ferdinand had realized how serious had been his mistake in dismissing
Wallenstein, and after some delay his agents persuaded the great general
to emerge from his retirement. The conditions, however, upon which
Wallenstein consented to come to the emperor's aid were remarkably
onerous, but Ferdinand had perforce to assent to them. He obtained sole
command of the imperial armies, with the power of concluding treaties
and of granting pardons, and he doubtless insisted on the withdrawal of
the Edict of Restitution, although this is not absolutely certain; in
brief, the only limits to his power were the limits to the strength of
his army. Having quickly assembled this, he drove the Saxons from
Bohemia, and then marched towards Franconia, with the intention of
crossing swords with his only serious rival, Gustavus Adolphus, who had
left Munich when he heard that this foe had taken the field. The Swedes
and their allies occupied Nuremberg, while the imperialists fortified a
great camp and blockaded the city. Gustavus made an attempt to storm
these fortifications, but he failed to make any impression on them; he
failed also in inducing Wallenstein to accept battle, and he was forced
to abandon Nuremberg and to march to the protection of Saxony.
Wallenstein followed, and the two armies faced each other at Lützen on
the 16th of November 1632. Here the imperialists were beaten, but the
victory was even more disastrous to the Protestant cause than a defeat,
for the Swedish king was among the slain.

  The league of Heilbronn and the death of Wallenstein.

The Swedes, whose leader was now the chancellor Oxenstjerna, were
stunned by this catastrophe, but in a desultory fashion they maintained
the struggle, and in April 1633 a new league was formed at Heilbronn
between them and the representatives of four of the German circles,
while by a new agreement France continued to furnish monetary aid. Of
this alliance Sweden was the predominant member, but the German allies
had a certain voice in the direction of affairs, the military command
being divided between the Swedish general Horn and Bernhard, duke of
Saxe-Weimar. About this time some discontent arose in the allied army,
and to allay this Bernhard was granted the bishoprics of Würzburg and of
Bamberg, with the title of duke of Franconia, but on the strange
condition that he should hold the duchy as the vassal of Sweden, not as
a vassal of the Empire. The war, thus revived, was waged principally in
the valleys of the Danube and the Rhine, the Swedes, seizing Alsace
while Bernhard captured Regensburg. Meanwhile Wallenstein was again
arousing the suspicions of his nominal allies. Instead of attacking the
enemy with his accustomed vigour, he withdrew into Bohemia and was
engaged in lengthy negotiations with the Saxon soldier and diplomatist,
Hans Georg von Arnim (1581-1641); his object being doubtless to come to
terms with Saxony and Brandenburg either with or without the emperor's
consent. His prime object was, however, to secure for himself a great
territorial position, possibly that of king of Bohemia, and it is
obvious that his aims and ambitions were diametrically opposed to the
ends desired by Ferdinand and by his Spanish and Bavarian allies. At
length he set his troops in motion. Having gained some successes in the
north-east of Germany he marched to succour the hardly pressed elector
of Bavaria; then suddenly abandoning this purpose he led his troops back
to Bohemia and left Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar in possession of the Danube
valley. It is not surprising that a cry, louder than ever, now arose for
his dismissal. Ferdinand did as he was required. In January 1634 he
declared Wallenstein deposed from his command, but he was still at the
head of an army when he was murdered in the following month at Eger.
Commanded now by the king of Hungary, afterwards the emperor Ferdinand
III., the imperialists retook Regensburg and captured Donauwörth; then,
aided by some Spanish troops, they gained a victory at Nördlingen in
September 1634, the results of which were as decisive and as
satisfactory for them as the results of Breitenfeld had been for their
foes two years before.

  France takes part in the war.

The demoralization of the Swedes and their allies, which was a
consequence of the defeat at Nördlingen, was the opportunity of France.
Having by clever diplomacy placed garrisons in several places in Alsace
and the Palatinate, the king of France, or rather Cardinal Richelieu,
now entered the field as a principal, made a definite alliance with
Sweden at Compiègne in April 1635, and in the following month declared
war and put four armies in motion. But the thoughts of many had already
turned in the direction of peace, and in this manner John George of
Saxony took the lead, signing in May 1635 the important treaty of Prague
with the emperor. The vexed and difficult question of the ownership of
the ecclesiastical lands was settled by fixing November 1627 as the
deciding date; those who were in possession then were to retain them for
forty years, during which time it was hoped a satisfactory arrangement
would be reached. The Saxon elector gained some additions of territory
and promised to assist Ferdinand to recover any lands which had been
taken from him by the Swedes, or by other foes. For this purpose a
united army was to serve under an imperial general, and all leagues were
to be dissolved. In spite of the diplomatic efforts of Sweden the treaty
of Prague was accepted almost at once by the elector of Brandenburg, the
duke of Württemberg and other princes, and also by several of the most
important of the free cities. It was only, in fact, the failure of
Saxony and Sweden to come to terms which prevented a general peace in
Germany. The Thirty Years' War now took a different form. Its original
objects were almost forgotten and it was continued mainly to further the
ambitions of France, thus being a renewal of the great fight between the
houses of Habsburg and of Bourbon, and to secure for Sweden some
recompense for the efforts which she had put forward.

  Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar.

While the signatories of the peace of Prague were making ready to assist
the emperor the only Germans on the other side were found in the army
under Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar. The final stage of the war opened with
considerable Swedish successes in the north of Germany, especially the
signal victory gained by them over the imperialists and the Saxons at
Wittstock in October 1636. At the same time good fortune was attending
the operations of the French in the Rhineland, where they were aided by
Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar, a satisfactory financial arrangement between
these parties having been reached in the autumn of 1635. The year 1638
was an especially fortunate one for France and her allies. Bernhard's
capture of Rheinfelden and of Breisach gave them possession of the
surrounding districts, but dissensions arose concerning the division of
the spoil; these, however, were stopped by the death of Bernhard in July
1639, when France took his army into her pay. Thus the war continued,
but the desire for peace was growing stronger, and this was reflected in
the proceedings of the diet which met at Regensburg in 1640. Under Count
Torstenssen the Swedes defeated the imperialists at Breitenfeld in 1642;
three years later they gained another victory at Jankau and advanced
almost to Vienna, and then the last decisive move of the war was made by
the great French general, Turenne. Having been successful in the
Rhineland, where he had captured Philippsburg and Worms, Turenne joined
his forces to those of Sweden under Wrangel and advanced into Bavaria.
Ravaging the land, they compelled the elector Maximilian to sign a truce
and to withdraw his troops from the imperial army. When, however, the
allied army had retired Maximilian repented of his action. Again he
joined the emperor, but his punishment was swift and sure, as Turenne
and Wrangel again marched into the electorate and defeated the Bavarians
at Zusmarshausen, near Augsburg, in May 1648. A few minor operations
followed, and then came the welcome news of the conclusion of the
treaty of Westphalia.

  The peace of Westphalia.

The preliminary negotiations for peace were begun at Hamburg and Cologne
before the death of the emperor Ferdinand II. in 1637. By a treaty
signed at Hamburg in December 1641 it was agreed that peace conferences
should meet at Münster and at Osnabrück in March 1642, the emperor
treating with France in the former, and with Sweden in the latter city.
The Roman Catholic princes of the Empire were to be represented at
Münster and the Protestants at Osnabrück. Actually the conferences did
not meet until 1645, when the elector of Brandenburg had made, and the
elector of Saxony was about to make, a truce with Sweden, these two
countries being withdrawn from the ravages of the war. In three years
the many controversial questions were discussed and settled, and in
October 1648 the treaty of Westphalia was signed and the Thirty Years'
War was at an end.

  Effects of the Thirty Years' War.

The Thirty Years' War settled once for all the principle that men should
not be persecuted for their religious faith. It is true that the peace
of Westphalia formally recognized only the three creeds, Catholicism,
Lutheranism and Calvinism, but so much suffering had been caused by the
interference of the state with individual conviction, that toleration in
the largest sense, so far as law was concerned, was virtually conceded.
This was the sole advantage gained from the war by the Protestants. The
Catholics insisted at first on keeping all the ecclesiastical lands
which had been taken from them before the Edict of Restitution in 1629.
The Protestants responded by demanding that they should lose nothing
which they had held before 1618, when the war began. A compromise was at
last effected by both parties agreeing to the date 1624, an arrangement
which secured to the Catholics their gains in Bohemia and the other
territories of the house of Habsburg. The restoration of the elector
palatine to part of his lands, and his reinstatement in the electoral
office, were important concessions; but on the other hand, the duke of
Bavaria kept the Upper Palatinate, the elector palatine becoming the
eighth and junior member of the electoral college.

  Loss of territory.

The country suffered enormous territorial losses by the war. Up to this
time the possession of Metz, Toul and Verdun by France had never been
officially recognized; now these bishoprics were formally conceded to
her. She also received as much of Alsace as belonged to Austria. To the
Swedes were granted Western Pomerania, with Stettin, and the
archbishopric of Bremen and the bishopric of Verden. These acquisitions,
which surpassed the advantages Gustavus Adolphus had hoped to win, gave
Sweden the command both of the Baltic and of the North Sea. In virtue of
her German possessions Sweden became a member of the Empire; but France
obtained absolute control of her new territories. There was a further
diminution of Germany by the recognition of the independence of
Switzerland and the United Provinces. Both had long been virtually free;
they now for the first time took the position of distinct nations.

  The Reformation and the political constitution.

In the political constitution of Germany the peace of Westphalia did not
so much make changes as sanction those already effected. The whole
tendency of the Reformation had been to relax the bonds which united the
various elements of the state to each other and to their head. It
divided the nation into two hostile parties, and the emperor was not
able to assume towards them a perfectly impartial position. His imperial
crown imposed upon him the necessity of associating himself with the
Roman Catholics; so that the Protestants had a new and powerful reason
for looking upon him with jealousy, and trying to diminish his
authority. The Roman Catholics, while maintaining their religion, were
willing enough to co-operate with them for this object; and Germany
often saw the strange spectacle of princes rallying round the emperor
for the defence of the church, and at the same time striking deadly
blows at his political influence. The diet was a scene of perpetual
quarrelling between the two factions, and their differences made it
impossible for the imperial chamber to move beyond the region of
official routine. Thus before the Thirty Years' War the Empire had
virtually ceased to exist, Germany having become a loose confederation
of principalities and free cities. For a moment the emperor Ferdinand
appeared to have touched the ideal of Charles V. in so far, at least, as
it related to Germany, but only for a moment. The stars in their courses
fought against him, and at the time of his death he saw how far beyond
his power were the forces with which even Charles had been unable to
contend. The state of things which actually existed the peace of
Westphalia made legal. So nearly complete was the independence of the
states that each received the right to form alliances with any of the
others, or with foreign powers, nominally on condition that their
alliances should not be injurious to the emperor or to the Empire. Any
authority which still lawfully belonged to the emperor was transferred
to the diet. It alone had now the power of making laws, of concluding
treaties in the name of Germany, and of declaring war and
re-establishing peace. No one, however, expected that it would be of any
real service. From 1663 it became a permanent body, and was attended
only by the representatives of the princes and the cities; and from that
time it occupied itself mainly with trifles, leaving the affairs of each
state to be looked after by its own authorities, and those of the
country generally to such fortunes as chance should determine.

  Continuance of the empire.

It would not have been strange if so shadowy an Empire had been brought
altogether to an end. Some slight bond of connexion was, however,
necessary for defence against common dangers; and the Empire had existed
so long, and so many great associations were connected with it, that it
seemed to all parties preferable to any other form of union. Moreover,
Sweden, and other states which were now members of the Empire, warmly
supported it; and the house of Habsburg, on which it reflected a certain
splendour, would not willingly have let it die. An Austrian ruler, even
when he spoke only in the name of Austria, derived authority from the
fact that as emperor he represented many of the greatest memories of
European history.

  National life.

The effect of the Thirty Years' War on the national life was disastrous.
It had not been carried on by disciplined armies, but by hordes of
adventurers whose sole object was plunder. The cruelties they inflicted
on their victims are almost beyond conception. Before the war the
population was nearly twenty millions; after it the number was probably
about six millions. Whole towns and villages were laid in ashes, and
vast districts turned into deserts. Churches and schools were closed by
hundreds, and to such straits were the people often reduced that
cannibalism is said to have been not uncommon. Industry and trade were
so completely paralysed that in 1635 the Hanseatic League was virtually
broken up, because the members, once so wealthy, could not meet the
necessary expenditure. The population was not only impoverished and
reduced in numbers but broken in spirit. It lost confidence in itself,
and for a time effected in politics, literature, art and science little
that is worthy of serious study.

  The princes.

  The cities.

The princes knew well how to profit by the national prostration. The
local diets, which, as we have seen, formed a real check on petty
tyranny, and kept up an intimate relation between the princes and their
subjects, were nearly all destroyed. Those which remained were injurious
rather than beneficial, since they often gave an appearance of
lawfulness to the caprices of arbitrary sovereigns. After the Thirty
Years' War it became fashionable for the heirs of principalities to
travel, and especially to spend some time at the court of France. Here
they readily imbibed the ideas of Louis XIV., and in a short time nearly
every petty court in Germany was a feeble imitation of Versailles.
Before the Reformation, and even for some time after it, the princes
were thorough Germans in sympathies and habits; they now began to be
separated by a wide gulf from their people. Instead of studying the
general welfare, they wrung from exhausted states the largest possible
revenue to support a lavish and ridiculous expenditure. The pettiest
princeling had his army, his palaces, his multitudes of household
officers; and most of them pampered every vulgar appetite without
respect either to morality or to decency. Many nobles, whose lands had
been wasted during the war, flocked to the little capitals to make their
way by contemptible court services. Beneath an outward gloss of
refinement these nobles were, as a class, coarse and selfish, and they
made it their chief object to promote their own interests by fostering
absolutist tendencies. Among the people there was no public opinion to
discourage despotism; the majority accepted their lot as inevitable, and
tried rather to reproduce than to restrain the vices of their rulers.
Even the churches offered little opposition to the excesses of persons
in authority, and in many instances the clergy, both Protestant and
Catholic, acquired an unenviable notoriety for their readiness to
overlook or condone actions which outraged the higher sentiments of
humanity. In the free imperial cities there was more manliness of tone
than elsewhere, but there was little of the generous rivalry among the
different classes which had once raised them to a high level of
prosperity. Most of them resigned their liberties into the hands of
oligarchies, and others allowed themselves to be annexed by ambitious
princes. (A. W. H.*)

  Ferdinand III.

  Leopold I.

  Louis XIV. of France.

  War of Spanish Succession.

Ferdinand III. succeeded to the throne when the fortunes of his house
were at a low ebb, and he continued the Thirty Years' War, not in the
hope of re-establishing the Roman Catholic religion or of restoring the
imperial authority, but of remedying as far as he could the havoc caused
by his father's recklessness. After the conclusion of peace nothing
happened to make his reign memorable. His son Leopold I. was a man of
narrow intellect and feeble will; yet Germany seldom so keenly felt the
need of a strong emperor, for she had during two generations to contend
with a watchful and grasping rival. For more than a century it had been
the policy of France to strengthen herself by fostering the internal
dissensions of Germany. This was now easy, and Louis XIV. made
unscrupulous use of the advantages his predecessors had helped to gain
for him. Germany, as a whole, could not for a long time be induced to
resist him. His schemes directly threatened the independence of the
princes; but they were too indolent to unite against his ambition. They
grudged even the contributions necessary for the maintenance of the
frontier fortresses, and many of them stooped to accept the bribes he
offered them on condition that they should remain quiet. In his war with
the United Provinces and Spain, begun in 1672, he was opposed by the
emperor as ruler of Austria, and by Frederick William, the elector of
Brandenburg; and in 1675 the latter gained a splendid victory at
Fehrbellin over his allies, the Swedes. At the end of the war, in 1678,
by the peace of Nijmwegen, Louis took care that Frederick William should
be deprived of the fruits of his victory, and Austria had to resign
Freiburg im Breisgau to the French. Under the pretence that when France
gained the Austrian lands in Alsace she also acquired a right to all
places that had ever been united to them, Louis began a series of
systematic robberies of German towns and territories. "Chambers of
Reunion" were appointed to give an appearance of legality to these
proceedings, which culminated, in 1681, in the seizure of Strassburg.
Germans of all states and ranks were indignant at so gross a
humiliation, but even the loss of Strassburg did not suffice to move the
diet. The emperor himself might probably have interfered, but Louis had
provided him with ample employment by stirring up against him the
Hungarians and the Turks. So complete was his hold over the majority of
the princes that when the Turks, in 1683, surrounded Vienna, and
appeared not unlikely to advance into the heart of Germany, they looked
on indifferently, and allowed the emperor to be saved by the promptitude
and courage of John Sobieski, king of Poland. At last, when, in 1689, on
the most frivolous pretext, Louis poured into southern Germany armies
which were guilty of shameful outrages, a number of princes came forward
and aided the emperor. This time France was sternly opposed by the
league of which William III. of England was the moving spirit; and
although at the end of the war he kept Strassburg, he had to give up
Freiburg, Philipsburg, Breisach, and the places he had seized because of
their former connexion with Alsace. In the War of the Spanish Succession
two powerful princes, the elector of Bavaria and the elector of Cologne,
joined Louis; but as the states of the Empire declared war against him
in 1702, the other princes, more or less loyally, supported the emperor
and his allies. Leopold died during the progress of this war, but it was
vigorously continued by his son Joseph I.

  Charles VI.

  Pragmatic sanction.

Joseph's brother and successor, Charles VI., also went on with it; and
such were the blows inflicted on France by the victories of Blenheim,
Ramillies and Malplaquet that the war was generally expected to end in
her utter discomfiture. But the conclusion of the treaty of Utrecht by
England, in 1713, so limited the military power of Charles VI. that he
was obliged to resign the claims of Austria to the Spanish throne, and
to content himself with the Spanish Netherlands, Milan, Naples and
Sardinia. He cared so little for Germany, as distinguished from Austria,
that he allowed Louis to compel the diet to cede the imperial fortress
of Landau. At a later stage in his reign he was guilty of an act of even
grosser selfishness; for after the War of the Polish Succession, in
which he supported the claims of Augustus III., elector of Saxony, he
yielded Lorraine to Stanislaus Leszczynski, whose claims had been
defended by France, and through whom France ultimately secured this
beautiful German province. Having no son, Charles drew up in 1713 the
pragmatic sanction, which ordained that, in the event of an Austrian
ruler being without male heirs, his hereditary lands and titles should
pass to his nearest female relative. The aim of his whole policy was to
secure for this measure, which was proclaimed as a fundamental law in
1724, the approval of Europe; and by promises and threats he did at last
obtain the guarantee of the states of the Empire and the leading
European powers.

  Growth of Prussia.

  Maria Theresa.

Germany was now about to be aroused from the torpor into which she had
been cast by the Thirty Years' War; but her awakening was due, not to
the action of the Empire, which was more and more seen to be practically
dead, but to the rivalry of two great German states, Austria and
Prussia. The latter had long been laying the foundations of her power.
Brandenburg, the centre of the Prussian kingdom, was, as we have seen,
granted in the 15th century by the emperor Sigismund to Frederick, count
of Hohenzollern. In his hands, and in those of his prudent successors,
it became one of the most flourishing of the North-German
principalities. At the time of the Reformation Albert, a member of a
subordinate branch of the house of Hohenzollern, happened to be grand
master of the Teutonic Order. He became a Protestant, dissolved the
order, and received in fief of the king of Poland the duchy of Prussia.
In 1611 this duchy fell by inheritance to the elector of Brandenburg,
and by the treaty of Wehlau, in 1657, in the time of Frederick William,
the Great Elector, it was declared independent of Poland. By skill,
foresight and courage Frederick William managed to add largely to his
territories; and in an age of degenerate sovereigns he was looked upon
as an almost model ruler. His son, Frederick, aspired to royal dignity,
and in 1701, having obtained the emperor's assent, was crowned king of
Prussia. The extravagance of Frederick drained the resources of his
state, but this was amply atoned for by the rigid economy of Frederick
William I., who not only paid off the debts accumulated by his father,
but amassed an enormous treasure. He so organized all branches of the
public service that they were brought to a point of high efficiency, and
his army was one of the largest, best appointed and best trained in
Europe (see PRUSSIA: _History_). He died in 1740, and within six months,
when Frederick II. was on the Prussian throne, Maria Theresa claimed, in
virtue of the pragmatic sanction, the lands and hereditary titles of her
father Charles VI.

  Frederick the Great.

  First Silesian War.

  Charles VII.

  Second Silesian War.

Frederick II., a young, ambitious and energetic sovereign, longed not
only to add to his dominions but to play a great part in European
politics. His father had guaranteed the pragmatic sanction, but as the
conditions on which the guarantee had been granted had not been
fulfilled by Charles VI., Frederick did not feel bound by it, and
revived some old claims of his family on certain Silesian duchies. Maria
Theresa would not abate her rights, but before she could assert them
Frederick had entered Silesia and made himself master of it. Meanwhile,
the elector of Bavaria had come forward and disputed Maria Theresa's
right to the succession, and the elector of Saxony had also put in a
claim to the Austrian lands. Taking advantage of these disputes, France
formed an alliance with the two electors and with the king of Prussia
against Austria; and in the war which followed the allies were at first
so successful that the elector of Bavaria, through the influence of
France, was crowned emperor as Charles VII. (1742-1745). Maria Theresa,
a woman of a noble and undaunted spirit, appealed, with her infant son,
afterwards Joseph II., in her arms, to the Hungarian diet, and the
enthusiastic Magyars responded chivalrously to her call. To be more at
freedom she concluded peace with Frederick, and ceded Silesia to him,
although greatly against her will. Saxony also was pacified and retired
from the struggle. After this Maria Theresa, supported by England, made
way so rapidly and so triumphantly that Frederick became alarmed for his
new possessions; and in 1742 he once more proclaimed war against her,
nominally in aid of the emperor, Charles VII. Ultimately, in 1748, she
was able to conclude an honourable peace at Aix-la-Chapelle; but she had
been forced, as before, to rid herself of Frederick by confirming him in
the sovereignty of the territory he had seized.

  Francis I.

After the death of Charles VII., Francis, grand duke of Tuscany, Maria
Theresa's husband, was elected emperor. Francis I. (1745-1765), an
amiable nonentity, with the instincts of a shopkeeper, made no pretence
of discharging important imperial duties, and the task of ruling the
hereditary possessions of the house of Habsburg fell wholly to the
empress-queen. She executed it with discretion and vigour, so that
Austria in her hands was known to be one of the most formidable powers
in the world. Her rival, Frederick II., was, if possible, still more
active. It did not occur to him, any more than to the other German
sovereigns of the 18th century, to associate his people with him in the
government of the country; he was in every respect a thoroughly absolute
sovereign. But he shared the highest ideas of the age respecting the
responsibilities of a king, and throughout his long reign acted in the
main faithfully as "the first servant of the state." The army he always
kept in readiness for war; but he also encouraged peaceful arts, and
diffused throughout his kingdom so much of his own alert and aggressive
spirit that the Prussians became more intelligent and more wealthy than
they had ever before been. He excited the admiration of the youth of
Germany, and it was soon the fashion among the petty princes to imitate
his methods of government. As a rule, they succeeded only in raising far
larger armies than the taxpayers could afford to maintain.

  The Seven Years' War, 1756-1763.

Maria Theresa never gave up the hope of winning back Silesia, and, in
order to secure this object, she laid aside the jealousies of her house,
and offered to conclude an alliance with France. Frederick had excited
the envy of surrounding sovereigns, and had embittered them against him
by stinging sarcasms. Not only France, therefore, but Russia, Saxony and
ultimately Sweden, willingly came to terms with Austria, and the aim of
their union was nothing short of the partition of Prussia. Frederick,
gaining knowledge of the plot, turned to England, which had in the
previous war helped Austria. At the close of 1755 his offer of an
alliance was acceded to; and in the following year, hoping by vigorously
taking the initiative to prevent his enemies from united action, he
invaded Saxony, and began the Seven Years' War (q.v.), the result of
which was to confirm Prussia in the possession of Silesia.

Prussia now took rank as one of the leading European powers, and by her
rise a new element was introduced into the political life of Germany.
Austria, although associated with the Empire, could no longer feel sure
of her predominance, and it was inevitable that the jealousies of the
two states should lead to a final conflict for supremacy. Even before
the Seven Years' War there were signs that the German people were
beginning to tire of incessant imitation of France, for in literature
they welcomed the early efforts of Klopstock, Wieland and Lessing; but
the movement received a powerful impulse from the great deeds of
Frederick. The nation, as a whole, was proud of him, and began, for the
first time since the Thirty Years' War, to feel that it might once more
assume a commanding place in the world.

  Partition of Poland.

  Joseph II.

In 1772 the necessities of Frederick's position compelled him to join
Russia and Austria in the deplorable partition of Poland, whereby he
gained West Prussia, exclusive of Danzig and Thorn, and Austria acquired
West Silesia. After this he had to watch closely the movements of the
emperor Joseph II., who, although an ardent admirer of Frederick, was
anxious to restore to Austria the greatness she had partially lost. The
younger branch of the Wittelsbach line, which had hitherto possessed
Bavaria, having died out in 1777, Joseph asserted claims to part of its
territory. Frederick intervened, and although no battle was fought in
the nominal war which followed, the emperor was obliged to content
himself with a very unimportant concession. He made a second attempt in
1785, but Frederick again came forward. This time he formed a league
(_Fürstenbund_) for the defence of the imperial constitution, and it was
joined by the majority of the small states. The memory of this league
was almost blotted out by the tremendous events which soon absorbed the
attention of Germany and the world, but it truly indicated the direction
of the political forces which were then at work beneath the surface, and
which long afterwards triumphed. The formation of the league was a
distinct attempt on the part of Prussia to make herself the centre for
the national aspirations both of northern and of southern Germany.

  French Revolution.

The French Revolution was hailed by many of the best minds of Germany as
the opening of a new era. Among the princes it excited horror and alarm,
and in 1792 the emperor Leopold II. and Frederick William II., the
unworthy successor of Frederick the Great, met at Pillnitz, and agreed
to support by arms the cause of the French king. A more important
resolution was never taken. It plunged Europe into a conflict which cost
millions of lives, and which overthrew the entire states system of the
continent. Germany herself was the principal sufferer. The structure
which the princes had so laboriously built up crumbled into ruins, and
the mistakes of centuries were expiated in an agony of disaster and

  End of the Holy Roman Empire.

The states of the Empire joined Austria and Prussia, and, had there been
hearty co-operation between the allies, they could scarcely have failed
of success. While the war was in progress, in 1793, Prussia joined
Russia in the second partition of Poland. Austria considered herself
overreached, and began negotiations with Russia for the third and final
partition, which was effected by the three powers in 1795. Prussia,
irritated by the proceedings of her rival, did as little as possible in
the war with France; and in 1795 she retired from the struggle, and by
the treaty of Basel ceded to the French republic her possessions on the
left bank of the Rhine. The war was continued by Austria, but her power
was so effectually shattered by blow after blow that in 1797 she was
forced to conclude the peace of Campo Formio. Napoleon Bonaparte, to
whose genius the triumph of France was mainly due, began separate
negotiations with the states of the Empire at Rastadt; but, before terms
could be agreed upon, war again began in 1799, Austria acting on this
occasion as the ally of Great Britain and Russia. She was beaten, and
the peace of Lunéville added fresh humiliations to those imposed upon
her by the previous war. France now obtained the whole of the left bank
of the Rhine, the dispossessed princes being compensated by grants of
secularized church lands and of mediatized imperial cities (1803). The
contempt of Napoleon for the Empire was illustrated by his occupation
of Hanover in 1803, and by his seizure of the duke of Enghien on
imperial territory in 1804. In 1805 Austria once more appealed to arms
in association with her former allies, but in vain. By the peace of
Presburg she accepted more disastrous terms than ever, and for the
moment it seemed as if she could not again hope to rise to her former
splendour. In this war she was opposed not only by France, but by
Bavaria, Württemberg and Baden, all of which were liberally rewarded for
their services, the rulers of the two former countries being proclaimed
kings. The degradation of Germany was completed by the formation, in
1806, of the Confederation of the Rhine, which was composed of the chief
central and southern states. The welfare of the Empire was asserted to
be its object, but a body of which Napoleon was the protector existed,
of course, for no other purpose than to be a menace to Austria and
Prussia. Francis II., who had succeeded Leopold II. in 1792 and in 1804
had proclaimed himself hereditary emperor of Austria, as Francis I., now
resigned the imperial crown, and thus the Holy Roman Empire and the
German kingdom came to an end. The various states, which had for
centuries been virtually independent, were during the next few years not
connected even by a nominal bond.     (J. Si.)

  Prussia defeated at Jena.

Frederick William III. (1797-1840) of Prussia, the successor of
Frederick William II., had held aloof from the struggle of Austria with
France. This attitude had been dictated partly by his constitutional
timidity, partly by the desire to annex Hanover, to which Austria and
Russia would never have assented, but which Napoleon was willing to
concede in return for a Prussian alliance. The Confederation of the
Rhine, however, was a menace to Prussia too serious to be neglected; and
Frederick William's hesitations were suddenly ended by Napoleon's
contemptuous violation of Prussian territory in marching three French
brigades through Ansbach without leave asked. The king at once concluded
a convention with the emperor Alexander I. of Russia and declared war on
France. The campaign that ended in the disastrous battle of Jena
(October 14, 1806) followed; and the prestige of the Prussian arms,
created by Frederick the Great, perished at a blow. With the aid of
Russia Frederick William held out a while longer, but after Napoleon's
decisive victory at Friedland (June 14, 1807) the tsar came to terms
with the French emperor, sacrificing the interests of his ally. By the
treaty of Tilsit (July 9) the king of Prussia was stripped of the best
part of his dominions and more than half his subjects.

  Napoleon in power.

Germany now seemed fairly in the grip of Napoleon. Early in November
1806 he had contemptuously deposed the elector of Hesse and added his
dominions to Jerome's kingdom of Westphalia; on the 21st of the same
month he issued from Berlin the famous decree establishing the
"continental system," which, by forbidding all trade with England,
threatened German commerce with ruin. His triumph seemed complete when,
on the 11th of October 1807, Metternich signed at Fontainebleau, on
behalf of Austria, a convention that conceded all his outstanding
claims, and seemed to range the Habsburg monarchy definitely on his
side. There was, however, to be one final struggle before Napoleon's
supremacy was established. The submission of Austria had been but an
expedient for gaining time; under Count Stadion's auspices she set to
work increasing and reorganizing her forces; and when it became clear
from Napoleon's resentment that he was meditating fresh designs against
her she declared war (1809). The campaign ended in the crushing defeat
of Wagram (July 6) and the humiliating treaty of peace dictated by
Napoleon at the palace of Schönbrunn in Vienna (October 14). Austria,
shorn of her fairest provinces, robbed of her oversea commerce, bankrupt
and surrounded on all sides by the territories of the French emperor and
his allies, seemed to exist only on sufferance, and had ceased to have
any effective authority in Germany--now absolutely in the power of
Napoleon, who proved this in 1810 by annexing the whole of the northern
coast as far as the Elbe to his empire.

  Revival of Germany.

The very completeness of the humiliation of Germany was the means of her
deliverance. She had been taught self-respect by Frederick II., and by
her great writers in literature and philosophy; it was felt to be
intolerable that in politics she should do the bidding of a foreign
master. Among a large section of the community patriotism became for the
first time a consuming passion, and it was stimulated by the counsels of
several manly teachers, among whom the first place belongs to the
philosopher Fichte. The governments cautiously took advantage of the
national movement to strengthen their position. Even in Austria, where
on the 8th of October 1809 Metternich had become minister for foreign
affairs and the dominant influence in the councils of the empire, some
timely concessions were made to the various populations. Prussia, under
the guidance of her great minister Stein, reorganized her entire
administration. She abolished serfdom, granted municipal rights to the
cities, established an admirable system of elementary and secondary
education, and invited all classes to compete for civil offices; and
ample means were provided for the approaching struggle by drastic
military reform. Napoleon had extracted an engagement that the Prussian
army should be limited to 42,000 men. This was fulfilled in the letter,
but in spirit set aside, for one body of men was trained after another
until the larger part of the male population were in a position, when a
fitting opportunity should occur, to take up arms for their country.

  War of Liberation.

The disastrous retreat of the French from Moscow in 1812 gave Germany
the occasion she desired. In 1813 King Frederick William, after an agony
of hesitation, was forced by the patriotic initiative of General Yorck,
who concluded with the Russians the convention of Tauroggen on his own
responsibility, and by the pressure of public opinion supported by Queen
Louise and by Hardenberg, to enter into an alliance with Russia. All now
depended on the attitude of Austria; and this was for some time
doubtful. The diplomacy of Metternich (q.v.), untouched by the patriotic
fervour which he disliked and distrusted, was directed solely to gaining
time to enable Austria to intervene with decisive effect and win for the
Habsburg monarchy the position it had lost. When the time came, after
the famous interview with Napoleon at Dresden, and the breakdown of the
abortive congress of Prague, Austria threw in her lot with the allies.
The campaign that followed, after some initial reverses, culminated in
the crushing victory of the allies at Leipzig (October 16-18, 1813), and
was succeeded by the joint invasion of France, during which the German
troops wreaked vengeance on the unhappy population for the wrongs and
violences of the French rule in Germany.

Long before the issue of the War of Liberation had been finally decided,
diplomacy had been at work in an endeavour to settle the future
constitution of Germany. In this matter, as in others, the weakness of
the Prussian government played into the hands of Austria. Metternich had
been allowed to take the initiative in negotiating with the princes of
the Confederation of the Rhine, and the price of their adhesion to the
cause of the allies had been the guarantee by Austria of their
independent sovereignty. The guarantee had been willingly given; for
Metternich had no desire to see the creation of a powerful unified
German empire, but aimed at the establishment of a loose confederation
of weak states over which Austria, by reason of her ancient imperial
prestige and her vast non-German power, would exercise a dominant
influence. This, then, was the view that prevailed, and by the treaty of
Chaumont (March 1, 1814) it was decided that Germany should consist of a
confederation of sovereign states.

  The German confederation.

The new constitution of Germany, as embodied in the Final Act of the
congress of Vienna (June 9, 1815) was based on this principle. It was
the work of a special committee of the congress, presided over by
Metternich; and, owing to the panic created by Napoleon's return from
Elba (March 5), it remained a mere sketch, the hasty output of a few
hurried sessions, of which the elaboration was reserved for the future.
In spite of the clamour of the mediatized princes for the restoration
of their "liberties," no attempt was made to reverse the essential
changes in the territorial disposition of Germany made during the
revolutionary epoch. Of the 300 odd territorial sovereignties under the
Holy Empire only 39 survived, and these were readjusted on the
traditional principles of "compensations," "rectification of frontiers"
and "balance of power." The most fateful arrangements were naturally
those that affected the two leading powers, Austria and Prussia. The
latter had made strenuous efforts, supported by Alexander I. of Russia,
to obtain the annexation of the whole of Saxony, a project which was
defeated by the opposition of Great Britain, Austria and France, an
opposition which resulted in the secret treaty of the 3rd of January
1815 for eventual armed intervention. She received, however, the
northern part of Saxony, Swedish Pomerania, Posen and those
territories--formerly part of the kingdom of Westphalia--which
constitute her Rhine provinces. While Prussia was thus established on
the Rhine, Austria, by exchanging the Netherlands for Lombardo-Venetia
and abandoning her claims to the former Habsburg possessions in Swabia,
definitively resigned to Prussia the task of defending the western
frontier of Germany, while she strengthened her power in the south-east
by recovering from Bavaria, Salzburg, Vorarlberg and Tirol. Bavaria, in
her turn, received back the greater part of the Palatinate on the left
bank of the Rhine, with a strip of territory to connect it with the main
body of her dominions. For the rest the sovereigns of Württemberg and
Saxony retained the title of king bestowed upon them by Napoleon, and
this title was also given to the elector of Hanover; the dukes of
Weimar, Mecklenburg and Oldenburg became grand dukes; and Lübeck,
Bremen, Hamburg and Frankfort were declared free cities.

  The federal diet.

As the central organ of this confederation (_Bund_) was established the
federal diet (_Bundestag_), consisting of delegates of the several
states. By the terms of the Final Act this diet had very wide powers for
the development of the mutual relations of the governments in all
matters of common interest. It was empowered to arrange the fundamental
laws of the confederation; to fix the organic institutions relating to
its external, internal and military arrangements; to regulate the trade
relations between the various federated states. Moreover, by the famous
Article 13, which enacted that there were to be "assemblies of estates"
in all the countries of the _Bund_, the constitutional liberties of the
German people seemed to be placed under its aegis. But the constitution
of the diet from the first condemned its debates to sterility. In the
so-called narrower assembly (_Engere Versammlung_), for the transaction
of ordinary business, Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover,
Württemberg, Baden, Hesse-Cassel, Hesse-Darmstadt, Holstein and
Luxemburg had one vote each; while the remaining twenty-eight states
were divided into six _curiae_, of which each had but a single vote. In
this assembly a vote of the majority decided. Questions of more than
usual importance were, however, to be settled in the general assembly
(_Plenum_) where a two-thirds majority was necessary to carry a
resolution. In this assembly the voting power was somewhat differently
distributed; but the attempt to make it bear some proportion to the
importance of the various states worked out so badly that Austria had
only four times the voting power of the tiny principality of
Liechtenstein. Finally it was laid down by Article 7 that a unanimous
vote was necessary for changing "fundamental laws, organic institutions,
individual rights, or in matters of religion," a formula wide enough to
embrace every question of importance with which the diet might be called
upon to deal. Austria, in virtue of her tradition, received the
perpetual presidency of the diet. It was clear that in such a governing
body neither Austria nor Prussia would be content with her
constitutional position, and that the internal politics of Germany would
resolve themselves into a diplomatic duel for ascendancy between the two
powers, for which the diet would merely serve as a convenient arena.

In this duel the victory of Austria was soon declared. The Prussian
government believed that the effective government of Germany could only
be secured by a separate understanding between the two great powers; and
the indiscretion of the Prussian plenipotentiary revealed to the diet a
plan for what meant practically the division of Germany into Prussian
and Austrian spheres of influence. This threw the lesser princes,
already alarmed at the growth of Prussian military power, into the arms
of Austria, which thus secured a permanent majority in the diet. To
avoid any possible modification of a situation so satisfactory, Count
Buol, the Austrian president of the diet, was instructed to announce
that the constitution as fixed by the Final Act, and guaranteed by
Europe, must be regarded as final; that it might be interpreted, but not

The conception of the diet as a sort of international board of control,
responsible in the last resort not to Germany but to Europe, exactly
suited Metternich's policy, in which the interests of Germany were
subordinate to the wider ambitions of the Habsburg monarchy. It was,
moreover, largely justified by the constituent elements of the diet
itself. Of the German states represented in it even Prussia, by the
acquisition of Posen, had become a non-German power; the Habsburg
monarchy was predominantly non-German; Hanover was attached to the crown
of Great Britain, Holstein to that of Denmark, Luxemburg to that of the
Netherlands. The diet, then, properly controlled, was capable of being
converted into an effective instrument for furthering the policy of
"stability" which Metternich sought to impose upon Europe. Its one
effort to make its authority effective as the guardian of the
constitution, in the matter of the repudiation of the Westphalian debt
and of the sale of the domains by the elector of Hesse, was crushed by
the indignant intervention of Austria. Henceforth its sole effective
function was to endorse and promulgate the decrees of the government of

  The question of constitutions.

In this respect the diet fairly reflected the place of Germany in
Europe. The constitution was the work of the powers, which in all
matters arising out of it constituted the final court of appeal. The
result was not wholly one-sided. Until the congress of Troppau in 1820
"Jacobinism" was still enthroned in high places in the person of
Alexander I. of Russia, whose "divine mission," for the time, included a
not wholly disinterested advocacy of the due carrying out of Article 13
of the Final Act. It was not to Russia's interest to see Austrian
influence supreme in the confederation. The lesser German princes, too,
were quick to grasp at any means to strengthen their position against
the dominant powers, and to this end they appealed to the Liberal
sentiment of their peoples. Not that this sentiment was very deep or
widespread. The mass of the people, as Metternich rightly observed,
wished for rest, not constitutions; but the minority of thoughtful
men--professors, students, officials, many soldiers--resented the
dashing of the hopes of German unity aroused by the War of Liberation,
and had drunk deep of the revolutionary inspiration. This sentiment,
since it could not be turned to the uses of a united Germany, might be
made to serve the purposes of particularism. Prussia, in spite of the
promises of Frederick William in the hour of need, remained without a
central constitution; all the more reason why the states of second rank
should provide themselves with one. Charles Augustus, the enlightened
grand duke of Weimar, set the example, from the best of motives.
Bavaria, Baden, Württemberg and others followed, from motives less
disinterested. Much depended on the success of these experiments.

  Metternich and the constitutions.

  The Wartburg festival, 1818.

To Metternich they were wholly unwelcome. In spite of the ring-fence of
censors, and custom-house officers, there was danger of the Liberal
infection spreading to Austria, with disintegrating results; and the
pose of the tsar as protector of German liberties was a perpetual
menace. The zeal and inexperience of German Liberals played into his
hands. The patriotism and Pan-Germanism of the gymnastic societies
(_Turnvereine_) and students' associations (_Burschenschaften_)
expressed themselves with more noise than discretion; in the
South-German parliaments the platitudes and catchwords of the Revolution
were echoed. Soon, in Baden, in Württemberg, in Bavaria, the sovereigns
and the chambers were at odds, united only in a common opposition to the
central authority. To sovereigns whose nerves had been shattered by the
vicissitudes of the revolutionary epoch these symptoms were in the
highest degree alarming; and Metternich was at pains to exaggerate their
significance. The "Wartburg festival" of October 1818, which issued in
nothing worse than the solemn burning, in imitation of Dr Martin Luther,
of Kamptz's police law, a corporal's cane and an uhlan's stays, was
magnified into a rebellion; drew down upon the grand duke of Weimar a
collective protest of the powers; and set in motion the whole machinery
of reaction. The murder of the dramatist Kotzebue, as an agent of this
reaction, in the following year, by a fanatical student named Karl Sand,
clinched the matter; it became obvious to the governments that a policy
of rigorous repression was necessary if a fresh revolution were to be
avoided. In October, after a preliminary meeting between Metternich and
Hardenberg, in the course of which the latter signed a convention
pledging Prussia to Austria's system, a meeting of German ministers was
held at Carlsbad, the discussion of which issued in the famous Carlsbad
Decrees (October 17, 1819). These contained elaborate provisions for
supervising the universities and muzzling the press, laying down that no
constitution "inconsistent with the monarchical principle" should be
granted, and setting up a central commission at Mainz to inquire into
the machinations of the great revolutionary secret society which existed
only in the imagination of the authorities. The Carlsbad Decrees,
hurried through the diet under Austrian pressure, excited considerable
opposition among the lesser sovereigns, who resented the claim of the
diet to interfere in the internal concerns of their states, and whose
protests at Frankfort had been expunged from the records. The king of
Württemberg, ever the champion of German "particularism," gave
expression to his feelings by issuing a new constitution to his kingdom,
and appealed to his relative, the emperor Alexander, who had not yet
been won over by Metternich to the policy of war _à outrance_ against
reform, and took this occasion to issue a fresh manifesto of his Liberal

At the conference of ministers which met at Vienna, on the 20th of
November, for the purpose of "developing and completing the Federal Act
of the congress of Vienna," Metternich found himself face to face with a
more formidable opposition than at Carlsbad. The "middle" states, headed
by Württemberg, had drawn together, to form the nucleus of an inner
league of "pure German States" against Austria and Prussia, and of
"Liberal particularism" against the encroachments of the diet. With
Russia and, to a certain extent, Great Britain sympathetic, it was
impossible to ignore their opposition. Moreover, Prussia was hardly
prepared to endorse a policy of greatly strengthening the authority of
the diet, which might have been fatal to the Customs Union of which she
was laying the foundation. Metternich realized the situation, and
yielded so gracefully that he gave his temporary defeat the air of a
victory. The result was that the Vienna Final Act (May 15,1820), which
received the sanction of the diet on the 8th of June, was not
unsatisfactory to the lesser states while doing nothing to lessen
Austrian prestige. This instrument merely defined more clearly the
principles of the Federal Act of 1815. So far from enlarging the powers
of the diet, it reaffirmed the doctrine of non-intervention; and, above
all, it renewed the clause forbidding any fundamental modification of
the constitution without a unanimous vote. On the vexed question of the
interpretation of Article 13 Metternich recognized the inexpediency of
requiring the South German states to revise their constitutions in a
reactionary sense. By Articles 56 and 57, however, it was laid down that
constitutions could only be altered by constitutional means; that the
complete authority of the state must remain united in its head; and that
the sovereign could be bound to co-operate with the estates only in the
exercise of particular rights. These provisions, in fact, secured for
Metternich all that was necessary for the success of his policy: the
maintenance of the _status quo_. So long as the repressive machinery
instituted by the Carlsbad Decrees worked smoothly, Germany was not
likely to be troubled by revolutions.

  Revolutions of 1830.

The period that followed was one, outwardly at least, of political
stagnation. The Mainz Commission, though hampered by the jealousy of the
governments (the king of Prussia refused to allow his subjects to be
haled before it), was none the less effective enough in preventing all
free expression of opinion; while at the universities the official
"curators" kept Liberal enthusiasts in order. The exuberance of the
epoch of Liberation gave place to a dull lethargy in things political,
relieved only by the Philhellenism which gave voice to the aspirations
of Germany under the disguise of enthusiasm for Greece. Even the July
revolution of 1830 in Paris reacted but partially and spasmodically on
Germany. In Hanover, Brunswick, Saxony and Hesse-Cassel popular
movements led to the granting of constitutions, and in the states
already constitutional Liberal concessions were made or promised. But
the governments of Prussia and Austria were unaffected; and when the
storm had died down Metternich was able, with the aid of the federal
diet, to resume his task of holding "the Revolution" in check. No
attempt was, indeed, made to restore the deposed duke of Brunswick, who
by universal consent had richly deserved his fate; but the elector of
Hesse could reckon on the sympathy of the diet in his struggle with the
chambers (see HESSE-CASSEL), and when, in 1837, King Ernest Augustus of
Hanover inaugurated his reign by restoring the old illiberal
constitution abolished in 1831, the diet refused to interfere. It was
left to the seven professors of Göttingen to protest; who, deprived of
their posts, became as famous in the constitutional history of Germany
as the seven bishops in that of England.

  The Prussian system.

Yet this period was by no means sterile in developments destined to
produce momentous results. In Prussia especially the government
continued active in organizing and consolidating the heterogeneous
elements introduced into the monarchy by the settlement of 1815. The
task was no easy one. There was no sense of national unity between the
Catholics of the Rhine provinces, long submitted to the influence of
liberal France, and the Lutheran squires of the mark of Brandenburg, the
most stereotyped class in Europe; there was little in common between
either and the Polish population of the province of Posen. The Prussian
monarchy, the traditional champion of Protestant orthodoxy, found the
new Catholic elements difficult to assimilate; and premonitory symptoms
were not wanting of a revival of the secular contest between the
spiritual and temporal powers which was to culminate after the
promulgation of the dogma of papal infallibility (1870) in the
_Kulturkampf_. These conditions formed the excuse for the continual
postponement of the promised constitution. But the narrow piety of
Frederick William III. was less calculated to promote the success of a
benevolent despotism than the contemptuous scepticism of Frederick the
Great, and a central parliament would have proved a safety valve for
jarring passions which the mistaken efforts of the king to suppress, by
means of royal decrees and military coercion, only served to embitter.
Yet the conscientious tradition of Prussian officialism accomplished
much in the way of administrative reform.

  The Prussian Zollverein.

Above all it evolved the Customs-Union (_Zollverein_), which gradually
attached the smaller states, by material interests if not by sympathy,
to the Prussian system. A reform of the tariff conditions in the new
Prussian monarchy had been from the first a matter of urgent necessity,
and this was undertaken under the auspices of Baron Heinrich von Bülow
(1792-1846), minister in the foreign department for commerce and
shipping, and Karl Georg Maassen (1769-1834), the minister of finance.
When they took office there were in Prussia sixty different tariffs,
with a total of nearly 2800 classes of taxable goods: in some parts
importation was free, or all but free; in others there was absolute
prohibition, or duties so heavy as to amount to practical prohibition.
Moreover, the long and broken line of the Prussian frontier, together
with the numerous enclaves, made the effective enforcement of a high
tariff impossible. In these circumstances it was decided to introduce a
system of comparative free trade; raw materials were admitted free; a
uniform import of 10% was levied on manufactured goods, and 20% on
"colonial wares," the tax being determined not by the estimated value,
but by the weight of the articles. It was soon realized, however, that
to make this system complete the neighbouring states must be drawn into
it; and a beginning was made with those which were enclaves in Prussian
territory, of which there were no less than thirteen. Under the new
tariff laws light transit dues were imposed on goods passing through
Prussia; and it was easy to bring pressure to bear on states completely
surrounded by Prussian territory by increasing these dues or, if need
were, by forbidding the transit altogether. The small states, though
jealous of their sovereign independence, found it impossible to hold
out. Schwarzburg-Sondershausen was the first to succumb (1819);
Schwarzburg-Rudolstadt (1822), Saxe-Weimar and Anhalt-Bernburg (1823),
Lippe-Detmold and Mecklenburg-Schwerin (1826) followed suit so far as
their "enclaved" territories were concerned; and in 1826 Anhalt-Dessau
and Anhalt-Cöthen, after several years' resistance, joined the Prussian
Customs-Union. In 1828 Hesse-Cassel entered into a commercial treaty
with Prussia. Meanwhile, alarmed at this tendency, and hopeless of
obtaining any general system from the federal diet, the "middle" states
had drawn together; by a treaty signed on the 18th of January 1828
Württemberg and Bavaria formed a tariff union, which was joined in the
following year by the Hohenzollern principalities; and on the 24th of
September 1828 was formed the so-called "Middle German Commercial Union"
(_Handelsverein_) between Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, the Saxon duchies,
Brunswick, Nassau, the principalities of Reuss and Schwarzburg, and the
free cities of Frankfort and Bremen, the object of which was to prevent
the extension of the Prussian system and, above all, any union of the
northern Zollverein with that of Bavaria and Württemberg. It was soon,
however, found that these separate systems were unworkable; on the 27th
of May 1829 Prussia signed a commercial treaty with the southern union;
the _Handelsverein_ was broken up, and one by one the lesser states
joined the Prussian Customs-Union. Finally, on the 22nd of March 1833,
the northern and southern unions were amalgamated; Saxony and the
Thuringian states attached themselves to this union in the same year;
and on the 1st of January 1834 the German Customs- and Commercial-Union
(_Deutscher Zoll- und Handelsverein_) came into existence, which
included for tariff purposes within a single frontier the greater part
of Germany. Outside this, though not in hostility to it, Hanover,
Brunswick, Oldenburg and Schaumburg-Lippe formed a separate
customs-union (_Steuerverein_) by treaties signed on the 1st of May 1834
and the 7th of May 1836, and to this certain Prussian and Hessian
enclaves were attached. Subsequently other states, e.g. Baden and Nassau
(1836), Frankfort and Luxemburg (1842), joined the Prussian Zollverein,
to which certain of the members of the Steuerverein also transferred
themselves (Brunswick and Lippe, 1842). Finally, as a counter-move to
the Austrian efforts to break up the Zollverein, the latter came to
terms with the Steuerverein, which, on the 1st of January 1854, was
absorbed in the Prussian system. Hamburg was to remain outside until
1883; but practically the whole of what now is Germany was thus included
in a union in which Prussia had a predominating influence, and to which,
when too late, Austria in vain sought admission.[2]

Even in the earlier stages of its development the Zollverein had a
marked effect on the condition of the country. Its growth coincided with
the introduction of railways, and enabled the nation to derive from them
the full benefit; so that, in spite of the confusion of political
powers, material prosperity increased, together with the consciousness
of national unity and a tendency to look to Berlin rather than to Vienna
as the centre of this unity.

  Frederick William IV.

This tendency was increased by the accession to the throne of Prussia,
in 1840, of Frederick William IV., a prince whose conspicuous talents
and supposed "advanced" views raised the hopes of the German Liberals in
the same degree as they excited the alarm and contempt of Metternich. In
the end, however, the fears were more justified than the hopes. The
reign began well, it is true, notably in the reversal of the narrow
ecclesiastical policy of Frederick William III. But the new king was a
child of the romantic movement, with no real understanding of, and still
less sympathy with, the modern Liberal point of view. He cherished the
idea of German unity, but could conceive of it only in the form of the
restored Holy Empire under the house of Habsburg; and so little did he
understand the growing nationalist temper of his people that he
seriously negotiated for a union of the Lutheran and Anglican churches,
of which the sole premature offspring was the Protestant bishopric of

Meanwhile the Unionist and Liberal agitation was growing in strength,
partly owing to the very efforts made to restrain it. The emperor
Nicholas I. of Russia, kept informed by his agents of the tendencies of
opinion, thought it right to warn his kinsman of Prussia of the approach
of danger. But Frederick William, though the tsar's influence over him
was as great as over his father, refused to be convinced. He even
thought the time opportune for finishing "the building begun by Papa" by
summoning the central assembly of the diets, and wrote to the tsar to
this effect (December 31, 1845); and he persevered in this intention in
spite of the tsar's paternal remonstrances. On the 13th of February 1847
was issued a patent summoning the united diet of Prussia. But, as
Metternich had prophesied, this only provided an organ for giving voice
to larger constitutional aspirations. The result was a constitutional
dead-lock; for the diet refused to sanction loans until its
"representative" character was recognized; and the king refused to allow
"to come between Almighty God in heaven and this land a blotted
parchment, to rule us with paragraphs, and to replace the ancient,
sacred bond of loyalty." On the 26th of June the diet was dissolved,
nothing having been done but to reveal the widening gulf between the
principle of monarchy and the growing forces of German Liberalism.

The strength of these forces was revealed when the February revolution
of 1848 in Paris gave the signal for the outbreak of popular movements
throughout Europe. The effect of the revolution in Vienna, involving the
fall of Metternich (May 13) and followed by the nationalist movements in
Hungary and Bohemia, was stupendous in Germany. Accustomed to look to
Austria for guidance and material support, the princes everywhere found
themselves helpless in face of the popular clamour. The only power which
might have stemmed the tide was Prussia. But Frederick William's
emotional and kindly temperament little fitted him to use "the mailed
fist"; though the riot which broke out in Berlin on the 15th of March
was suppressed by the troops with but little bloodshed, the king shrank
with horror from the thought of fighting his "beloved Berliners," and
when on the night of the 18th the fighting was renewed, he entered into
negotiation with the insurgents, negotiations that resulted in the
withdrawal of the troops from Berlin. The next day, Frederick William,
with characteristic histrionic versatility, was heading a procession
round the streets of Berlin, wrapped in the German tricolour, and
extolling in a letter to the indignant tsar the consummation of "the
glorious German revolution."

  German nationalism.

  Frankfort parliament.

The collapse of the Prussian autocracy involved that of the lesser German
potentates. On the 30th of March the federal diet hoisted the German
tricolour and authorized the assembling of the German national parliament
at Frankfort. Arrangements for this had already been made without
official sanction. A number of deputies, belonging to different
legislative assemblies, taking it upon themselves to give voice to the
national demands, had met at Heidelberg, and a committee appointed by
them had invited all Germans who then were, or who had formerly been,
members of diets, as well as some other public men, to meet at Frankfort
for the purpose of considering the question of national reform. About 500
representatives accepted the invitation. They constituted themselves a
preliminary parliament (_Vorparlament_), and at once began to provide for
the election of a national assembly. It was decided that there should be
a representative for every group of 50,000 inhabitants, and that the
election should be by universal suffrage. A considerable party wished
that the preliminary parliament should continue to act until the assembly
should be formed, but this was overruled, the majority contenting
themselves with the appointment of a committee of 50, whose duty it
should be in the interval to guard the national interests. Some of those
who were discontented with this decision retired from the preliminary
parliament, and a few of them, of republican sympathies, called the
population of Upper Baden to arms. The rising was put down by the troops
of Baden, but it did considerable injury by awakening the fears of the
more moderate portion of the community. Great hindrances were put in the
way of the elections, but, as the Prussian and Austrian governments were
too much occupied with their immediate difficulties to resist to the
uttermost, the parliament was at last chosen, and met at Frankfort on the
18th May. The old diet, without being formally dissolved, (an omission
that was to have notable consequences) broke up, and the national
representatives had before them a clear field. Their task would in any
case have been one of extreme difficulty. The new-born sentiment of
national unity disguised a variety of conflicting ideals, as well as
deep-seated traditional local antagonisms; the problem of constructing a
new Germany out of states, several of which, and those the most powerful,
were largely composed of non-German elements, was sure to lead to
international complications; moreover, the military power of the
monarchies had only been temporarily paralysed, not destroyed. Yet, had
the parliament acted with promptitude and discretion it might have been
successful. Neither Austria nor Prussia was for some time in a position
to thwart it, and the sovereigns of the smaller states were too much
afraid of the revolutionary elements manifested on all sides to oppose
its will. But the Germans had had no experience of free political life.
Nearly every deputy had his own theory of the course which ought to be
pursued, and felt sure that the country would go to ruin if it were not
adopted. Learned professors and talkative journalists insisted on
delivering interminable speeches and on examining in the light of
ultimate philosophical principles every proposal laid before the
assembly. Thus precious time was lost, violent antagonisms were called
forth, the patience of the nation was exhausted, and the reactionary
forces were able to gather strength for once more asserting themselves.
The very first important question brought out the weaknesses of the
deputies. This related to the nature of the central provisional
executive. A committee appointed to discuss the matter suggested that
there should be a directory of three members, appointed by the German
governments, subject to the approval of the parliament, and ruling by
means of ministers responsible to the latter body. This elaborate scheme
found favour with a large number of members, but others insisted that
there should be a president or a central committee, appointed by the
parliament, while another party pleaded that the parliament itself should
exercise executive as well as legislative functions. At last, after a
vast amount of tedious and useless discussion, it was agreed that the
parliament should appoint an imperial vicar (_Reichsverweser_) who should
carry on the government by means of a ministry selected by himself; and
on the motion of Heinrich von Gagern the archduke John of Austria was
chosen by a large majority for the office. With as little delay as
possible he formed an imperial cabinet, and there were hopes that, as his
appointment was generally approved both by the sovereigns and the people,
more rapid progress would be made with the great and complicated work in
hand. Unfortunately, however, it was necessary to enter upon the
discussion of the fundamental laws, a subject presenting many
opportunities for the display of rhetoric and intellectual subtlety. It
was soon obvious that beneath all varieties of individual opinion there
were two bitterly hostile tendencies--republican and constitutionalist.
These two parties attacked each other with constantly growing animosity,
and in a few weeks sensible men outside the parliament gave up all hope
of their dealing satisfactorily with the problem they had been appointed
to solve.


In the midst of these disputes the attention of the nation was occupied
by a question which had arisen before the outbreak of the revolutionary
movements--the so-called "Schleswig-Holstein question" (q.v.). In 1846
Christian VIII. of Denmark had officially proclaimed that Schleswig and
the greater part of Holstein were indissolubly connected with the Danish
monarchy. This excited vehement opposition among the Germans, on the
ground that Holstein, although subject to the king of Denmark, was a
member of the German confederation, and that in virtue of ancient
treaties it could not be severed from Schleswig. In 1848 the German
party in the duchies, headed by Prince Frederick of Augustenburg, rose
against the Danish government. Frederick VII., who had just succeeded
Christian VIII., put down the rebellion, but Prussia, acting in the name
of the confederation, despatched an army against the Danes, and drove
them from Schleswig. The Danes, who were supported by Russia, responded
by blockading the Baltic ports, which Germany, having no navy, was
unable effectually to defend. By the mediation of Great Britain an
armistice was concluded, and the Prussian troops evacuated the northern
districts of Schleswig. As the Danes soon afterwards took possession of
Schleswig again, the Prussians once more drove them back, but, in view
of the threatening attitude of the powers, Frederick William summoned up
courage to flout the opinion of the German parliament, and on the 26th
of August, without the central government being consulted, an armistice
of seven months was agreed upon at Malmoe.

  Disputes in the Frankfort assembly.

The full significance of this event was not at once realized. To
indignant patriots it seemed no more than a piece of perfidy, for which
Prussia should be called to account by united Germany. The provisional
government of the duchies appealed from Prussia to the German regent;
and the Frankfort parliament hotly took up its cause. A large majority
voted an order countermanding the withdrawal of the Prussian troops, in
spite of the protest of the ministry, who saw that it would be
impossible to make it effective. The ministry resigned, but no other
could be found to take its place; and the majority began to realize the
situation. The central government depended ultimately on the armed
support of the two great powers; to quarrel with those would be to ruin
the constitution, or at best to play into the hands of the extreme
revolutionists. On the 14th of September the question of the convention
of Malmoe again came up for discussion, and was angrily debated. The
democrats called their adherents to arms against the traitors who were
preparing to sell the Schleswig-Holsteiners. The Moderates took alarm;
they had no stomach for an open war with the governments; and in the end
the convention was confirmed by a sufficient majority. The result was
civil war in the streets of Frankfort; two deputies were murdered; and
the parliament, which could think of no better way of meeting the crisis
than by continuing "with imposing calm" to discuss "fundamental rights,"
was only saved from the fury of the mob by Prussian troops. Its
existence was saved, but its prestige had vanished; and the destinies of
the German people were seen to be in the hands that held the sword.

  The revolution in Austria.

While these events were in progress, it seemed not impossible that the
Austrian empire would fall to pieces. Bohemia and the Italian states
were in revolt, and the Hungarians strove with passionate earnestness
for independence. Towards the end of 1848 Vienna was completely in the
hands of the revolutionary party, and it was retaken only after
desperate fighting. A reactionary ministry, headed by Prince
Schwarzenberg, was then raised to power, and in order that a strong
policy might be the more vigorously pushed forward, the emperor
Ferdinand resigned, and was succeeded by his nephew, Francis Joseph.

  Reform in Prussia.

The prospects of reform were not much more favourable in Prussia. The
assembly summoned amid the revolutionary excitement of March met on the
22nd of May. Demands for a constitutional system were urged with great
force, and they would probably have been granted but for the opposition
due to the violence of politicians out of doors. The aristocratic class
saw ruin before it if the smallest concession were made to popular
wishes, and it soon recovered from the terror into which it had been
plunged at the outbreak of the revolution. Extreme antagonism was
excited by such proposals as that the king should no longer be said to
wear his crown "by the grace of God"; and the animosity between the
liberal and the conservative sections was driven to the highest pitch by
the attack of the democratic majority of the diet on the army and the
attempt to remodel it in the direction of a national militia. Matters
came to a crisis at the end of October when the diet passed a resolution
calling on the king to intervene in favour of the Viennese
revolutionists. When, on the evening of the 30th, a mob surrounded the
palace, clamouring for the king to give effect to this resolution,
Frederick William lost patience, ordered General Wrangel to occupy
Berlin with troops, and on the 2nd of November placed Count Brandenburg,
a scion of the royal house and a Prussian of the old school, at the head
of a new ministry. On the pretext that fair deliberation was impossible
in the capital, the assembly was now ordered to meet in Brandenburg,
while troops were concentrated near Berlin and a state of siege was
proclaimed. In vain the assembly protested and continued its sittings,
going even so far as to forbid the payment of taxes while it was
subjected to illegal treatment. It was forced in the end to submit. But
the discussions in Brandenburg were no more successful than those in
Berlin; and at last, on the 5th of December, the king dissolved the
assembly, granted a constitution about which it had not been consulted,
and gave orders for the election of a representative chamber.

  The question of the constitution.

About the time that the Prussian parliament was thus created, and that
the emperor Ferdinand resigned, the Frankfort parliament succeeded in
formulating the fundamental laws, which were duly proclaimed to be those
of Germany as it was now to be constituted. The principal clauses of the
constitution then began to be discussed. By far the most difficult
question was the relation in which Austria should stand to the Germany
of the future. There was a universal wish that the Austrian Germans
should be included in the German state; on the other hand, it was felt
that if all the various nationalities of Austria formed a united
monarchy, and if this monarchy as a whole were included in the
confederation, it would necessarily overshadow Germany, and expose her
to unnecessary external dangers. It was therefore resolved that,
although a German country might be under the same ruler as non-German
lands, it could not be so joined to them as to form with them a single
nation. Had the parliament adopted this resolution at once, instead of
exhausting itself by pedantic disquisitions on the abstract principles
of jurisprudence, it might have hoped to triumph; but Austria was not
likely to submit to so severe a blow at the very time when she was
strong enough to appoint a reactionary government, and had nearly
re-established her authority, not only in Vienna, but in Bohemia and in
Italy. Prince Schwarzenberg took the earliest opportunity to declare
that the empire could not assent to any weakening of its influence.
Bitter strife now broke out in the parliament between the Great German
(_Gross-Deutsch_) and Little German (_Klein-Deutsch_) parties. Two of
the ministers resigned, and one of those who took their place, Heinrich
von Gagern (q.v.), proposed that, since Austria was to be a united
state, she should not enter the confederation, but that her relations to
Germany should be regulated by a special act of union. This of course
meant that Prussia should be at the head of Germany, and recommended
itself to the majority of the constitutional party. It was resisted by
the Austrian members, who were supported by the ultramontanes and the
democrats, both of whom disliked Prussia, the former because of her
Protestantism, the latter because of her bureaucratic system. Gagern's
proposal was, however, adopted. Immediately afterwards the question as
to the character of the executive was raised. Some voted that a
directory of princes should be appointed, others that there should be a
president, eligible from the whole German nation; but the final decision
was that the headship of the state should be offered by the parliament
to some particular German prince, and that he should bear the title of
German emperor.

  Proposed empire.

The whole subject was as eagerly discussed throughout the country as in
Frankfort. Austria firmly opposed the idea of a united German state,
insisting that the Austrian emperor could not consent to be subordinate
to any other prince. She was supported by Bavaria, but on the other side
were Prussia, Brunswick, Baden, Nassau, Mecklenburg and various other
countries, besides the Hanseatic towns. For some time Austria offered no
counter scheme, but she ultimately proposed that there should be a
directory of seven princes, the chief place being held alternately by a
Prussian and an Austrian imperial vicar. Nothing came of this
suggestion, and in due time the parliament proceeded to the second
reading of the constitution. It was revised in a democratic sense, but
the imperial title was maintained, and a narrow majority decided that it
should be hereditary. Frederick William IV. of Prussia was then chosen

All Germany awaited with anxiety the reply of Frederick William. It was
thought not improbable that he would accept the honour offered him, for
in the early part of his reign he had spoken of German unity as
enthusiastically as of liberty, and, besides, the opportunity was
surprisingly favourable. The larger number of the North-German states
were at least not unwilling to submit to the arrangement; and Austria,
whose opposition in ordinary circumstances would have been fatal, was
paralysed by her struggle with Hungary. Frederick William, however,
whose instincts were far from democratic, refused "to pick up a crown
out of the gutter"; and the deputation which waited upon him was
dismissed with the answer that he could not assume the imperial title
without the full sanction of the princes and the free cities.

  End of Frankfort parliament.

This answer was in reality a death-blow to the hopes of German patriots,
but the parliament affected to believe that its cause was not yet lost,
and appointed a committee to see that the provisions of the constitution
were carried out. A vigorous agitation began in the country for the
acceptance of the constitution by the governments. The king of
Württemberg was forced to accede to it; and in Saxony, Baden and Rhenish
Bavaria armed multitudes kept the sovereigns in terror. Prussia, which,
following the example of Austria, had recalled her representatives from
Frankfort, sent her troops to put down these risings, and on the 21st of
May 1849 the larger number of the deputies to the parliament voluntarily
resigned their seats. A few republican members held on by it, and
transferred the sittings to Stuttgart. Here they even elected an
imperial government, but they had no longer any real influence, and on
the 18th of June they were forcibly dispersed by order of the
Württemberg ministry.

  The Prussian Union.

  Policy of Austria.

Although Frederick William had refused to become emperor, he was
unwilling to miss altogether the opportunity afforded by the
difficulties of Austria. He invited the states to send representatives
to Berlin to discuss the condition of Germany; and he concluded a treaty
with the kings of Saxony and Hanover. Two days afterwards the three
allies agreed upon a constitution which was in many respects identical
with that drawn up by the Frankfort parliament. The functions of the
executive were, however, extended, the electoral law was made less
democratic, and it was decided that, instead of an emperor, there should
be merely a supreme chief aided by a college of princes. This
constitution was accepted by a number of states, which assumed the name
of "The Union," and on the 20th of March 1850 a parliament consisting
of two houses met in Erfurt. Both houses accepted the constitution; and,
immediately after they broke up, the members of the Union assembled in
Berlin, and a provisional college of princes was elected. By that time,
however, the whole situation of Germany had changed. In the autumn of
1849 Austria had succeeded, by the help of Russia, in quelling the
Hungarian insurrection, and she was then in no mood to let herself be
thrust aside by Prussia. Encouraged by her, Hanover and Saxony had
severed themselves from the Union, and Saxony, Württemberg and Bavaria
arrived at an understanding as to a wholly new constitution. Afterwards
all four states, with several others, accepted the invitation of Austria
to consider the propriety of re-establishing the Confederation. The
representatives of the states favourable to this proposal, i.e. Austria,
Luxemburg, Denmark and the four kingdoms, came together in Frankfort on
the 4th of September 1850, constituted themselves a _Plenum_ of the old
diet and refused to admit the other states except under the terms of the
act of 1815.

  Disturbance in Hesse-Cassel.

Thus the issue to which the events of about a century had been pointing
was apparently raised; Germany was divided into two hostile parties, one
set of states grouping themselves around Austria, another around
Prussia. A difficulty which arose in Hesse-Cassel almost compelled the
powers to bring their differences to the test of war. In this small
state the liberal movement of 1848 had been followed by reaction, and
the elector ventured to replace Hassenpflug, the unpopular minister who
had been driven from power. Hassenpflug, being detested by the chamber,
dissolved it in June 1850; but the new one was not less hostile, and
refused to sanction the collection of the taxes until it had considered
the budget. For this offence it also was dissolved, and orders were
issued for the raising of the taxes without its consent. Many officials
refused to obey; the judges remained loyal to the constitution; and when
attempts were made to solve the difficulty by the army, the officers
instructed to act resigned in a body. Meanwhile, Hassenpflug had
appealed to the representatives in Frankfort who claimed to be the
restored diet, and under the influence of Austria they resolved to
support him. Prussia, on the other hand, announced its determination to
carry out the principles of the Union and to maintain the Hessian
constitution. Austrian and Bavarian troops having entered Hesse, a
Prussian army immediately occupied Cassel, and war appeared to be
imminent. Prussia, however, was wholly unprepared for war; and, when
this was realized, Radowitz, the foreign minister, who had so far
pursued a vigorous policy, retired, and was replaced by Manteuffel, who,
although the whole Prussian army was mobilized, began by making
concessions. The Union was dissolved; and after Austria had despatched
an ultimatum formulating her demands, Baron Manteuffel met Prince
Schwarzenberg at Olmütz, and, by a convention signed on the 29th of
November 1850, virtually yielded everything he insisted upon. The
difficulty in Hesse was to be left to the decision of the German
governments; and as soon as possible ministerial conferences were to be
held in Dresden, with a view to the settlement of the German

  Diet restored.

The Austrian government strove to secure the appointment of a stronger
executive than had hitherto existed; but its proposals met with steady
opposition from Prussia. Every Prussian scheme was in like manner
resisted by Austria. Thus, from the sheer inability of the assembled
ministers to devise a plan on which all could agree, Prussia and the
states that had joined her in the Union were compelled to recognize the
Frankfort diet. From the 12th of June 1851 its sittings went on as if
nothing had occurred since it was dispersed.

This wretched fiasco was hardly less satisfactory to the majority of
Germans than the manner in which the national claims in
Schleswig-Holstein were maintained. The armistice of Malmoe having
expired in March 1849, the war with Denmark was resumed. A considerable
army was despatched against the Danes by the Frankfort government, but
on the 10th of July an armistice was signed at Berlin for six months,
and a year afterwards Prussia concluded peace. The inhabitants of the
duchies, however, continued the war. During the interview at Olmütz
between Manteuffel and Schwarzenberg it was agreed that, like the
affairs of Hesse-Cassel, those of Schleswig-Holstein should be submitted
to the decision of all German states, but that, in the meantime, Prussia
and Austria should act together. By the intervention of Austrian troops
peace was restored; and when, early in 1852, the government of Denmark,
in providing a constitution for the whole monarchy, promised to appoint
separate ministers for Schleswig and Holstein, and to do equal justice
to the German and the Danish populations, the two powers declared
themselves satisfied and the Austrian forces were withdrawn. The diet
also, after some delay, professed to be content with this arrangement.
While it was discussing the subject, a conference of the European powers
met in London, and by the protocol of May 28, 1852, settled that
Frederick VII. of Denmark should be succeeded by Christian, duke of
Glücksburg, and that the duchies should be indissolubly united to the
Danish monarchy. Austria and Prussia accepted the protocol, but it was
not signed by the diet.

  Austria and the Zollverein.

In all these later events the first place had been taken by Austria. The
temporary dissolution of the Zollverein in 1851 gave her an opportunity
of trying to extend her influence; she demanded that a union should be
formed of which she should be the leading member. A congress of all
German states, with the exception of Prussia and one or two states which
sympathized with her, was held in Vienna; and it was followed by several
other congresses favourable to Austrian pretensions. Prussia, however,
being here on strong ground, refused to give way; and not only was the
customs union restored in accordance with her wishes, but Austria
concluded with her in 1853 a treaty of commerce which embodied some
important concessions.

  Political reaction.

Germany had now fairly entered a period which, although it did not last
very long, was, in some respects, as humiliating as any in her history.
The popular movement, from which great things had been hoped, had on
some occasions almost touched its goal; and, as might have been
expected, a reaction set in, which the princes knew how to turn to the
fullest advantage. The Austrian government, after the subjection of
Hungary, withdrew every concession it had made under pressure, and
established a thorough despotism, trampling upon the rights of the
individual nationalities, and forcing all its subjects into a common
political mould. In Prussia the parliament, summoned by the king on the
5th of December 1848, met early in the following year. Although the
democrats had declined to vote, it was not conservative enough for the
court, and not till the 31st of January 1850 was an understanding
arrived at respecting the constitution. The system thus established was
repeatedly revised, and always with the same object--to reduce to a
minimum the power of the national representatives, and to exalt and
extend that of the government. At the same time the ministry persecuted
the press, and allowed hardly a whisper of discontent to pass
unpunished. The smaller states followed with alacrity in the steps of
the two leading powers. The Liberal ministries of 1848 were dismissed,
the constitutions were changed or abolished, and new chambers were
elected under a severely restricted suffrage. Had the battle been fairly
fought out between the governments and the people, the latter would
still have triumphed; but the former had now, in the Frankfort diet, a
mightier instrument than ever against freedom. What it could do was seen
too clearly from the case of Hesse-Cassel. After the settlement of
Olmütz, federal troops occupied that country, and federal execution was
carried out with shameful harshness. Martial law was everywhere
proclaimed; officers, and all classes of officials who had incurred the
displeasure of the government, were subjected to arbitrary penalties;
and such was the misery of the people that multitudes of them were
compelled to emigrate. The constitution having been destroyed by the
_Bund_, the elector proclaimed one of his own making; but even the
chamber elected under the provisions of this despotic scheme could not
tolerate his hateful tyranny, and there were incessant disputes between
it and the government. The _Bund_ interfered in a like spirit in
Hanover, although with less disastrous results, after the accession of
George V. in 1851. For the whole of Germany this was emphatically the
period of petty despotism; and not only from Hesse, but from all parts
of the country there was a vast stream of emigration, mainly to the New

  Crimean War.

The outbreak of the Crimean War profoundly moved the German nation. The
sympathies of Austria were necessarily with the Western powers, and in
Prussia the majority of the people took the same side; but the Prussian
government, which was at this time completely under the control of
Russia, gave its moral support to the tsar. It did, indeed, assent to a
treaty--afterwards signed on behalf of the confederation--by which
Prussia and Austria guaranteed each other, but it resolutely opposed the
mobilization of the confederate army. The Prussian people were keenly
irritated by the cordial relations between their court and the most
despotic power in Europe. They felt that they were thus most unjustly
separated from the main stream of Western progress.

During the Crimean War the political reaction continued with unabated
force. In Prussia the government appeared resolved to make up for its
temporary submission to the popular will by the utmost violence on which
it could venture. A general election took place in the autumn of 1855,
and so harshly was the expression of opinion restrained that a chamber
was returned with scarcely a single liberal element of serious
importance. The feudalists called for a still further revision of the
constitution, and urged that even the reforms effected by Stein should
be undone. In Bavaria a chamber elected about the same time as that of
Prussia was rather less docile; but the government shared to the full
the absolutist tendencies of the day, and energetically combated the
party which stood up for law and the constitution. The Hanoverian
government, backed by the Frankfort diet, was still more successful in
its warfare with the moderate reformers whom it was pleased to treat as
revolutionists; and in Austria the feudalists so completely gained the
upper hand that on the 18th of August 1855 the government signed a
concordat, by which the state virtually submitted itself to the control
of the church.

  Prussia and Switzerland.

The German people seemed to have lost both the power and the will to
assert their rights; but in reality they were deeply dissatisfied. And
it was clear to impartial observers that, in the event of any great
strain upon the power of the governments, the absolutist system would
break down. The first symptom that the reaction had attained its utmost
development displayed itself in Prussia, whose attention was for a time
distracted from home politics by a quarrel with Switzerland. The Swiss
authorities had imprisoned some foolish royalists of Neuchâtel, in which
the house of Hohenzollern had never resigned its rights. War was
threatened by Prussia, but when the prisoners were set free, the two
states entered upon negotiations, and in the summer of 1857 King
Frederick William withdrew all claims to the principality.

  Regency of William of Prussia.

Soon after this, the mental condition of the king made it necessary that
his duties should be undertaken by a substitute, and his brother
William, the prince of Prussia, took his place for three months. In
October 1858 the prince became regent. The accession to power of the new
regent was universally recognized as involving a change of system. The
temper of William, in contradistinction to that of his brother, was
pre-eminently practical; and he had the reputation of a brave, piously
orthodox Prussian soldier. The nickname "cartridge-prince"
(_Kartätschenprinz_) bestowed upon him during the troubles of '48 was
undeserved; but he was notoriously opposed to Liberalism and, had he
followed his own instincts, he would have modified the constitution in a
reactionary sense. Fortunately, however, he was singularly open to
conviction, and Otto von Bismarck, though not yet in office, was
already in his confidence. Bismarck realized that, in the struggle with
Austria which he foresaw, Prussia could only be weakened were she to
take up an attitude of opposition to the prevailing Liberal sentiment,
and that to tamper with the constitution would not only be inexpedient,
but useless, since special measures could always be resorted to, to meet
special circumstances. The interests of Prussia, he urged, had been too
often sacrificed to abstract ideas. William listened and was convinced.
He not only left the constitution intact, but he dismissed Manteuffel's
"feudal" ministry and replaced it with moderate Liberals.

The change was more revolutionary in appearance than in reality.
Manteuffel and his policy were associated in the regent's mind with the
humiliation of Olmütz, and the dismissal of the ministry symbolized the
reversal of this policy. William believed with his whole soul in the
unification of Germany, and in Prussia as its instrument; and, if he
doubted, it was only as to the how and when. Of one thing he was
certain--that whoever aspired to rule over Germany must be prepared to
seize it (letter to von Natzmer, May 20, 1849). This attitude had little
in common with the Liberal appeal to the voice of the people. Such a
revolutionary foundation might be good enough for the ephemeral empires
of France; the appeal of Prussia should be to the God of battles alone.

  Prussia and the Austro-Italian War.

The antagonism between these conflicting principles was not long in
revealing itself. In Germany the relations between Austria and Prussia
were becoming unpleasantly strained in the question of the admission of
the Habsburg monarchy to the Zollverein, in that of the elector of Hesse
and his parliament, in that of the relation of the Elbe duchies to the
crown of Denmark. But for the outbreak of the Italian war of 1859 the
struggle of 1866 might have been anticipated. The outcome of the war
increased the prestige of Prussia. She had armed, not with the idea of
going to the aid of a German power in difficulties, but in order, at the
right moment, to cast her sword into the scale wherein her own interests
might for the time lie. At the menace of her armaments, concentrated on
the Rhine, Napoleon had stopped dead in the full career of victory;
Austria, in the eyes of German men, had been placed under an obligation
to her rival; and Italy realized the emergence of a new military power,
whose interests in antagonism to Austria were identical with her own.

  Military reforms and constitutional crisis in Prussia.

So striking an object lesson was not lost on the Prussian regent, and he
entered on a vigorous policy of reforming and strengthening the army,
General von Roon being appointed minister of war for this purpose. To
the Liberal ministers, however, and to the Liberal majority in the
Prussian diet, this was wholly objectionable. Schemes were under
discussion for reforming the constitution of the Confederation and
drawing the German states closer together on a Liberal basis; the moment
seemed singularly inopportune for Prussia, which had not shown herself
particularly zealous for the common interests, to menace the other
German governments by increasing her separate armaments. When,
therefore, on the 10th of February 1860, the bills necessary for
carrying out the reform of the army were introduced into the diet, they
met with so strenuous an opposition that they had to be withdrawn.
Supplies were, however, granted for fourteen months, and the regent took
this as justifying him in proceeding with his plans. On the 1st of
January 1861 the standards of the new regiments were solemnly blessed;
on the next day Frederick William IV. died, and the new king was face to
face with a constitutional crisis.

Austria, meanwhile, had been making the first tentative essays in
constitutional concession, which culminated, in May 1861, in the
establishment at Vienna of a _Reichsrat_ for the whole empire, including
Hungary. The popularity she thus gained among German Liberals and
Nationalists was helped by the course of events at Berlin. The Prussian
diet of 1862 was no whit more tractable than its predecessor, but fell
to attacking the professional army and advocating the extension of the
militia (_Landwehr_) system; on the 11th of March the king dissolved it
in disgust, whereupon the Liberal ministry resigned, and was succeeded
by the Conservative cabinet of Prince Hohenlohe. Public opinion was now
violently excited against the government; the new elections resulted
(May 6) in the return of a yet larger Liberal majority; on the 22nd of
August the army estimates were thrown out. Hohenlohe now declared
himself incapable of carrying on the government, and King William
entrusted it to Otto von Bismarck.


In choosing this man of iron will as his instrument during the actual
crisis the king's instinct had not betrayed him. For nine years Prussian
delegate at the diet of Frankfort, Bismarck was intimately acquainted
with all the issues of the German problem; with his accustomed
calculated bluntness he had more than once openly asserted that this
problem could only be settled by Austria ceasing to influence the German
courts and transferring "her centre of gravity towards Budapest"; with
equal bluntness he told the committee on the budget, on the 30th of
September 1862, that the problem could not be solve "by parliamentary
decrees," but only "by blood and iron." For the supreme moment of this
solution he was determined that Prussia should be fully prepared; and
this meant that he must defy the majority within the diet and public
opinion without. Some sort of constitutional pretence was given to the
decision of the government to persevere with the military reforms by the
support of the Upper House, and of this Bismarck availed himself to
raise the necessary taxes without the consent of the popular assembly.
He regretted the necessity for flouting public opinion, which he would
have preferred to carry with him; in due course he would make his peace
with Liberal sentiment, when success should have justified his defiance
of it. His plans were singularly helped by international developments.
The Polish rising of 1863 came just in time to prevent a threatened
Franco-Russian alliance; the timid and double-faced attitude of both
France and Austria during the revolt left them isolated in Europe, while
Bismarck's ready assistance to Russia assured at least the benevolent
neutrality in the coming struggle with the Habsburg power.

  Views as to Germany unity.

Meanwhile, among the German people the object lesson of the Italian war
had greatly stimulated the sentiment of national unity. As to the
principle, however, on which this unity was to be based, the antagonism
that had been fatal in 1849 still existed. The German National Union
(_Deutscher Nationalverein_), organized in the autumn of 1859, favoured
the exclusion of Austria and the establishment of a federation under the
hegemony of Prussia; it represented the views of the so-called
"Gothaer," the political heirs of the rump of the Frankfort parliament
which had reassembled at Gotha in June 1849, and supported the Prussian
Union and the Erfurt parliament. To counteract this, a conference of
five hundred "Great Germans" assembled at Frankfort and, on the 22nd of
October 1862, founded the German Reform Union (_Deutscher
Reformverein_), which, consisting mainly of South German elements,
supported the policy of Austria and the smaller states. The
constitutional crisis in Prussia, however, brought both societies into
line, and in 1863 the National Union united with the Reform Union in an
attempt to defeat Prussian policy in the Schleswig-Holstein question.

  The "Fürstentag" of Frankfort.

This anti-Prussian feeling Austria now tried to exploit for her own
advantage. On the 2nd of August the emperor Francis Joseph proposed to
King William, during a meeting at Gastein, to lay before an assembly of
the German princes a scheme for the reconstitution of the Bund. The king
neither accepted nor refused; but, without waiting for his assent,
invitations were sent out to the other princes, and on the 14th the
congress (_Fürstentag_) opened at Frankfort. Of the German sovereign
states but four were unrepresented--Anhalt-Bernburg, Holstein, Lippe and
Prussia; but the absence of Prussia was felt to be fatal; the minor
princes existed by reason of the balance between the two great powers,
and objected as strongly to the exclusion of the one as of the other
from the Confederation; an invitation to King William was therefore
signed by all present and carried by the king of Saxony in person to
Berlin. Bismarck, however, threatened to resign if the king accepted;
and the congress had to do the best it could without Prussian
co-operation. On the 1st of September it passed, with some slight
modifications, the Austrian proposals for the reconstruction of the
_Bund_ under a supreme Directory, an assembly of delegates from the
various parliaments, a federal court of appeal and periodical
conferences of sovereigns. Everything now depended on the attitude of
Prussia, and on the 22nd her decision was received. "In any reform of
the _Bund_," it ran, "Prussia, equally with Austria, must have the right
of vetoing war; she must be admitted, in the matter of the presidency,
to absolute equality with Austria; and, finally, she will yield no
tittle of her rights save to a parliament representing the whole German

Prussia thus made a bid for the sympathy of the democracy at the same
time as she declared war against the dynasties; and her power was
revealed by the fact that her veto was sufficient to wreck a proposal
seconded by the all but unanimous vote of the German sovereigns. The
Austrian stroke had failed, and worse than failed, for Napoleon III.,
who had been filled with alarm at this attempt to create on his flank an
"empire of 70,000,000," saw in Prussia's attitude no more than a
determination to maintain for her own ends the division and weakness of
Germany; and this mistaken diagnosis of the situation determined his
attitude during the crisis that followed.

  The Schleswig-Holstein question, 1863.

This crisis was due to the reopening of a fresh acute phase of the
Schleswig-Holstein question by the accession of the "protocol-king"
Christian IX. to the throne of Denmark (November 15, 1863), and his
adhesion to the new constitution, promulgated two days before, which
embodied the principle of the inalienable union of the Elbe duchies with
the Danish body politic. The news of this event caused vast excitement
in Germany; and the federal diet was supported by public opinion in its
decision to uphold the claims of Prince Frederick of Augustenburg to the
succession of the duchies. An agitation in his favour had already begun
in Holstein and, after the promulgation of the new Danish constitution,
this was extended to Schleswig. On the 24th of December Saxon and
Hanoverian troops occupied Holstein in the name of the German
Confederation, and supported by their presence and the favour of the
population the prince of Augustenburg, as Duke Frederick VIII., assumed
the government.

  Austro-Prussian alliance.

From these proceedings Prussia and Austria held rigorously aloof. Both
had signed the protocol of 1852, and both realized that, if the European
powers were to be given no excuse to intervene, their attitude must be
scrupulously "correct"; and this involved the recognition of King
Christian's rights in the duchies. On the other hand, the constitution
of the 13th of November had been in flat contradiction to the protocol
of London, which recognized the separate rights of the duchies; and if
the two great German powers chose to make this violation of an agreement
to which they had been parties a _casus belli_, Europe would have no
right to interfere. Prussia had begun to mobilize in November; and
Austria also soon realized that action must speedily be taken if the
lesser German governments were not to be allowed to get out of hand.
Russia and Great Britain had already protested against the occupation of
Holstein and the support given to the Augustenburg claimant; and now
Beust, the Saxon minister, was proposing that the federal diet, which
had been no party to the protocol, should formally recognize his claim.
Bismarck, then, had no difficult task in persuading Austria that the
time for action had come. A last attempt of the two powers to carry the
diet with them in recognizing the protocol having failed, they formally
announced that they would act in the matter as independent European
powers. On the 16th of January 1864 the agreement between them was
signed, an article, drafted by Austria, intended to safeguard the
settlement of 1852, being replaced at the instance of Prussia by
another, which stated that the contracting powers would decide only in
concert upon the relations of the duchies, and that in no case would
they determine the succession save by mutual consent. A clause was also
inserted provisionally recognizing the principle of the integrity of

  Danish War of 1864.

Whatever Austria's ulterior views may have been, Bismarck certainly from
the first had but one aim before him. He saw clearly what the possession
of the duchies would mean to Germany, their vast importance for the
future of German sea-power; already he had a vision of the great
war-harbour of Kiel and the canal connecting the Baltic and the North
seas; and he was determined that these should be, if not wholly
Prussian, at least wholly under Prussian control. Annexation was the
goal which from the beginning he kept steadily before his eyes
(_Reminiscences_, ii. 10). As for treaties to the contrary, he was to
avow in his _Reminiscences_ that these have little force when no longer
reinforced by the interests of the contracting parties. His main fear
was that the Danes might refuse to fight and appeal instead to a
European congress; and, to prevent this, he led the Copenhagen
government to believe that Great Britain had threatened to intervene in
the event of Prussia going to war, "though, as a matter of fact, England
did nothing of the kind." This sufficed to provoke the defiance of the
Danes, and on the 1st of February 1864 the Austrian and Prussian troops
crossed the Eider. The issue of a war between powers so ill-matched was
a foregone conclusion; the famous rampart of the Dannewerk (q.v.), on
which the Danish defence chiefly relied, was turned, and after a short
campaign, in which the Danes fought with distinguished courage, peace
was concluded by the treaty of Vienna (August 1, 1864), by which
Schleswig, Holstein and Lauenburg were ceded to Austria and Prussia

  Austria, Prussia and the Zollverein.

The Austro-Prussian alliance had been only an interlude in the great
drama in which the two powers were playing rival parts. To the other
causes of friction between them had been added, just before the war, a
renewed quarrel as to Austria's relation to the Zollverein. In 1862, in
the name of the customs union, Prussia had concluded with France a
commercial treaty, based mainly on free trade principles. This treaty
most of the small states refused to sign, and they were supported in
their objections by Austria, which loudly complained that Prussia had
given to a foreign power what she had denied to a sister state of the
_Bund_. Prussia, however, remained firm, and declared that, were the
treaty rejected, she would break up the Zollverein. After the war
Bismarck in fact succeeded in obtaining the signature of the smaller
states to the treaty; and Austria, her protests having proved
unavailing, was fain to sign a commercial treaty with the Zollverein,
essentially the same as that of 1853. Treaties concluded with Great
Britain and Belgium, about the same time, also tended to enhance
Prussian prestige.

  Convention of Gastein.

Austria now sought in the question of the Elbe duchies an occasion for
re-establishing her influence in Germany. The ambitions of Prussia were
notorious, and Austria had no wish to see her rival still further
strengthened by the annexation of the duchies. In this attitude she was
sure of the support of the German princes, and of German public opinion,
which was enthusiastically in favour of the Augustenburg claimant. She
therefore took up the cause of Duke Frederick, and under her influence a
small majority of the federal diet decided to request the two powers to
invest him with the sovereignty of Holstein. Bismarck's reply was to
deny the competency of the diet to interfere; and in the Prussian
parliament the minister of war moved for a special grant for the
creation of a war-harbour at Kiel. Against this Austria protested, as
having the same right as Prussia to Kiel; an angry correspondence
followed; but neither power was quite prepared for war, and on the 20th
of August 1865 the convention of Gastein, to use Bismarck's phrase,
"papered over the cracks." Pending a settlement, Schleswig was to be
occupied and administered by Prussia, Holstein by Austria; while
Lauenburg was made over absolutely to Prussia in return for a money
payment. This was so far a diplomatic victory for Prussia, as it ignored
entirely the claims of the duke of Augustenburg.

  Hostile attitude of France.

Bismarck had consented to the convention of Gastein in order to gain
time to prepare the ground for the supreme struggle with Austria for the
hegemony of Germany. He had no intention of postponing the issue long;
for the circumstances of the two powers were wholly favourable to
Prussia. The Prussian army had attained an unprecedented excellence of
organization and discipline; the Prussian people, in spite of the
parliamentary deadlock, were loyal and united; while in Austria army and
state were alike disorganized by nationalist discontent and the
breakdown of the centralized system. But there were other factors to be
considered. The attitude of Napoleon was dubious; the active alliance of
Italy was necessary to the certainty of Prussian success; and the policy
of Italy depended ultimately upon that of France. Lastly, the conscience
of King William, though since the acquisition of Lauenburg he had
"developed a taste for conquest," shrank from provoking war with a
German power. The news of the convention of Gastein, which seemed to
re-cement the union of Germany, had been received in France with
clamorous indignation; and on the 29th of August, under pressure of
public opinion, the French government issued a circular note denouncing
it as an outrage on national liberty and European law, the protest being
backed by note of the 14th of September circulated by Lord John Russell
on behalf of the British government. But Napoleon was himself little
inclined to use the warlike tone of his people; and Bismarck found it
easy to win him over to his views by explaining the temporary nature of
the convention, and by dropping hints at the famous interview at
Biarritz (September 30, 1865) of possible "compensations" to France in
the event of a Prussian victory over Austria; the probability of a
prolonged struggle in Germany between two powers apparently evenly
matched, moreover, held out to the French emperor the prospect of his
being able to intervene at the proper moment with overwhelming effect.

  End of the Austro-Prussian understanding.

Napoleon having been successfully hoodwinked, Bismarck turned to Italy.
His previous advances had been interrupted by the Gastein convention,
which seemed to the Italian government a betrayal of the Italian cause.
Italy attempted to negotiate with Austria for the purchase of Venetia;
but the offer was curtly refused by the emperor Francis Joseph, and the
counter-proposal of a commercial _rapprochement_ was forestalled by
Prussia, which with the aid of most of the lesser states, angered by the
betrayal of their interests by Austria at Gastein, arranged a commercial
treaty between Italy and the Zollverein, an act which involved the
recognition of the Italian kingdom. The counter-stroke of Austria was to
embarrass Prussia by allowing full play in Holstein to the agitation in
favour of the Augustenburg claimant. To the protests of Prussia, Austria
replied that she had a full right to do what she liked in the duchy, and
that she still adhered to the declaration of the princes, made on the
28th of May 1864, in favour of Duke Frederick. This "perfidy" removed
the last scruples of King William; and the Austro-Prussian alliance came
to an end with the declaration of Bismarck that Prussia "must win full
freedom for her own entire policy" and his refusal to continue the

  Prusso-Italian alliance.

War, though still postponed, was now certain; and with this certainty
the desire of the Italians for the Prussian alliance, now recommended by
Napoleon, revived. By the 16th of March 1866 the Austrian war
preparations were so far advanced that Count Mensdorff thought it safe
to send an ultimatum to Prussia and, at the same time, a circular note
to the princes declaring that, in the event of an evasive reply, Austria
would move in the diet for the mobilization of the federal forces. On
the 24th Bismarck in his turn issued a circular note stating that, in
view of the Austrian war preparations, Prussia must take measures for
her defence; at the same time he laid before the princes the outline of
the Prussian scheme for the reform of the Confederation, a scheme which
included a national parliament to be elected by universal suffrage, "as
offering surer guarantees for conservative action than limitations that
seek to determine the majority beforehand." Clearly Prussia meant war,
and the Italian government thought it safe to sign, on the 8th of April
1866, a treaty of alliance. By this instrument it was agreed that in
the event of her proposals for the reform of the federal constitution
being rejected by the German princes, Prussia should declare war "in
order to give effect to her proposals," and that, in that case, Italy
would also declare war against Austria. As a result of the war Venetia
was to be added to Italy and an equivalent amount of territory in North
Germany to Prussia. The agreement, however, was only to hold good if war
broke out within three months.

  Prussian scheme for the reform of the "Bund."

  Prussia withdraws from the "Bund."

On the day after the signature of the treaty the Prussian project of
reform was presented to the federal diet. It was, however, no more than
a bid for the support of public opinion on the part of Bismarck; for
even while it was under discussion an angry correspondence was being
carried on between Berlin and Vienna on the question of armaments, and
by the beginning of May both powers were making undisguised preparations
for war. On the 21st of April, the very day when the discussion of the
Prussian proposals began in the diet, Austria, alarmed at a threatened
attack by Garibaldi on Venetia, began to mobilize in defiance of an
agreement just arrived at with Prussia. Five days later, in spite of
this, she sent an ultimatum to Berlin, demanding the continuance of the
Prussian disarmament and an immediate settlement of the
Schleswig-Holstein question. The supreme issue was, however, delayed for
a few weeks by the intervention of Napoleon, who, urged on by the loud
alarm of the French people at the prospective aggrandizement of Prussia,
attempted to detach Italy from the Prussian alliance by persuading
Austria to a cession of Venetia. The negotiations broke down on the
refusal of Italy to throw over her ally, and Napoleon's proposal of a
European congress, to reconsider the whole settlement under the treaties
of 1815, proved equally abortive. Meanwhile the preparations for war had
been continued, and on the 1st of June Austria flung down the gage by
declaring her intention of submitting the whole question of the duchies
to the federal diet and of summoning a meeting of the Holstein estates.
This was denounced by Bismarck in a circular note to the powers as a
breach of the convention of Gastein and of the treaty of January 16,
1864, by which Austria and Prussia had agreed to govern the duchies in
common. At the same time he handed in the formal protest of Prussia to
the federal diet. Prussia, he said, would only recognize the right of a
reformed federal power to settle the Schleswig-Holstein question, and
this power must be based on a German parliament, which alone could
guarantee Prussia that any sacrifices she might make would be for the
good of Germany and not of the dynasties. The Prussian plan of reform
laid before the diet included the exclusion of Austria from the
Confederation; the creation of a federal navy; the division of the
supreme command of the army between Prussia and Bavaria; a parliament
elected by manhood suffrage; the regulation of the relations between the
Confederation and Austria by a special treaty. In the event of the
actual constitution of the Bund being shattered by war, the German
states were asked whether they would be prepared to join this new
organization. On the 9th of June Prussian troops had already marched
into Holstein, the Austrians, with Duke Frederick, falling back on
Altona. On the 14th the Prussian scheme of reform was laid before the
diet, together with Austria's counter-proposal for a decree of federal
execution against Prussia. In the event of the rejection of Prussia's
motion, Bismarck had made it clear that Prussia would withdraw from the
Confederation, and that in the event of her being victorious in the
ensuing war those states of northern Germany that voted against her
would cease to exist. In spite of this, the Austrian motion was carried
by nine votes to six. The Prussian delegate at once withdrew from the
diet, and on the following day (June 15) the Prussian troops advanced
over the Saxon frontier.

  Austro-Prussian War of 1866.

  Treaty of Prague, August 23.

  Aggrandizement of Prussia.

The war that followed, conveniently called the Seven Weeks' War (q.v.),
culminated before a month had passed, on the 3rd of July, in the
crushing Prussian victory of Königgrätz. The rapidity and overwhelming
character of the Prussian success ensured the triumph of Bismarck's
policy. The intervention which Napoleon had planned resolved itself into
diplomatic _pourparlers_ of which the result was wholly insignificant;
and even before the war was ended Bismarck was preparing for an
understanding with Austria and with the South German states that should
minimize the risk of a French attack. By the preliminary treaty of peace
signed at Nikolsburg on the 26th of July the great objects for which
Prussia had fought were fully secured. By Article I. the integrity of
the Austrian monarchy was preserved, with the exception of
Lombardo-Venetia; by Article II. Austria consented to "a new
organization of Germany without the participation of the empire of
Austria," consented to "the closer union" to be founded by the king of
Prussia to the north of the Main, and to the German states south of the
Main entering into a union, the national relations of which with the
North German Confederation were to be "the subject of an ulterior
agreement between the two parties"; by Article III. Austria transferred
all her rights in Schleswig and Holstein to Prussia, reserving the right
of the people of north Schleswig to be again united to Denmark should
they "express a desire to be so by a vote freely given"; by Article V.
the territory of Saxony was to remain intact. These Articles, embodying
the more important terms, were included with slight verbal alterations
in the treaty of peace signed at Prague on the 23rd of August. Separate
treaties of peace had been signed with Württemberg on the 13th, with
Baden on the 17th and with Bavaria on the 22nd of August; treaties with
Hesse-Darmstadt followed on the 3rd of September, with Saxe-Meiningen on
the 8th of October and with Saxony on the 21st. The other unfortunate
North German states which had sided with Austria were left to their
fate, and on the 20th of September King William issued a decree annexing
Hanover, Hesse-Cassel, Nassau and the free city of Frankfort to the
Prussian monarchy, and bringing them under the Prussian constitution.

  Federal constitution.

The return of King William to his capital had been a triumphal progress;
and Bismarck had shared to the full the new-born popularity of his
master. He seized the occasion to make his peace with Liberal sentiment,
and the bill of indemnity for past ministerial breaches of the
constitution was carried in the new Prussian diet with enthusiasm. On
the 24th of February 1867 the constituent diet of the confederation,
elected by universal suffrage and the ballot, met in Berlin, and soon
accepted in its essential features the constitution submitted to it. It
was arranged that the headship of the confederation should be
hereditary, that it should belong to the king of Prussia, and that
legislative functions should be exercised by a federal council
(_Bundesrat_), representative of the various governments, and by a diet
(_Bundestag_) elected by the whole people.

  National Liberals.

  Customs parliament.

  South German hostility to union.

  Irritation of France.

The federal parliament began at once the task of consolidating the new
institutions. In the sessions of 1869 and 1870 it established a supreme
tribunal of commerce, sitting in Leipzig, and passed a new penal code.
Great as were these results, they did not satisfy the aspirations of
patriotic Germans, who, having so suddenly and so unexpectedly
approached unity, longed that the work should be completed. A party
called the National Liberals was formed, whose main object was to secure
the union of South with North Germany, and it at once entered into
peculiar relations with Bismarck, who, in spite of his native contempt
for parliaments and parliamentary government, was quite prepared to make
use of any instruments he found ready to his hand. There was, indeed,
plentiful need for some show of concession to Liberal sentiment, if a
union of hearts was to be established between the South and North
Germans. The states south of the Main had issued from the war as
sovereign and independent powers, and they seemed in no great haste to
exchange this somewhat precarious dignity either for a closer alliance
among each other or with the North German Confederation. The peoples,
too, fully shared the dislike of their rulers to the idea of a closer
union with North Germany. The democrats hated Prussia as "the land of
the corporal's stick," and Bismarck as the very incarnation of her
spirit. The Roman Catholics hated her as the land _par excellence_ of
Protestantism and free thought. Nothing but the most powerful common
interests could have drawn the dissevered halves of Germany together.
This sense of common interests it was Bismarck's study to create. An
important step was taken in 1867 by the conclusion of a treaty with the
southern states, by which it was agreed that all questions of customs
should be decided by the federal council and the federal diet, and that,
for the consideration of such questions, the southern states should send
representatives to Berlin. In reality, however, the customs parliament
(_Zollparlament_) was of little service beyond the limits of its special
activity. In the election to the customs parliament in 1868, Württemberg
did not return a single deputy who was favourable to the national cause;
in Bavaria the anti-nationalists had a large majority; and even in Baden
and Hesse-Darmstadt, where the opposition to Prussia was less severe, a
powerful minority of the deputies had no liking for Bismarck and his
ways. Thus the customs parliament was kept rigidly to the objects for
which it was founded, greatly to the disappointment of patriots who had
not doubted that it would become an effective instrument for the
attainment of far larger purposes. Had the completion of unity depended
wholly on internal causes, it certainly would not have been soon
achieved; but other forces, not altogether unexpectedly, came to
Bismarck's aid. France had been irritated by the enormous increase of
Prussian power, and even before the treaty of Prague was signed the
emperor Napoleon III. indicated a wish to be "compensated" with the left
bank of the Rhine. This was a claim exactly calculated to play into
Bismarck's hands. The communication of the French emperor's original
proposals to the South German governments, whose traditional policy had
been to depend on France to save them from the ambitions of the German
great powers, was enough to throw them into the arms of Prussia. The
treaties of peace between Prussia and the South German states were
accompanied by secret treaties of offensive and defensive alliance,
under which the supreme command in war was to be given to the Prussian
king. A common war against a common enemy now appeared the surest means
of welding the dissevered halves of Germany together, and for this war
Bismarck steadily prepared. There were soon plentiful signs of where
this enemy was to be sought. On the 14th of March 1867 Thiers in the
French Chamber gave voice to the indignation of France at the bungling
policy that had suffered the aggrandizement of Prussia. The reply of
Bismarck was to publish (March 19) the secret treaties with the South
German states. War was now only a question of time, and the study of
Bismarck was to bring it on at the moment most favourable to Germany,
and by a method that should throw upon France the appearance of being
the aggressor. The European situation was highly favourable. France was
hampered by the Roman question, which divided her own counsels while it
embroiled her with Italy; the Luxemburg question, arising out of her
continued demand for "compensation," had only served to isolate her
still further in Europe. French patriotic feeling, suspicious, angry and
alarmed, needed only a slight provocation to cause it to blaze up into
an uncontrollable fever for war.

  The Hohenzollern candidature.

  Franco-German War.

  Proclamation of the German empire.

The provocation was supplied at the right moment by the candidature of
the prince of Hohenzollern for the vacant crown of Spain. To bring the
Peninsula under French influence had been for centuries the ambition of
French statesmen; it was intolerable that it should fall to a "Prussian"
prince and that France should be threatened by this new power not only
from the east but from the south. High language was used at Paris; and
the French ambassador, Count Benedetti, was instructed to demand from
the king of Prussia the withdrawal of the Hohenzollern candidature. The
demand was politely but firmly refused, and Bismarck, judging that the
moment had come for applying the match to the powder magazine,
published an "edited" version of the telegram from the king describing
the episode, a version which "without the addition of a single word"
turned the refusal into an insult. The "Ems telegram" made the
continuance of peace impossible; on the 14th of July Napoleon III.
signed the declaration of war; and on the 2nd of August the affair of
Saarbrücken opened the struggle which was to cause the downfall of the
French and the creation of the German empire (see FRANCO-GERMAN WAR). On
the 18th of January 1871, ten days before the capitulation of Paris,
William I., king of Prussia, was proclaimed German emperor in the great
hall of the palace of Versailles, on the initiative of the king of
Bavaria, the most powerful of the South German sovereigns, the
traditional ally of France. The cession of Alsace and the greater part
of Lorraine, wrested two centuries before by Louis XIV. from the Holy
Empire, was the heaviest part of the price that France had to pay for
peace (treaty of Frankfort, May 10, 1871).     (W. A. P.)

  The new empire, 1871.

The foundation of the empire in 1871 begins a new era in the history of
Germany. The rivalry of the dynasties to which for so long the interests
of the nation had been sacrificed now ceased. By the treaties of
Versailles the kingdoms of Bavaria and Württemberg, and the grand-duchy
of Baden, as well as the southern provinces of the grand-duchy of Hesse,
were added to the North German Confederation. Henceforward all the
German states that had survived the struggle of 1866, with the exception
of the empire of Austria, the grand-duchy of Luxemburg, and the
principality of Liechtenstein, were incorporated in a permanent federal
state under the leadership of Prussia. The revision in 1871 made no
important alterations in the constitution of 1867. The states retained
their autonomy except in those matters which were expressly transferred
to the imperial authorities; the princes retained their sovereignty; the
king of Prussia, though he now took the title of German emperor, was
only _primus inter pares_; he was president of the confederation, but
had no suzerainty over the other princes. None the less, from this time
the acts of the state governments and parliaments have ceased to have
more than a local importance; the history of the nation is centred in
Berlin, in the Bundesrat or federal council, in which the interests of
the individual states are represented; in the Reichstag, in which the
feelings and wishes of the nation are expressed; and above all, in the
Prussian government and imperial executive.

  The empire and the states.

The new constitution has stood the test. The number of states of which
the empire consists has remained unaltered;[3] occasional disputes have
been settled harmoniously in a legal manner. The special rights reserved
to Bavaria and Württemberg have not proved, as was feared, a danger to
the stability of the empire. Much apprehension had been caused by the
establishment of a permanent committee for foreign affairs in the
Bundesrat, over which the Bavarian representative was to preside; but
the clause remained a dead letter. There is no record that the committee
ever met until July 1900, when it was summoned to consider the situation
in China; and on that occasion it probably formed a useful support to
the government, and helped to still apprehension lest a too adventurous
policy should be pursued. Another clause determined that in a division
in the Reichstag on any law which did not concern the whole empire, the
representatives of those states which were not concerned should not
vote. This, had it been retained, would have destroyed the coherence of
the Reichstag as representative of the whole nation. It was repealed in
1873. The permission to maintain diplomatic missions has been equally
harmless: most of the states have recalled all their diplomatic
representatives; Saxony, Bavaria and Württemberg have maintained only
those at Vienna, the Vatican and at St Petersburg. Bavaria has even
voluntarily adopted many imperial laws from which it was legally
exempted; for instance, the laws of settlement.

  Prussia and the empire.

If the states have been loyal to the empire, the imperial government has
also respected the constitutional privileges of the states. The
harmonious working of the constitution depends on the union of policy
between the empire and Prussia, for it is the power of Prussia which
gives strength to the empire. This was practically secured by the fact
that the emperor, who is king of Prussia, appoints the chancellor, and
the chancellor is generally president of the Prussian ministry as well
as minister of foreign affairs--in his person the government of the two
is identified. For twenty years the double office was held by Bismarck,
who, supported as he was by the absolute confidence of the emperor, and
also of the allied princes, held a position greater than that ever
attained by any subject in modern Europe since the time of Richelieu.
For ten months in 1873 he, indeed, resigned the office of
minister-president to Roon; and in the same way Caprivi, during the
years 1893-1894, held the chancellorship alone; but in neither case was
the experiment successful, and Hohenlohe and Bülow adhered to the older
plan. So important is the practical co-operation of the imperial
administration and the Prussian government, that it has become customary
to appoint to seats in the Prussian ministry the more important of the
secretaries of state who administer imperial affairs under the
chancellor. Delbrück, head of the imperial chancery, had held this
position since 1868; in 1877 Bülow, secretary of state for foreign
affairs, was appointed Prussian minister, and this has become the
ordinary practice. One result of this is to diminish the control which
the Prussian parliament is able to maintain over the Prussian ministry.

In the federal council Prussian policy nearly always prevails, for
though Prussia has only seventeen votes out of fifty-eight, the smaller
states of the North nearly always support her; practically she controls
the vote of Waldeck and since 1885 those of Brunswick. A definite defeat
of Prussia on an important question of policy must bring about a serious
crisis; it is generally avoided because, as the meetings are secret, an
arrangement or compromise can be made. Bismarck, knowing that nothing
would more impede the consolidation of the empire than an outbreak of
local patriotism, always so jealous of its rights, generally used his
influence to avoid constitutional disputes, and discouraged the
discussion of questions which would require an authoritative
interpretation of the constitution. It was, however, opposition in the
Bundesrat which obliged him to abandon his scheme for imperial railways,
and when, in 1877, it was necessary to determine the seat of the new
supreme court of justice, the proposal of the government that Berlin
should be chosen was out-voted by thirty to twenty-eight in favour of
Leipzig. On this occasion Bismarck accepted the decision, but when
important interests were at stake he showed himself as ready to crush
opposition as in the older days, as in the case of Hamburg and Bremen.

The great personal qualities of the reigning emperors and the widely
extended family connexions of the house of Hohenzollern have enabled
them to hold with ease their position as leaders among the ruling
families. So far as is known, with one or two unimportant exceptions,
the other princes loyally accepted their new position. It is only as
regards the house of Brunswick that the older dynastic questions still
have some political importance.


The other princes who were dispossessed in 1866 have all been reconciled
to Prussia. The elector of Hesse and the duke of Nassau have formally
relinquished their claims. In 1883 the daughter of the duke of
Augustenburg, the former claimant to the duchies of Schleswig and
Holstein, married the heir to the Prussian throne, who became William
II. On the other hand, the royal family of Hanover has never ceased to
protest against the acts by which they were deprived of their dominions.
King George to the end of his days, whether in Austria or in France,
still regarded himself as in a state of war with Prussia. As he had used
his large personal property to organize a regiment in order to regain
his possessions, the Prussian government had sequestrated that part of
his income, amounting to some £50,000, over which they had control, and
used it as secret service money chiefly for controlling the press; to
this fund the name "Welfen-Fond" was commonly given. After 1870 the
Hanoverian regiment was disbanded, but the sequestration continued. The
death of the old king in 1878 made no difference, for his son in a
letter to the king of Prussia announced that he assumed and maintained
all his father's rights, and that he did not recognize the legal
validity of the acts by which he was, as a matter of fact, prevented
from enjoying them. His protest was supported by a considerable number
of his former subjects, who formed a party in the Reichstag. The
marriage of the duke of Cumberland (the title by which the king called
himself till he could come into his possessions) with Princess Thyra of
Denmark in the same year was made the occasion of a great demonstration,
at which a deputation of the Hanoverian nobility assured the duke of
their continued attachment to his house.

After Bismarck's retirement the emperor attempted to bring about a
reconciliation with the duke and the Hanoverians. His attention had been
drawn to the bad moral effect of the use to which the Welfen-Fond was
applied, and on the duke of Cumberland writing him a letter, in which,
while maintaining his claims to the throne of Hanover, he recognized the
empire and undertook not to support any enterprise against the empire or
Prussia, with the consent of the Prussian parliament the sequestration
of his property was removed. The attitude of passive resistance is,
however, still maintained, and has affected the position of the duchy of

  Duchy of Brunswick.


In 1884 William, duke of Brunswick, died after a reign of fifty-four
years. The younger son of the duke who fell at Quatre Bras, he had been
called to the throne in 1831 to take the place of his elder brother
Charles, who had been deposed. Duke Charles had died at Geneva in 1873,
and as both brothers were childless the succession went to the duke of
Cumberland as head of the younger branch of the house of
Brunswick-Lüneburg. Duke William before his death had arranged that the
government should be carried on by a council of regency so long as the
heir was prevented from actually assuming the government; at the end of
a year a regent was to be chosen from among the non-reigning German
princes. He hoped in this way to save his duchy, the last remnant of the
dominions of his house, from being annexed by Prussia. As soon as he
died the town was occupied by the Prussian troops already stationed
therein; the duke of Cumberland published a patent proclaiming his
succession; the council of state, however, declared, in agreement with
the Bundesrat, that the relations in which he stood to the kingdom of
Prussia were inconsistent with the alliances on which the empire was
based, and that therefore he could not assume the government. The claim
of the duke of Cambridge as the only male heir of full age was referred
to the Bundesrat, but the duke refused to bring it before that body, and
after a year the Brunswick government elected as regent Prince Albert of
Hohenzollern, to hold office so long as the true heir was prevented from
entering on his rights. On the death of Prince Albert in September 1906,
the Brunswick diet petitioned the Bundesrat to allow the youngest son of
the duke of Cumberland to succeed to the duchy on renouncing his
personal claims to the crown of Hanover. This was refused, and on the
28th of May 1907 Duke John Albert of Mecklenburg-Schwerin was elected
regent by the diet. Under the regency of Prince Albert, Brunswick, which
had hitherto steadily opposed all attempts to assimilate and subordinate
its institutions to those of Prussia, though it retained formal
independence, was brought into very close dependence upon Prussia, as is
the case with all the other northern states. In them the armies are
incorporated in the Prussian army; the railways are generally merged in
the Prussian system; indirect taxation, post office, and nearly the
whole of the judicial arrangements are imperial. None, however, has yet
imitated the prince of Waldeck, who in 1867, at the wish of his own
subjects, transferred the administration of his principality to Prussia.
The local estates still meet, and the principality still forms a
separate administrative district, but it is managed by a director
appointed by Prussia. The chief reason for this act was that the state
could not meet the obligations laid upon it under the new system, and
the responsibility for any deficit now rests with Prussia.


A curious difficulty, a relic of an older state of society, arose in the
principality of Lippe, in consequence of the extinction of the elder
ruling line and a dispute as to the succession (see LIPPE). Some
political importance attached to the case, for it was not impossible
that similar difficulties might occur elsewhere, and the open support
given by the emperor to the prince of Schaumburg-Lippe, who had married
his sister, caused apprehension of Prussian aggression.

  The Mecklenburg constitution.

A much more serious question of principle arose from the peculiar
circumstances of Mecklenburg. The grand-duchies, which, though divided
between two lines of the ducal house, had a common constitution, were
the only state in Germany in which the parliament still took the form of
a meeting of the estates--the nobility and the cities--and had not been
altered by a written constitution. Repeated attempts of the grand-dukes
to bring about a reform were stopped by the opposition of the
Ritterschaft. Büffing, one of the Mecklenburg representatives in the
Reichstag, therefore proposed to add to the imperial constitution a
clause that in every state of the confederation there should be a
parliamentary assembly. This was supported by all the Liberal party and
carried repeatedly; of course it was rejected by the Bundesrat, for it
would have established the principle that the constitution of each state
could be revised by the imperial authorities, which would have
completely destroyed their independence. It is noticeable that in 1894
when this motion was introduced it was lost; a striking instance of the
decay of Liberalism.

  Public affairs: political parties.

The public political history of Germany naturally centres around the
debates in the Reichstag, and also those in the Prussian parliament. In
the Prussian parliament are discussed questions of education, local
government, religion and direct taxation, and though of course it is
only concerned with Prussian affairs, Prussia is so large a part of
Germany that its decisions have a national importance. A very large
number of the members of the Reichstag and of the Prussian parliament
sit in both, and the parties in the two are nearly identical. In fact,
the political parties in the Reichstag are generally directly descended
from the older Prussian parties.


The first place belongs to the Conservatives, who for twenty years had
been the support of the Prussian government. The party of the feudal
aristocracy in North Germany, they were strongest in the agricultural
districts east of the Elbe; predominantly Prussian in origin and in
feeling, they had great influence at court and in the army, and desired
to maintain the influence of the orthodox Lutheran Church. To them
Bismarck had originally belonged, but the estrangement begun in 1866
constantly increased for the next ten years. A considerable number of
the party had, however, seceded in 1867 and formed a new union, to which
was given the name of the _Deutsche Reichspartei_ (in the Prussian House
they were called the _Frei Conservativen_). These did not include any
prominent parliamentary leaders, but many of the most important
ministers and officials, including Moltke and some of the great nobles.
They were essentially a government party, and took no part in the
attacks on Bismarck, which came from the more extreme Conservatives, the
party of the _Kreuzzeitung_.

  National Liberals.

The events of 1866 had brought about a similar division among the
Progressives. A large section, including the most important leaders,
determined to support Bismarck in his national policy and to subordinate
to this, though not to surrender, the struggle after constitutional
development. Under the name of _National-Liberal-Partei_ they became in
numbers as in ability the strongest party both in Prussia and the
empire. Essentially a German, not a Prussian, party, they were joined by
the Nationalists from the annexed provinces of Hanover and Hesse; in
1871 they were greatly strengthened by the addition of the National
representatives from the southern states; out of fourteen
representatives from Baden twelve belonged to them, seventeen out of
eighteen Württemberger, and a large majority of the Bavarians. It was on
their support that Bismarck depended in building up the institutions of
the empire. The remainder of the Progressives, the _Fortschrittspartei_,
maintained their protest against the military and monarchical elements
in the state; they voted against the constitution in 1867 on the ground
that it did not provide sufficient guarantees for popular liberty, and
in 1871 against the treaty with Bavaria because it left too much
independence to that state. Their influence was strongest in Berlin, and
in the towns of East Prussia; they have always remained
characteristically Prussian.

These great parties were spread over the whole of Germany, and
represented the great divisions of political thought. To them must be
added others which were more local, as the _Volkspartei_ or People's
party in Württemberg, which kept alive the extreme democratic principles
of 1848, but was opposed to Socialism. They had been opposed to Prussian
supremacy, and in 1870 for the time completely lost their influence,
though they were to regain it in later years.

  The Centre.

Of great importance was the new party of the Centre. Till the year 1863
there had been a small party of Catholics in the Prussian parliament who
received the name of the _Centrum_, from the part of the chamber in
which they sat. They had diminished during the years of conflict and
disappeared in 1866. In December 1870 it was determined to found a new
party which, while not avowedly Catholic, practically consisted entirely
of Catholics. The programme required the support of a
Christian-Conservative tendency; it was to defend positive and
historical law against Liberalism, and the rights of the individual
states against the central power. They were especially to maintain the
Christian character of the schools. Fifty-four members of the Prussian
parliament at once joined the new party, and in the elections for the
Reichstag in 1871 they won sixty seats. Their strength lay in Westphalia
and on the Rhine, in Bavaria and the Polish provinces of Prussia. The
close connexion with the Poles, the principle of federalism which they
maintained, the support given to them by the Bavarian "patriots," their
protest against the "revolution from above" as represented equally by
the annexation of Hanover and the abolition of the papal temporal power,
threw them into strong opposition to the prevailing opinion, an
opposition which received its expression when Hermann von Mallincrodt
(1821-1874), the most respected of their parliamentary leaders, declared
that "justice was not present at the birth of the empire." For this
reason they were generally spoken of by the Nationalist parties as

This term may be more properly applied to those who still refuse to
recognize the legality of the acts by which the empire was founded. Of
these the most important were the so-called Guelphs (_Welfen_),
described by themselves as the _Hannoverische Rechtspartei_, member of
the old Hanoverian nobility who represented the rural districts of
Hanover and still regarded the deposed King George V. and, after his
death, the duke of Cumberland as their lawful sovereign. In the
elections of 1898 they still returned nine members to the Reichstag, but
in those of 1903 their representation had sunk to six, and in 1907 it
had practically disappeared. A similar shrinkage has been displayed in
the case of the protesting Alsace-Lorrainers, who returned only two
deputies in 1907. A pleasant concession to Hanoverian feeling was made
in 1899, when the emperor ordered that the Hanoverian regiments in the
Prussian army should be allowed to assume the names and so continue the
traditions of the Hanoverian army which was disbanded in 1866.


The government has also not succeeded in reconciling to the empire the
alien races which have been incorporated in the kingdom of Prussia. From
the Polish districts of West Prussia, Posen and Silesia a number of
representatives have continued to be sent to Berlin to protest against
their incorporation in the empire. Bismarck, influenced by the older
Prussian traditions, always adopted towards them an attitude of
uncompromising opposition. The growth of the Polish population has
caused much anxiety; supported by the Roman Catholic Church, the Polish
language has advanced, especially in Silesia, and this is only part of
the general tendency, so marked throughout central Europe, for the Slavs
to gain ground upon the Teutons. The Prussian government has attempted
to prevent this by special legislation and severe administrative
measures. Thus in 1885 and 1886 large numbers of Austrian and Russian
Poles who had settled in these provinces were expelled. Windthorst
thereupon raised the question in the Reichstag, but the Prussian
government refused to take any notice of the interpolation on the ground
that there was no right in the constitution for the imperial authority
to take cognizance of acts of the Prussian government. In the Prussian
parliament Bismarck introduced a law taking out of the hands of the
local authorities the whole administration of the schools and giving
them to the central authority, so as to prevent instruction being given
in Polish. A further law authorized the Prussian government to spend
£5,000,000 in purchasing estates from Polish families and settling
German colonists on the land. The commission, which was appointed for
the purpose, during the next ten years bought land to the amount of
about 200,000 acres and on it settled more than 2000 German peasants.
This policy has not, however, produced the intended effect; for the
Poles founded a society to protect their own interests, and have often
managed to profit by the artificial value given to their property. It
has merely caused great bitterness among the Polish peasants, and the
effect on the population is also counteracted by the fact that the large
proprietors in purely German districts continue to import Polish
labourers to work on their estates.

In the general change of policy that followed after the retirement of
Bismarck an attempt was made by the emperor to conciliate the Poles.
Concessions were made to them in the matter of schools, and in 1891 a
Pole, Florian von Stablewski (1841-1906), who had taken a prominent part
in the Kulturkampf, was accepted by the Prussian government as
archbishop of Posen-Gnesen. A moderate party arose among the Poles which
accepted their position as Prussian subjects, gave up all hopes of an
immediate restoration of Polish independence, and limited their demands
to that free exercise of the religion and language of their country
which was enjoyed by the Poles in Austria. They supported government
bills in the Reichstag, and won the commendation of the emperor.
Unfortunately, for reasons which are not apparent, the Prussian
government did not continue a course of conciliation; in 1901
administrative edicts still further limited the use of the Polish
language; even religious instruction was to be given in German, and an
old royal ordinance of 1817 was made the pretext for forbidding private
instruction in Polish.

All these efforts have been in vain. The children in the schools became
the martyrs of Polish nationality. Religious instruction continued to be
given to them in German, and when they refused to answer questions which
they did not understand, they were kept in and flogged. In 1906, as a
protest, the school children to the number of 100,000 struck throughout
Prussian Poland; and, as a result of a pastoral issued by the
archbishop, Polish parents withdrew their children from religious
instruction in the schools. The government responded by fining and
imprisoning the parents. The efforts of the government were not confined
to the forcible Germanization of the children. Polish newspapers were
confiscated and their editors imprisoned, fines were imposed for holding
Polish meetings, and peasants were forbidden to build houses on their
own land. The country gentlemen could not have a garden party without
the presence of a commissary of police.

The climax, however, was reached in 1907 when Prince Bülow, on the 26th
of November, introduced into the Prussian parliament a bill to arm the
German Colonization Committee in Posen with powers of compulsory
expropriation. He pointed out that though the commission had acquired
815,000 acres of land and settled upon it some 100,000 German colonists,
nearly 250,000 acres more had passed from German into Polish hands. He
proposed, therefore, to set aside a credit of £17,500,000 for this
purpose. On the 26th of February 1908 the discussion on this bill was
continued, Count Arnim defending it on the ground that "conciliation had
failed and other measures must now be tried!" The Poles were aiming at
raising their standard of civilization and learning and thus gradually
expelling the Germans, and this, together with the rapid growth of the
Polish population, constituted a grave danger. These arguments were
reinforced by an appeal of Prince Bülow to the traditions of Bismarck,
and in spite of a strenuous and weighty opposition, the bill with
certain modifications passed by 143 votes to 111 in the Upper House, and
was accepted by the Lower House on the 13th of March. A bill forbidding
the use of any language but German at public meetings, except by special
permission of the police, had been laid before the Reichstag in 1907 by
Prince Bülow at the same time as he had introduced the Expropriation
Bill into the Prussian parliament. The bill, with certain drastic
amendments limiting its scope, passed the House on the 8th of April by a
majority of 200 to 179. This law gave increased freedom in the matter of
the right of association and public meeting; but in the case of the
Poles it was applied with such rigidity that, in order to evade it they
held "mute" public meetings, resolutions being written up in Polish on a
blackboard and passed by show of hands, without a word being said.[4]


Compared with the Polish question, that of the Danes in North Schleswig
is of minor importance; they number less than 150,000, and there is not
among them, as among the Poles, the constant encroachment along an
extended line of frontier; there is also no religious question involved.
These Danish subjects of Germany have elected one member to the
Reichstag, whose duty is to demand that they should be handed over to
Denmark. Up to the year 1878 they could appeal to the treaty of Prague;
one clause in it determined that the inhabitants of selected districts
should be allowed to vote whether they should be Danish or German. This
was inserted merely to please Napoleon; after his fall there was no one
to demand its execution. In 1878, when the Triple Alliance was
concluded, Bismarck, in answer to the Guelphic demonstration at
Copenhagen, arranged with Austria, the other party to the treaty of
Prague, that the clause should lapse. Since then the Prussian
government, by prohibiting the use of Danish in the schools and public
offices, and by the expulsion from the country of the numerous Danish
optants who had returned to Schleswig, has used the customary means for
compelling all subjects of the king to become German in language and


The attempt to reconcile the inhabitants of Alsace-Lorraine to their
condition proved equally difficult. The provinces had been placed under
the immediate rule of the emperor and the chancellor, who was minister
for them; laws were to be passed by the Reichstag. In accordance with
the treaty of Frankfort, the inhabitants were permitted to choose
between French and German nationality, but all who chose the former had
to leave the country; before the 1st of October 1872, the final day,
some 50,000 had done so. In 1874, for the first time, the provinces were
enabled to elect members for the Reichstag; they used the privilege to
send fifteen _Elsasser_, who, after delivering a formal protest against
the annexation, retired from the House; they joined no party, and took
little part in the proceedings except on important occasions to vote
against the government. The same spirit was shown in the elections for
local purposes. It seemed to be the sign of a change when a new party,
the _Autonomisten_, arose, who demanded as a practical concession that
the dictatorship of the chancellor should cease and local
self-government be granted. To some extent this was done in 1879; a
resident governor or _Statthalter_ was appointed, and a local
representative assembly, which was consulted as to new laws. All the
efforts of Field marshal Edwin von Manteuffel, the first governor, to
win the confidence of the people failed; the anti-German feeling
increased; the party of protestors continued in full numbers. The next
governor, Prince Hohenlohe, had to use more stringent measures, and in
1888, to prevent the agitation of French agents, an imperial decree
forbade any one to cross the frontier without a passport. Since 1890
there has been, especially in the neighbourhood of Strassburg, evidence
of a spread of national German feeling, probably to a great extent due
to the settlement of Germans from across the Rhine.

The presence of these anti-German parties, amounting sometimes to
one-tenth of the whole, in the Reichstag added greatly to the difficulty
of parliamentary government. Gradually, however, as a new generation
grew up their influence declined. In the Reichstag of 1907, Guelphs,
Alsace-Lorrainers and Danes together could muster only five members.

  The period 1870 to 1878.

The great work since 1870 has been that of building up the institutions
of the empire. For the first time in the history of Germany there has
been a strong administration ordering, directing and arranging the life
of the whole nation. The unification of Germany was not ended by the
events of 1866 and 1871; it was only begun. The work has throughout been
done by Prussia; it has been the extension of Prussian principles and
Prussian administrative energy over the whole of Germany. It naturally
falls into two periods; the first, which ends in 1878, is that in which
Bismarck depended on the support of the National Liberals. They were the
party of union and uniformity. The Conservatives were attached to the
older local diversities, and Bismarck had therefore to turn for help to
his old enemies, and for some years an alliance was maintained, always
precarious but full of results.

  Legal reform.

The great achievement of the first period was legal reform. In nothing
else was legislation so much needed. Forty-six districts have been
enumerated, each of which enjoyed a separate legal system, and the
boundaries of these districts seldom coincided with the frontiers of the
states. Everywhere the original source of law was the old German common
law, but in each district it had been wholly or partly superseded by
codes, text-books and statutes to a great extent founded on the
principles of the Roman civil law. Owing to the political divisions,
however, this legislation, which reached back to the 14th century, had
always been carried out by local authorities. There had never been any
effective legislation applicable to the whole nation. There was not a
state, not the smallest principality, in which some authoritative but
imperfect law or code had not been published. Every free city, even an
imperial village, had its own "law," and these exist down to the present
time. In Bremen the foundation of the civil code was still the statutes
of 1433; in Munich, those of 1347. Most of the states by which these
laws had been published had long ago ceased to exist; probably in every
case their boundaries had changed, but the laws remained valid (except
in those cases in which they had been expressly repealed) for the whole
of the district for which they had been originally promulgated. Let us
take a particular case. In 1591 a special code was published for the
upper county of Katzellenbogen. More than a hundred years ago
Katzellenbogen was divided between the neighbouring states. But till the
end of the 19th century this code still retained its validity for those
villages in Hesse, and in the Prussian province of Hesse, which in old
days had been parts of Katzellenbogen. The law, however, had to be
interpreted so as to take into consideration later legislation by the
kingdom of Westphalia, the electorate of Hesse, and any other state (and
they are several) in which for a short time some of these villages might
have been incorporated.

In addition to these earlier imperfect laws, three great codes have been
published, by which a complete system was applied to a large district:
the Prussian Code of 1794, the Austrian Code of 1811 and the Code
Napoléon, which applied to all Germany left of the Rhine; for neither
Prussia, nor Bavaria, nor Hesse had ever ventured to interfere with the
French law. In Prussia therefore the older provinces came under the
Prussian Code, the Rhine provinces had French law, the newly annexed
provinces had endless variety, and in part of Pomerania considerable
elements of Swedish law still remained, a relic of the long Swedish
occupation. On the other hand, some districts to which the Prussian Code
applied no longer belonged to the kingdom of Prussia--for instance,
Anspach and Bayreuth, which are now in Bavaria. In other parts of
Bavaria in the same way Austrian law still ran, because they had been
Austrian in 1811. In two states only was there a more or less uniform
system: in Baden, which had adopted a German translation of the Code
Napoléon; and in Saxony, which had its own code, published in 1865. In
criminal law and procedure there was an equal variety. In one district
was trial by jury in an open court; in another the old procedure by
written pleadings before a judge. In many districts, especially in
Mecklenburg and some of the Prussian provinces, the old feudal
jurisdiction of the manorial courts survived.

The constant changes in the law made by current legislation in the
different states really only added to the confusion, and though imperial
laws on these points with which the central government was qualified to
deal superseded the state laws, it is obvious that to pass occasional
acts on isolated points would have been only to introduce a further
element of complication. It was therefore convenient, so far as was
possible, to allow the existing system to continue until a full and
complete code dealing with the whole of one department of law could be
agreed upon, and thus a uniform system (superseding all older
legislation) be adopted. Legislation, therefore, has generally taken the
form of a series of elaborate codes, each of which aims at scientific
completeness, and further alterations have been made by amendments in
the original code. The whole work has been similar in character to the
codification of French law under Napoleon; in most matters the variety
of the older system has ceased, and the law of the empire is now
comprised in a limited number of codes.

A beginning had been made before the foundation of the empire; as early
as 1861 a common code for trade, commerce and banking had been agreed
upon by the states included in the Germanic Confederation. It was
adopted by the new confederation of 1869. In 1897 it was replaced by a
new code. In 1869 the criminal law had been codified for the North
German Confederation, and in 1870 there was passed the _Gewerbeordnung_,
an elaborate code for the regulation of manufactures and the relations
of masters to workmen. These were included in the law of the empire, and
the work was vigorously continued.

In 1871 a commission was appointed to draw up regulations for civil and
criminal procedure, and also to frame regulations for the organization
of the law courts. The draft code of civil procedure, which was
published in December 1872, introduced many important reforms,
especially by substituting public and verbal procedure for the older
German system, under which the proceedings were almost entirely carried
on by written documents. It was very well received. The drafts for the
other two laws were not so successful. Protests, especially in South
Germany, were raised against the criminal procedure, for it was proposed
to abolish trial by jury and substitute over the whole empire the
Prussian system, and a sharp conflict arose as to the method of dealing
with the press. After being discussed in the Reichstag, all three
projects were referred to a special commission, which after a year
reported to the diet, having completely remodelled the two latter laws.
After further amendment they were eventually accepted, and became law in
1877. By these and other supplementary laws a uniform system of law
courts was established throughout the whole empire; the position and pay
of the judges, the regulations regarding the position of advocates, and
costs, were uniform, and the procedure in every state was identical. To
complete the work a supreme court of appeal was established in Leipzig,
which was competent to hear appeals not only from imperial law, but also
from that of the individual states.

By the original constitution, the imperial authorities were only
qualified to deal with criminal and commercial law; the whole of the
private law, in which the variety was greatest, was withdrawn from their
cognizance. Lasker, to remedy this defect, proposed, therefore, an
alteration in the constitution, which, after being twice carried against
the opposition of the Centre, was at last accepted by the Bundesrat. A
commission was then appointed to draw up a civil code. They completed
the work by the end of 1887; the draft which they then published was
severely criticized, and it was again submitted for revision to a fresh
commission, which reported in 1895. In its amended form this draft was
accepted by the Reichstag in 1896, and it entered into force on the 1st
of January 1900. The new Civil Code deals with nearly all matters of
law, but excludes those concerning or arising out of land tenure and all
matters in which private law comes into connexion with public law; for
instance, the position of government officials, and the police: it
excludes also the relations of master and servant, which in most points
are left to the control of individual states. It was accompanied by a
revision of the laws for trade and banking.

  Commercial reform.

Equal in importance to the legal was the commercial reform, for this was
the condition for building up the material prosperity of the country.
Germany was a poor country, but the poverty was to a great extent the
result of political causes. Communication, trade, manufactures, were
impeded by the political divisions, and though the establishment of a
customs union had preceded the foundation of the empire, the removal of
other barriers required imperial legislation. A common system of weights
and measures was introduced in 1868. The reform of the currency was the
first task of the empire. In 1871 Germany still had seven different
systems; the most important was the _Thaler_ and the _Groschen_, which
prevailed over most of North Germany, but even within this there were
considerable local differences. Throughout the whole of the south of
Germany and in some North German states the gulden and kreuzer
prevailed. Then there were other systems in Hamburg and in Bremen.
Everywhere, except in Bremen, the currency was on a silver basis. In
addition to this each state had its own paper money, and there were over
100 banks with the right of issuing bank-notes according to regulations
which varied in each state. In 1871 a common system for the whole empire
was established, the unit being the _Mark_ (= 11¾d.), which was divided
into a hundred _Pfennige_: a gold currency was introduced
(_Doppel-Kronen_ = 20 _M._; _Kronen_ = 10 _M._); no more silver was to
be coined, and silver was made a legal tender only up to the sum of
twenty marks. The gold required for the introduction of the new coinage
was provided from the indemnity paid by France. Great quantities of
thalers, which hitherto had been the staple of the currency, were sold.
The right of coinage was, however, left to the individual states, and as
a special concession it was determined that the rulers of the states
should be permitted to have their head placed on the reverse of the gold
coins. All paper currency, except that issued by the empire, ceased, and
in 1873 the Prussian Bank was converted into the Imperial Bank

  Banking laws.

Closely connected with the reform of the currency and the codification
of the commercial law was the reform of the banking laws. Here the
tendency to substitute uniform imperial laws for state laws is clearly
seen. Before 1870 there had been over 100 banks with the right of issue,
and the conditions on which the privilege was granted varied in each
state. By the Bank Act of March 14, 1875, which is the foundation of the
existing system, the right of granting the privilege is transferred from
the governments of the states to the Bundesrat. The existing banks could
not be deprived of the concessions they had received, but unless they
submitted to the regulations of the new law their notes were not to be
recognized outside the limits of the state by which the concession had
been granted. All submitted to the conditions except the Brunswick Bank,
which remained outside the banking system of the empire until the Bank
Act of June 5, 1906, was passed, when it surrendered its right to issue
notes. The experience of Germany in this matter has been different from
that of England, for nearly all the private banks have now surrendered
their privilege, and there remain only five banks, including the
Reichsbank, which still issue bank notes. The other four are situated in
Bavaria, Saxony, Württemberg and Baden. The total note-issue was fixed
by the law of 1875, a proposal being assigned to each bank. Any part of
this issue assigned to private banks which might be withdrawn from
circulation, owing to a deficiency in the legal reserve funds, was to be
transferred to the Reichsbank. The result has been the tendency of the
latter gradually to absorb the whole note-issue. By the law of 1906 the
Reichsbank was authorized to issue 20 M. and 50 M. notes. Treasury notes
(_Reichs-Kassenscheine_) for these amounts were no longer to be issued;
but the state reserved the right to circulate notes of the value of 5 M.
and 10 M.

The organization of the imperial post-office was carried out with great
success by Herr von Stephan (q.v.), who remained at the head of this
department from its creation till his death in 1897. Proposals were also
made to Bavaria and Württemberg to surrender their special rights, but
these were not accepted.


The unification of the railways caused greater difficulties. Nearly
every state had its own system; there was the greatest variety in the
methods of working and in the tariffs, and the through traffic, so
important for the commercial prosperity of the country, was very
ineffective. In Baden, Württemberg and Hanover the railways were almost
entirely the property of the state, but in all other parts public and
private lines existed side by side, an arrangement which seemed to
combine the disadvantages of both systems. In 1871 three-quarters of the
railway lines belonged to private companies, and the existence of these
powerful private corporations, while they were defended by many of the
Liberals, was, according to the national type of thought, something of
an anomaly. Bismarck always attached great importance to the improvement
of the railway service, and he saw that uniformity of working and of
tariffs was very desirable. In the constitution of the empire he had
introduced several clauses dealing with it. The independent
administration of its lines by each state was left, but the empire
received the power of legislating on railway matters; it could build
lines necessary for military purposes even against the wish of the state
in whose territory they lay, and the states bound themselves to
administer their lines as part of a common system. In order to carry out
these clauses a law was passed on the 27th of June 1873 creating an
imperial railway office (_Reichseisenbahnamt_) for the purpose of
exercising a general control over the railways. This office has done
much in the matter of unifying the systems of various railways and of
regulating their relations to the military, postal and telegraph
organizations; it also took a leading part in the framing of the
international laws regarding goods traffic; but the imperial code of
railway law which it drafted has never been laid before the Reichstag.
It effectively controls only the privately owned lines in Prussia. Yet,
in setting it up, Bismarck had in mind the ultimate acquisition of all
the railways by the empire. He found, however, that it was impossible to
carry any Bill enforcing this. He therefore determined to begin by
transferring to the imperial authority the Prussian state railways; had
he been able to carry this out the influence of the imperial railways
would have been so great that they would gradually have absorbed those
of the other states. The Bill was carried through the Prussian
parliament, but the opposition aroused in the other states was so great
that he did not venture even to introduce in the Bundesrat a law
empowering the empire to acquire the Prussian railways. In many of the
state parliaments resolutions were carried protesting against the system
of imperial railways, and from that time the preservation of the local
railway management has been the chief object towards which, in Saxony,
Bavaria and Württemberg, local feeling has been directed. The only
imperial railways are those in Alsace-Lorraine.

The result of the legal reform and other laws has been greatly to
diminish the duties of the state governments, for every new imperial law
permanently deprives the local parliaments of part of their authority.
Generally there remains to them the control of education and
religion--their most important duty--police, all questions connected
with land tenure, local government, the raising of direct taxes, and, in
the larger states, the management of railways. The introduction of
workmen's insurance, factory legislation, and other measures dealing
with the condition of the working classes by imperial legislation, was
at a later period still further to limit the scope of state legislation.

  Army organization.

Meanwhile the government was busy perfecting the administration of the
national defences. From the war indemnity large sums had been expended
on coast defence, on fortifications and on replacing the equipment and
stores destroyed during the war. A special fund, producing annually
about a million pounds, was put aside, from which pensions to the
wounded, and to the widows and orphans of those who had fallen, should
be provided. It was also desirable to complete the military
organization. It must be remembered that technically there is no German
army, as there is no German minister of war. Each state, however small,
maintains its own contingent, subject to its own prince, who has the
right and the obligation of administering it according to the provisions
of the treaty by which he entered the federation. Practically they are
closely tied in every detail of military organization. The whole of the
Prussian military system, including not only the obligation to military
service, but the rules for recruiting, organization, drill and uniforms,
has to be followed in all the states; all the contingents are under the
command of the emperor, and the soldiers have to swear obedience to him
in addition to the oath of allegiance to their own sovereign. It is
therefore not surprising that, having so little freedom in the exercise
of their command, all the princes and free cities (with the exception of
the three kings) arranged separate treaties with the king of Prussia,
transferring to him (except for certain formal rights) the
administration of their contingents, which are thereby definitely
incorporated in the Prussian army. The first of these treaties was
arranged with Saxe-Coburg Gotha in 1861; those with the other North
German states followed at short intervals after 1866. The last was that
with Brunswick, which was arranged in 1885; Duke William had always
refused to surrender the separate existence of his army. Owing to the
local organization, this does not prevent the contingent of each state
from preserving its separate identity; it is stationed in its own
district, each state contributing so many regiments.

  The Septennat.

In 1872 a common system of military jurisprudence was introduced for the
whole empire except Bavaria (a revised code of procedure in military
courts was accepted by Bavaria in 1898); finally, in February 1874, an
important law was laid before the Reichstag codifying the administrative
rules. This superseded the complicated system of laws and royal
ordinances which had accumulated in Prussia during the fifty years that
had elapsed since the system of short service had been introduced; the
application to other states of course made a clearer statement of the
laws desirable. Most of this was accepted without opposition or debate.
On one clause a serious constitutional conflict arose. In 1867 the peace
establishment had been provisionally fixed by the constitution at 1% of
the population, and a sum of 225 thalers (£33, 15s.) had been voted for
each soldier. This arrangement had in 1871 been again continued to the
end of 1874, and the peace establishment fixed at 401,659. The new law
would have made this permanent. If this had been done the power of the
Reichstag over the administration would have been seriously weakened;
its assent would no longer have been required for either the number of
the army or the money. The government attached great importance to the
clause, but the Centre and the Liberal parties combined to throw it out.
A disastrous struggle was averted by a compromise suggested by
Bennigsen. The numbers were fixed for the next seven years (the
so-called _Septennat_); this was accepted by the government, and carried
against the votes of the Centre and some of the Progressives. On this
occasion the Fortschrittpartei, already much diminished, split up into
two sections. The principle then established has since been maintained;
the periodical votes on the army have become the occasion for formally
testing the strength of the Government.


The influence of Liberalism, which served the government so well in this
work of construction, brought about also the conflict with the Roman
Catholic Church which distracted Germany for many years. The causes
were, indeed, partly political. The Ultramontane party in Austria,
France and Bavaria had, after 1866, been hostile to Prussia; there was
some ground to fear that it might still succeed in bringing about a
Catholic coalition against the empire, and Bismarck lived in constant
dread of European coalitions. The Polish sympathies of the Church in
Germany made him regard it as an anti-German power, and the formation of
the Catholic faction in parliament, supported by Poles and Hanoverians,
appeared to justify his apprehensions. But besides these reasons of
state there was a growing hostility between the triumphant National
parties and the Ultramontanes, who taught that the pope was greater than
the emperor and the Church than the nation. The conflict had already
begun in Baden. As in every other country, the control of the schools
was the chief object of contention, but the government also claimed a
control over the education and training of the clergy. With the
formation of the empire the conflict was transferred from Baden to
Prussia, where there had been for thirty years absolute peace, a peace
gained, indeed, by allowing to the Catholics complete freedom; the
Prussian constitution ensured them absolute liberty in the management of
ecclesiastical affairs; in the ministry for religion and education there
was a separate department for Catholic affairs, and (owing to the
influence of the great family of the Radziwills) they enjoyed
considerable power at court.

  Old Catholics.

The latent opposition was aroused by the Vatican decrees. A small number
of Catholics, including several men of learning and distinction, refused
to accept Papal Infallibility. They were encouraged by the Bavarian
court, which maintained the Febronian tradition and was jealous of any
encroachment of the Papacy (see FEBRIONIANISM); but besides this the
Protestants throughout Germany and all opponents of the Papacy joined in
the agitation. They made it the occasion for an attack on the Jesuits;
even in 1869 there had been almost a riot in Berlin when a chapel
belonging to a religious order was opened there. During 1870 and 1871
meetings were held by the Gustavus Adolphus Verein, and a great
Protestant conference was called, at which resolutions were passed
demanding the expulsion of the Jesuits and condemning the Vatican
decrees. As the leaders in these meetings were men like Virchow and
Bluntschli, who had been lifelong opponents of Catholicism in every
form, the result was disastrous to the Liberal party among the
Catholics, for a Liberal Catholic would appear as the ally of the
bitterest enemies of the Church; whatever possibility of success the Old
Catholic movement might have had was destroyed by the fact that it was
supported by those who avowedly wished to destroy the influence of
Catholicism. No bishop joined it in Germany or in Austria, and few
priests, though the governments were ready to protect them in the
enjoyment of the privileges secured to Catholics, and to maintain them
in the use of the temporalities. There was no great following among the
people; it was only in isolated places that priests and congregation
together asserted their rights to refuse to accept the decrees of the
Church. Without the help of the bishops, the leaders had no legal basis;
unsupported by the people, they were generals without an army, and the
attempt to use the movement for political purposes failed.

None the less this was the occasion for the first proceedings against
the Catholics, and curiously enough the campaign began in Bavaria. The
archbishop of Munich had published the Vatican decrees without the
_Regium placetum_, which was required by the constitution, and the
government continued to treat Old Catholics as members of the Church. In
the controversy which ensued, Lutz, the chief member of the ministry,
found himself confronted by an Ultramontane majority, and the priests
used their influence to stir up the people. He therefore turned for help
to the imperial government, and at his instance a clause was added to
the penal code forbidding priests in their official capacity to deal
with political matters. (This law, which still exists, is popularly
known as the Kanzlei or Pulpit-paragraph.) It was of course opposed by
the Centre, who declared that the Reichstag had no right to interfere in
what was after all a religious question, and the Bavarian Opposition
expressed much indignation that their government should turn for help to
the Protestants of the North in order to force upon the Catholics of
Bavaria a law which they could not have carried in that state.

For twenty years the Old Catholics continued to be a cause of contention
in Bavaria, until the struggle ended in the victory of the
Ultramontanes. In 1875 the parliament which had been elected in 1869 for
six years came to an end. In order to strengthen their position for the
new elections, the Liberal ministry, who owed their position chiefly to
the support of the king, by royal ordinance ordered a redistribution of
seats. By the constitution this was within their power, and by clever
manipulation of the constituencies they brought it about that the
Ultramontane majority was reduced to two. It does not appear that this
change represented any change of feeling in the majority of the people.
The action of the government, however, caused great indignation, and in
a debate on the address an amendment was carried petitioning the king to
dismiss his ministry. They offered their resignation, but the king
refused to accept it, publicly expressed his confidence in them, and
they continued in office during the lifetime of the king, although in
1881 the growing reaction gave a considerable majority to the
Ultramontane party. After the death of the king the prince-regent,
Luitpold, still retained the old administration, but several concessions
were made to the Catholics in regard to the schools and universities,
and in 1890 it was decided that the claim of the Old Catholics to be
regarded officially as members of the Church should no longer be

  May Laws.

Meanwhile at Berlin petitions to the Reichstag demanded the expulsion of
the Jesuits, and in 1872 an imperial law to this effect was carried;
this was again a serious interference with the control over religious
matters reserved to the states. In Prussia the government, having
determined to embark on an anti-Catholic policy, suppressed the Catholic
division in the ministry, and appointed a new minister, Falk, a Liberal
lawyer of uncompromising character. A law was carried placing the
inspection of schools entirely in the hands of the state; hitherto in
many provinces it had belonged to the clergy, Catholic or Protestant.
This was followed by the measures to which the name _Kulturkampf_ really
applied (an expression used first by Virchow to imply that it was a
struggle of principle between the teaching of the Church and that of
modern society). They were measures in which the state no longer, as in
the school inspection law or in the introduction of civil marriage,
defended its prerogatives against the Church, but assumed itself a
direct control over ecclesiastical matters.

At the end of 1872 and the beginning of 1873 Falk laid before the
Prussian Lower House the draft of four laws. Of these, one forbade
ministers of religion from abusing ecclesiastical punishment; the
second, which was the most important, introduced a law already adopted
in Baden, that no one should be appointed to any office in the Church
except a German, who must have received his education in a German
gymnasium, have studied for three years in a German university, and have
passed a state examination in philosophy, history, German literature and
classics; all ecclesiastical seminaries were placed under the control of
the state, and all seminaries for boys were forbidden. Moreover, every
appointment to an ecclesiastical benefice was to be notified to the
president of the province, and the confirmation could be refused on the
ground that there were facts which could support the assumption that the
appointment would be dangerous to public order. The third law appointed
a court for trying ecclesiastical offences, to which was given the right
of suspending both priests and bishops, and a fourth determined the
procedure necessary for those who wished to sever their connexion with
the Roman Catholic Church.

As these laws were inconsistent with those articles of the Prussian
constitution which guaranteed to a religious corporation the
independent management of its own affairs, it was therefore necessary to
alter the constitution. This was done, and a later law in 1875 repealed
the articles altogether.

The opposition of the bishops to these laws was supported even by many
Protestants, especially by the more orthodox Lutherans, who feared the
effect of this increased subjection of all churches to the state; they
were opposed also by the Conservative members of the Upper House. All,
however, was unavailing. Bismarck in this case gave the Liberals a free
hand, and the laws eventually were carried and proclaimed on the 15th of
May 1873; hence they got the name of the May laws, by which they are
always known. The bishops meanwhile had held a meeting at Fulda, at the
tomb of St Boniface, whence they addressed a protest to the king, and
declared that they would be unable to recognize the laws as valid. They
were supported in this by the pope, who addressed a protest personally
to the emperor. The laws were put into force with great severity. Within
a year six Prussian bishops were imprisoned, and in over 1300 parishes
the administration of public worship was suspended. The first sufferer
was the cardinal archbishop of Posen, Count Ledochowski. He refused to
report to the president of the province appointments of incumbents; he
refused also to allow the government commissioners to inspect the
seminaries for priests, and when he was summoned before the new court
refused to appear. He was then deprived of the temporalities of his
office; but the Polish nobles continued to support him, and he continued
to act as bishop. Heavy fines were imposed upon him, but he either could
not or would not pay them, and in March 1874 he was condemned to
imprisonment for two years, and dismissed from his bishopric. The bishop
of Trier, the archbishop of Cologne, and other bishops soon incurred a
similar fate. These measures of the government, however, did not succeed
in winning over the Catholic population, and in the elections for the
Reichstag in January 1874 the party of the Centre increased in number
from 63 to 91; 1,443,170 votes were received by them. In Bavaria the
Ultramontanes won a complete victory over the more moderate Catholics.
The Prussian government proceeded to further measures. According to the
ordinary practice towards parties in opposition, public meetings were
broken up on the smallest pretence, and numerous prosecutions for insult
to government officials (_Beamtenbeleidigung_) were brought against
members of the party. The Catholic agitation was, however, carried on
with increased vigour throughout the whole empire; over a hundred
newspapers were founded (three years before there had been only about
six Catholic papers in the whole of Germany), and great numbers of
pamphlets and other polemical works were published. The bishops from
their prisons continued to govern the dioceses; for this purpose they
appointed representatives, to whom they transferred their rights as
ordinary and secretly authorized priests to celebrate services and to
perform the other duties of an incumbent. To meet this a further law was
passed in the Prussian parliament, forbidding the exercise of
ecclesiastical offices by unauthorized persons, and it contained a
provision that any one who had been convicted under the law could be
deprived of his rights of citizenship, ordered to live in a particular
district, or even expelled from the kingdom. The result was that in
numerous parishes the police were occupied in searching for the priest
who was living there among the people; although his habitation was known
to hundreds of people, the police seldom succeeded in arresting him.
Bismarck confesses that his doubts as to the wisdom of this legislation
were raised by the picture of heavy but honest _gens d'armes_ pursuing
light-footed priests from house to house. This law was followed by one
authorizing the government to suspend, in every diocese where the bishop
continued recalcitrant, the payment of that contribution to the Roman
Catholic Church which by agreement had been given by the state since
1817. The only result of this was that large sums were collected by
voluntary contribution among the Roman Catholic population.

The government tried to find priests to occupy the vacant parishes; few
consented to do so, and the _Staatskatholiken_ who consented to the new
laws were avoided by their parishioners. Men refused to attend their
ministrations; in some cases they were subjected to what was afterwards
called boycotting, and it was said that their lives were scarcely safe.
Other laws excluded all religious orders from Prussia, and civil
marriage was made compulsory; this law, which at first was confined to
Prussia, was afterwards passed also in the Reichstag.

These laws were all peculiar to Prussia, but similar legislation was
carried out in Baden and in Hesse, where in 1871, after twenty-one years
of office, the particularist and Conservative government of Dalwigk[6]
had come to an end and after the interval of a year been succeeded by a
Liberal ministry. In Württemberg alone the government continued to live
peaceably with the bishops.

The government had used all its resources; it had alienated millions of
the people; it had raised up a compact party of nearly a hundred members
in parliament. The attempt of the Liberals to subjugate the Church had
given to the Papacy greater power than it had had since the time of

  Reaction against Liberalism.

The ecclesiastical legislation and other Liberal measures completed the
alienation between Bismarck and the Conservatives. In the Prussian
parliament seventy-three members broke off from the rest, calling
themselves the "old Conservatives"; they used their position at court to
intrigue against him, and hoped to bring about his fall; Count Arnim
(q.v.) was looked upon as his successor. In 1876, however, the party in
Prussia, reunited on a programme which demanded the maintenance of the
Christian character of the schools, cessation of the Kulturkampf,
limitation of economic liberty, and repression of social democracy, and
this was accepted also by the Conservatives in the Reichstag. This
reunion of the Conservatives became the nucleus of a great reaction
against Liberalism. It was not confined to any one department of life,
but included Protection as against Free Trade, State Socialism as
against individualism, the defence of religion as against a separation
of Church and State, increased stress laid on the monarchical character
of the state, continued increase of the army, and colonial expansion.

The causes of the change in public opinion, of which this was to be the
beginning, are too deep-seated to be discussed here. We must note that
it was not peculiar to Germany; it was part of that great reaction
against Liberal doctrine which marked the last quarter of the 19th
century in so many countries. In Germany, however, it more rapidly
attained political importance than elsewhere, because Bismarck used it
to carry out a great change of policy. He had long been dissatisfied
with his position. He was much embarrassed by the failure of his
ecclesiastical policy. The alliance with the Liberals had always been
half-hearted, and he wished to regain his full freedom of action; he
regarded as an uncontrollable bondage all support that was not given
unconditionally. The alliance had been of the nature of a limited
co-operation between two hostile powers for a definite object; there had
always been suspicion and jealousy on either side, and a rupture had
often been imminent, as in the debates on the military bill and the law
reform. Now that the immediate object had been attained, he wished to
pass on to other projects in which they could not follow him. Political
unity had been firmly established; he desired to use the whole power of
the imperial government in developing the material resources of the
country. In doing this he placed himself in opposition to both the
financial and the economic doctrines of the Liberals.

  Official changes.

The new period which now begins was introduced by some alterations in
the official organization. Hitherto almost the whole of the internal
business had been concentrated in the imperial chancery
(_Reichskanzleramt_), and Bismarck had allowed great freedom of action
to Delbrück, the head of the office. Delbrück, however, had resigned in
1876, justly foreseeing that a change of policy was imminent in which
he could no longer co-operate with Bismarck. The work of the office was
then divided between several departments, at the head of each of which
was placed a separate official, the most important receiving the title
of secretary of state. Bismarck, as always, refused to appoint ministers
directly responsible either to the emperor or to parliament; the new
officials in no way formed a collegiate ministry or cabinet. He still
retained in his own hands, as sole responsible minister, the ultimate
control over the whole imperial administration. The more important
secretaries of state, however, are political officials, who are
practically almost solely responsible for their department; they sit in
the Bundesrat, and defend their policy in the Reichstag, and they often
have a seat in the Prussian ministry. Moreover, a law of 1878, the
occasion of which was Bismarck's long absence from Berlin, empowered the
chancellor to appoint a substitute or representative (_Stellvertreter_)
either for the whole duties of his office or for the affairs of a
particular department. The signature of a man who holds this position
gives legal validity to the acts of the emperor.

This reorganization was a sign of the great increase of work which had
already begun to fall on the imperial authorities, and was a necessary
step towards the further duties which Bismarck intended to impose upon

Meanwhile the relations with the National Liberals reached a crisis.
Bismarck remained in retirement at Varzin for nearly a year; before he
returned to Berlin, at the end of 1877, he was visited by Bennigsen, and
the Liberal leader was offered the post of vice-president of the
Prussian ministry and vice-president of the Bundesrat. The negotiations
broke down, apparently because Bennigsen refused to accept office unless
he received a guarantee that the constitutional rights of the Reichstag
should be respected, and unless two other members of the party,
Forckenbeck and Stauffenberg, were given office. Bismarck would not
assent to these conditions, and, even if he had been willing to do so,
could hardly have overcome the prejudices of the emperor. On the other
hand, Bennigsen refused to accept Bismarck's proposal for a state
monopoly of tobacco. From the beginning the negotiations were indeed
doomed to failure, for what Bismarck appears to have aimed at was to
detach Bennigsen from the rest of his party and win his support for an
anti-Liberal policy.

  Period after 1878.

The session of 1878, therefore, opened with a feeling of great
uncertainty. The Liberals were very suspicious of Bismarck's intentions.
Proposals for new taxes, especially one on tobacco, were not carried.
Bismarck took the opportunity of avowing that his ideal was a monopoly
of tobacco, and this statement was followed by the resignation of
Camphausen, minister of finance. It was apparent that there was no
prospect of his being able to carry through the great financial reform
which he contemplated. He was looking about for an opportunity of
appealing to the country on some question which would enable him to free
himself from the control of the Liberal majority. The popular
expectations were expressed in the saying attributed to him, that he
would "crush the Liberals against the wall." The opportunity was given
by the Social Democrats.

  Social democracy.

The constant increase of the Social Democrats had for some years caused
much uneasiness not only to the government, but also among the middle
classes. The attacks on national feeling, the protest against the war of
1870, the sympathy expressed for the _Communards_, had offended the
strongest feelings of the nation, especially as the language used was
often very violent; the soldiers were spoken of as murderers, the
generals as cut-throats. Attacks on religion, though not an essential
part of the party programme, were common, and practically all avowed
Social Democrats were hostile to Christianity. These qualities, combined
with the open criticism of the institutions of marriage, of monarchy,
and of all forms of private property, joined to the deliberate attempt
to stir up class hatred, which was indeed an essential part of their
policy, caused a widespread feeling that the Social Democrats were a
serious menace to civilization. They were looked upon even by many
Liberals as an enemy to be crushed; much more was this the case with
the government. Attempts had already been made to check the growth of
the party. Charges of high treason were brought against some. In 1872
Bebel and Liebknecht were condemned to two years' imprisonment. In 1876
Bismarck proposed to introduce into the Criminal Code a clause making it
an offence punishable with two years' imprisonment "to attack in print
the family, property, universal military service, or other foundation of
public order, in a manner which undermined morality, feeling for law, or
the love of the Fatherland." The opposition of the Liberals prevented
this from being carried. Lasker objected to these "elastic paragraphs,"
an expression for which in recent years there has been abundant use. The
ordinary law was, however, sufficient greatly to harass the Socialists.
In nearly every state there still existed, as survivals of the old days,
laws forbidding the union of different political associations with one
another, and all unions or associations of working men which followed
political, socialistic or communistic ends. It was possible under these
to procure decisions in courts of justice dissolving the General Union
of Workers and the coalitions and unions of working men. The only result
was, that the number of Socialists steadily increased. In 1874 they
secured nine seats in the Reichstag, in 1877 twelve, and nearly 500,000
votes were given to Socialist candidates.

  Legislation against the Socialists.

There was then no ground for surprise that, when in April 1878 an
attempt was made on the life of the emperor, Bismarck used the excuse
for again bringing in a law expressly directed against the Socialists.
It was badly drawn up and badly defended. The National Liberals refused
to vote for it, and it was easily defeated. The Reichstag was prorogued;
six days later a man named Nobiling again shot at the emperor, and this
time inflicted dangerous injuries. It is only fair to say that no real
proof was brought that the Socialists had anything to do with either of
these crimes, or that either of the men was really a member of the
Socialist party; nevertheless, a storm of indignation rose against them.
The government seized the opportunity. So great was the popular feeling,
that a repressive measure would easily have been carried; Bismarck,
however, while the excitement was at its height, dissolved the
Reichstag, and in the elections which took place immediately, the
Liberal parties, who had refused to vote for the first law, lost a
considerable number of seats, and with them their control over the

The first use which Bismarck made of the new parliament was to deal with
the Social Democrats. A new law was introduced forbidding the spread of
Socialistic opinions by books, newspapers or public meetings, empowering
the police to break up meetings and to suppress newspapers. The
Bundesrat could proclaim a state of siege in any town or district, and
when this was done any individual who was considered dangerous by the
police could be expelled. The law was carried by a large majority, being
opposed only by the Progressives and the Centre. It was applied with
great severity. The whole organization of newspapers, societies and
trades unions was at once broken up. Almost every political newspaper
supported by the party was suppressed; almost all the pamphlets and
books issued by them were forbidden; they were thereby at once deprived
of the only legitimate means which they had for spreading their
opinions. In the autumn of 1878 the minor state of siege was proclaimed
in Berlin, although no disorders had taken place and no resistance had
been attempted, and sixty-seven members of the party were excluded from
the city. Most of them were married and had families; money was
collected in order to help those who were suddenly deprived of their
means of subsistence. Even this was soon forbidden by the police. At
elections every kind of agitation, whether by meetings of the party or
by distribution of literature, was suppressed. The only place in Germany
where Socialists could still proclaim their opinions was in the
Reichstag. Bismarck attempted to exclude them from it also. In this,
however, he failed. Two members who had been expelled from Berlin
appeared in the city for the meeting of the Reichstag at the end of
1878. The government at once asked permission that they should be
charged with breaking the law. The constitution provided that no member
of the House might be brought before a court of justice without the
permission of the House, a most necessary safeguard. In this case the
permission was almost unanimously refused. Nor did they assent to
Bismarck's proposal that the Reichstag should assume power to exclude
from the House members who were guilty of misusing the liberty of speech
which they enjoyed there. Bismarck probably expected, and it is often
said that he hoped, to drive the Socialists into some flagrant violation
of the law, of such a kind that it would be possible for him completely
to crush them. This did not happen. There were some members of the party
who wished to turn to outrage and assassination. Most, a printer from
Leipzig, who had been expelled from Berlin, went to London, where he
founded the _Freiheit_, a weekly paper, in which he advocated a policy
of violence. He was thereupon excluded from the party, and after the
assassination of the emperor Alexander II. of Russia had to leave
England for Chicago. A similar expulsion befell others who advocated
union with the Anarchists. As a whole, however, the party remained firm
in opposition to any action which would strengthen the hands of their
opponents. They carried on the agitation as best they could, chiefly by
distributing reports of speeches made in the Reichstag. A weekly paper,
the _Social-Democrat_, was established at Zürich. Its introduction into
Germany was of course forbidden, but it was soon found possible
regularly to distribute thousands of copies every week in every part of
the country, and it continued to exist till 1887 at Zürich, and till
1890 in London. In August of 1880 a congress of Socialists was held at
the castle of Wyden, in Switzerland, at which about eighty members of
the party met, discussed their policy, and separated before the police
knew anything of it. Here it was determined that the members of the
Reichstag, who were protected by their position, should henceforward be
the managing committee of the party, and arrangements were made for
contesting the elections of 1881. A similar meeting was held in 1883 at
Copenhagen, and in 1887 at St Gallen, in Switzerland. Notwithstanding
all the efforts of the government, though every kind of public agitation
was forbidden, they succeeded in winning twelve seats in 1881. The law,
which had obviously failed, was renewed in 1881; the state of siege was
applied to Hamburg, Leipzig and Stettin, but all to no purpose; and
though the law was twice more renewed, in 1886 and in 1888, the feeling
began to grow that the Socialists were more dangerous under it than they
had been before.

The elections of 1878, by weakening the Liberal parties, enabled
Bismarck also to take in hand the great financial reform which he had
long contemplated.

  Financial reform.


At the foundation of the North German Confederation it had been arranged
that the imperial exchequer should receive the produce of all customs
duties and also of excise. It depended chiefly on the taxes on salt,
tobacco, brandy, beer and sugar. So far as the imperial expenses were
not covered by these sources of revenue, until imperial taxes were
introduced, the deficit had to be covered by "matricular" contributions
paid by the individual states in proportion to their population. All
attempts to introduce fresh imperial taxes had failed. Direct taxation
was opposed by the governments of the states, which did not desire to
see the imperial authorities interfering in those sources of revenue
over which they had hitherto had sole control; moreover, the whole
organization for collecting direct taxes would have had to be created.
At the same time, owing to the adoption of free trade, the income from
customs was continually diminishing. The result was that the sum to be
contributed by the individual states constantly increased, and the
amount to be raised by direct taxation, including local rates,
threatened to become greater than could conveniently be borne. Bismarck
had always regarded this system with disapproval, but during the first
four or five years he had left the care of the finances entirely to the
special officials, and had always been thwarted in his occasional
attempts to introduce a change. His most cherished project was a large
increase in the tax on tobacco, which at this time paid, for homegrown
tobacco, the nominal duty of four marks per hundred kilo. (about a
farthing a pound), and on imported tobacco twenty-four marks. Proposals
to increase it had been made in 1869 and in 1878, and on the latter
occasion Bismarck for the first time publicly announced his desire for a
state monopoly, a project which he never gave up, but for which he never
was able to win any support. Now, however, he was able to take up the
work. At his invitation a conference of the finance ministers met in
July at Heidelberg; they agreed to a great increase in the indirect
taxes, but refused to accept the monopoly on tobacco. At the beginning
of the autumn session a union of 204 members of the Reichstag was formed
for the discussion of economic questions, and they accepted Bismarck's
reforms. In December he was therefore able to issue a memorandum
explaining his policy; it included a moderate duty, about 5%, on all
imported goods, with the exception of raw material required for German
manufactures (this was a return to the old Prussian principle); high
finance duties on tobacco, beer, brandy and petroleum; and protective
duties on iron, corn, cattle, wood, wine and sugar. The whole of the
session of 1879 was occupied with the great struggle between Free Trade
and Protection, and it ended with a decisive victory for the latter. On
the one side were the seaports, the chambers of commerce, and the city
of Berlin, the town council of which made itself the centre of the
opposition. The victory was secured by a coalition between the
agricultural interests and the manufacturers; the latter promised to
vote for duties on corn if the landlords would support the duties on
iron. In the decisive vote the duty on iron was carried by 218 to 88, on
corn by 226 to 109. The principle of protection was thus definitely
adopted, though considerable alterations have been made from time to
time in the tariff. The result was that the income from customs and
excise rose from about 230 million marks in 1878-1879 to about 700
millions in 1898-1899, and Bismarck's object in removing a great burden
from the states was attained.

  State contributions.

The natural course when the new source of income had been obtained would
have been simply to relieve the states of part or all of their
contribution. This, however, was not done. The Reichstag raised
difficulties on the constitutional question. The Liberals feared that if
the government received so large a permanent source of revenue it would
be independent of parliament; the Centre, that if the contributions of
the states to the imperial exchequer ceased, the central government
would be completely independent of the states. Bismarck had to come to
an agreement with one party or the other; he chose the Centre, probably
for the reason that the National Liberals were themselves divided on the
policy to be pursued, and therefore their support would be uncertain;
and he accepted an amendment, the celebrated _Franckenstein Clause_,
proposed by Georg Arbogast Freiherr von Franckenstein (1825-1890), one
of the leaders of the Centre, by which all proceeds of customs and the
tax on tobacco above 130 million marks should be paid over to the
individual states in proportion to their population. Each year a large
sum would be paid to the states from the imperial treasury, and another
sum as before paid back to meet the deficit in the form of state
contributions. From 1871 to 1879 the contribution of the states had
varied from 94 to 67 million marks; under the new system the surplus of
the contributions made by the states over the grant by the imperial
treasury was soon reduced to a very small sum, and in 1884-1885 payments
of the empire to the states exceeded the contributions of the states to
the empire by 20 million marks, and this excess continued for many
years; so that there was, as it were, an actual grant in relief of
direct taxation. In Prussia, by the Lex Huene, from 1885 to 1895, all
that sum paid to Prussia, so far as it exceeded 15 million marks, was
handed over to the local authorities in relief of rates. The increased
expenditure on the navy after 1897 again caused the contributions
required from the states to exceed the grants to them from the imperial
exchequer. In 1903 Baron von Stengel, who succeeded Baron von Thielmann
as finance minister in this year, proposed that the matricular
contributions of the several states, instead of varying as heretofore
with the exigencies of the annual budget, should be fixed by law. This
plan, originally suggested by Dr von Miquel, was adopted by the
Reichstag in May 1904. The deficits in the imperial budget, however,
continued. In 1909 the whole system of German imperial finance was once
more in the melting-pot, and, in spite of the undoubted wealth of the
country, the conflict of state and party interests seemed to make it
practically impossible to remould it on a satisfactory basis.

  Party changes.



The acceptance by Bismarck of the principle of Protection and his
alliance with the Catholic Centre were followed by the disruption of the
National Liberal party and a complete change in the parliamentary
situation. Already the Liberal ministers, Falk and Hobrecht, had
resigned, as well as Max von Forckenbeck the president, and Stauffenberg
the vice-president of the Reichstag; in their place there were chosen a
Conservative, and the Catholic Baron von Franckenstein. The whole party
had voted against the Franckenstein Clause, but a few days later fifteen
of the right wing left the party and transferred their support to the
government. For another year the remainder kept together, but there was
no longer any real harmony or co-operation; in 1880 nineteen, including
most of the ablest leaders, Lasker, Forckenbeck, Bamberger and Bunsen,
left the party altogether. The avowed cause of difference was commercial
policy; they were the Free Traders, but they also justly foresaw that
the reaction would extend to other matters. They took the name of the
_Liberale Vereinigung_, but were generally known as the
_Sezessionisten_; they hoped to become the nucleus of a united Liberal
party in which all sections should join together on the principles of
Free Trade and constitutional development. At the elections of 1881 they
secured forty-seven seats, but they were not strong enough to maintain
themselves, and with great reluctance in 1884 formed a coalition with
the Progressives (_Freisinnigen_), who had gained greatly in strength
owing to the breach among the government parties. They did so
reluctantly, because they would thereby condemn themselves to assume
that attitude of purely negative criticism which, during the great days
of their prosperity, they had looked down upon with contempt, and were
putting themselves under the leadership of Eugen Richter, whom they had
long opposed. The new party, the _Deutschfreisinnige_, had no success;
at the election of 1884 they secured only sixty-seven seats, a loss of
thirty-nine; they were subjected to all inconveniences which belonged to
opposition; socially, they were boycotted by all who were connected with
the court or government; they were cut off from all hope of public
activity, and were subjected to constant accusations for _Bismarck
Beleidigung_. Their only hope was in the time when the crown prince, who
had shown great sympathy with them, should succeed. They were popularly
known as the crown prince's party. Lasker soon died; others, such as
Forckenbeck and Bunsen, retired from public life, unable to maintain
their position at a time when the struggle of class interests had
superseded the old conflicts of principle. At the election of 1887 they
lost more than half their seats, and in 1893 the party again broke up.

The remainder of the National Liberals only won forty-five seats in
1881, and during the next three years they were without influence on the
government; and even Bennigsen, unable to follow Bismarck in his new
policy, disgusted at the proposals for biennial budgets and the misuse
of government influence at the elections, retired from political life.
In 1884 a new development took place: under the influence of Miquel a
meeting was held at Heidelberg of the South German members of the party,
who accepted the commercial and social policy of the government,
including the Socialist law; their programme received Bismarck's
approval, and was accepted by the rest of the party, so that they
henceforward were taken into favour by the government; but they had won
the position by sacrificing almost all the characteristics of the older
Liberalism; the hope of a reunion for all the different sections which
had hitherto kept the name of Liberal was at an end.

  Political reaction.

These events had a very unfortunate effect on the character of the
parliament. From 1878 to 1887 there was no strong party on which
Bismarck could depend for support. After 1881 the parties of opposition
were considerably strengthened. Alsatians and Poles, Guelphs, Clericals
and Radicals were joined in a common hostility to the government.
Parliamentary history took the form of a hostile criticism of the
government proposals, which was particularly bitter because of the
irreconcilable opposition of the Free Traders. Few of the proposals were
carried in their entirety, many were completely lost; the tobacco
monopoly and the brandy monopoly were contemptuously rejected by
enormous majorities; even an increase of the tax on tobacco was refused;
the first proposals for a subsidy to the Norddeutsche Lloyd were
rejected. The personal relations of the chancellor to Parliament were
never so bitter. At the same time, in Prussia there was a tendency to
make more prominent the power of the king and to diminish the influence
of the parliament. A proposal to introduce biennial budgets was for this
reason regarded with great suspicion by the Opposition as a reactionary
measure, and rejected. The old feelings of suspicion and jealousy were
again aroused; the hostility which Bismarck encountered was scarcely
less than in the old days of the conflict. After the elections of 1881 a
protest was raised against the systematic influence exercised by
Prussian officials. Puttkammer, who had now become minister of the
interior, defended the practice, and a royal edict of 4th January 1882
affirmed the monarchical character of the Prussian constitution, the
right of the king personally to direct the policy of the state, and
required those officials who held appointments of a political nature to
defend the policy of the government, even at elections.

  End of the Kulturkampf.

One result of the new policy was a reconciliation with the Centre. Now
that Bismarck could no longer depend on the support of the Liberals, it
would be impossible to carry on the government if the Catholics
maintained their policy of opposition to all government measures. They
had supported him in his commercial reform of 1878, but by opposing the
Septennate in 1880 they had shown that he could not depend upon them. It
was impossible to continue to treat as enemies of the state a party
which had supplied one of the vice-presidents to the Reichstag, and
which after the election of 1881 outnumbered by forty votes any other
single party. Moreover, the government, which was now very seriously
alarmed at the influence of the Social Democrats, was anxious to avail
itself of every influence which might be used against them. In the
struggle to regain the adherence of the working men it seemed as though
religion would be the most valuable ally, and it was impossible to
ignore the fact that the Roman Catholic priests had alone been able to
form an organization in which hundreds of thousands of working men had
been enlisted. It was therefore for every reason desirable to remedy a
state of things by which so many parishes were left without incumbents,
a condition the result of which must be either to diminish the hold of
Christianity over the people, or to confirm in them the belief that the
government was the real enemy of Christianity. It was not easy to
execute this change of front with dignity, and impossible to do so
without forsaking the principles on which they had hitherto acted. Ten
years were to pass before the work was completed. But the cause of the
conflict had been rather in the opinions of the Liberals than in the
personal desire of Bismarck himself. The larger political reasons which
had brought about the conflict were also no longer valid; the fears to
which the Vatican decrees had given rise had not been fulfilled; the
failure of the Carlists in Spain and of the Legitimists in France, the
consolidation of the new kingdom in Italy, and the alliance with Austria
had dispelled the fear of a Catholic league. The growth of the Catholic
democracy in Germany was a much more serious danger, and it proved to be
easier to come to terms with the pope than with the parliamentary
Opposition. It would clearly be impossible to come to any agreement on
the principles. Bismarck hoped, indeed, putting all questions of
principle aside, to establish a _modus vivendi_; but even this was
difficult to attain. An opportunity was given by the death of the pope
in 1878. Leo XIII. notified his accession to the Prussian government in
a courteous despatch; the interchange of letters was followed by a
confidential discussion between Bismarck and Cardinal Franchi at
Kissingen during the summer of 1878. The hope that this might bring
about some agreement was frustrated by the sudden death of the cardinal,
and his successor was more under the influence of the Jesuits and the
more extreme party. Bismarck, however, was not discouraged.

The resignation of Falk in July 1879 was a sign of the change of policy;
he was succeeded by Puttkammer, who belonged to the old-fashioned
Prussian Conservatives and had no sympathy with the Liberal legislation.
The way was further prepared by a lenient use of the penal laws. On the
24th of February 1880 the pope, in a letter to the ex-archbishop of
Cologne, said he was willing to allow clerical appointments to be
notified if the government withdrew the obnoxious laws. In 1880 a
provisional Bill was submitted to parliament giving the crown
discretionary power not to enforce the laws. It was opposed by the
Liberals on the ground that it conceded too much, by the Clericals that
it granted too little, but, though carried only in a mutilated form, it
enabled the priests who had been ejected to appoint substitutes, and
religious worship was restored in nearly a thousand parishes. In the
elections of 1881 the Centre gained five more seats, and in 1883 a new
law was introduced prolonging and extending that of 1881. Meanwhile a
Prussian envoy had again been appointed at the Vatican; all but three of
the vacant bishoprics were filled by agreement between the pope and the
king, and the sequestrated revenues were restored. Finally, in 1886, a
fresh law, besides other concessions, did away with the _Kultur Examen_,
and exempted seminaries from state control. It also abolished the
ecclesiastical court, which, in fact, had proved to be almost
unworkable, for no priests would appeal to it. By this, the real
Kulturkampf, the attempt of the state to control the intellect and faith
of the clergy, ceased. A further law of 1887 permitted the return to
Prussia of those orders which were occupied in charitable work.

As permanent results of the conflict there remain only the alteration in
the Prussian constitution and the expulsion of the Jesuits; the Centre
continued to demand the repeal of this, and to make it the price of
their support of government measures; in 1897 the Bundesrat permitted
the return of the Redemptorists, an allied order. With these exceptions
absolute religious peace resulted; the Centre to a great extent
succeeded to the position which the National Liberals formerly held; in
Bavaria, in Baden, in Prussia they obtained a dominant position, and
they became a government party.

  Nationalization of railways.

Meanwhile Bismarck, who was not intimidated by the parliamentary
opposition, irritating and embarrassing though it was, resolutely
proceeded with his task of developing the material resources of the
empire. In order to do so the better, he undertook, in addition to his
other offices, that of Prussian minister of commerce. He was now able to
carry out, at least partially, his railway schemes, for he could afford
to ignore Liberal dislike to state railways, and if he was unable to
make all the lines imperial, he could make most of them Prussian. The
work was continued by his successors, and by the year 1896 there
remained only about 2000 kilometres of private railways in Prussia; of
these none except those in East Prussia belonged to companies of any
great importance. More than this, Bismarck was able to obtain Prussian
control of the neighbouring states; in 1886 the Brunswick railways were
acquired by the Prussian government, and in 1895 the private lines in
Thuringia. The imperial railways in Alsace-Lorraine are managed in close
connexion with the Prussian system, and in 1895 an important step was
taken towards extending Prussian influence in the south. A treaty was
made between Prussia and Hesse by which the two states together bought
up the Hesse-Ludwig railway (the most important private company
remaining in Germany), and in addition to this agreed that they would
form a special union for the joint administration of all the lines
belonging to either state. What this means is that the Hessian lines are
managed by the Prussian department, but Hesse has the right of
appointing one director, and the expenses and profits are divided
between the two states in proportion to their population. Thus a nucleus
and precedent has been formed similar to that by which the _Zollverein_
was begun, and it was hoped that it might be possible to arrange similar
agreements with other states, so that in this way a common management
for all lines might be established. There is, however, strong
opposition, especially in South Germany, and most of the states cling to
the separate management of their own lines. Fearful that Prussia might
obtain control over the private lines, they have imitated Prussian
policy and acquired all railways for the state, and much of the old
opposition to Prussia is revived in defence of the local railways.


A natural supplement to the nationalization of railways was the
development of water communication. This is of great importance in
Germany, as all the chief coal-fields and manufacturing
districts--Silesia, Saxony, Westphalia and Alsace--are far removed from
the sea. The most important works were the canal from Dortmund to the
mouth of the Ems, and the Jahde canal from the Ems to the Elbe, which
enables Westphalian coal to reach the sea, and so to compete better with
English coal. In addition to this, however, a large number of smaller
works were undertaken, such as the canalization of the Main from
Frankfort to the Rhine; and a new canal from the Elbe to Lübeck. The
great ship canal from Kiel to the Elbe, which was begun in 1887 and
completed in 1896, has perhaps even more importance for naval than for
commercial purposes. The Rhine, so long the home of romance, has become
one of the great arteries of traffic, and lines of railways on both
sides have caused small villages to become large towns. The Prussian
government also planned a great scheme by which the Westphalian
coal-fields should be directly connected with the Rhine in one direction
and the Elbe in the other by a canal which would join together Minden,
Hanover and Magdeburg. This would give uninterrupted water communication
from one end of the country to the other, for the Elbe, Oder and Vistula
are all navigable rivers connected by canals. This project, which was a
natural continuation of Bismarck's policy, was, however, rejected by the
Prussian parliament in 1899. The opposition came from the Agrarians and
extreme Conservatives, who feared that it would enable foreign corn to
compete on better terms with German corn; they were also jealous of the
attention paid by the government to commercial enterprise in which they
were not immediately interested. The project was again laid by the
government before the Prussian _Landtag_ on the 14th of April 1901 and
was again rejected. In 1904 it was once more introduced in the modified
form of a proposal of a canal from the Rhine to Leine in Hanover, with a
branch from Datteln to Ham, and also of a canal from Berlin to Stettin.
This bill was passed in February 1905.

  Hamburg and Bremen.

Equally important was the action of the government in developing foreign
trade. The first step was the inclusion of Hamburg and Bremen in the
_Zollverein_; this was necessary if German maritime enterprise was to
become a national and not merely a local concern, for the two Hansa
cities practically controlled the whole foreign trade and owned
three-quarters of the shipping; but so long as they were excluded for
the Customs Union their interests were more cosmopolitan than national.
Both cities, but especially Hamburg, were very reluctant to give up
their privileges and the commercial independence which they had enjoyed
almost since their foundation. As a clause in the constitution
determined that they should remain outside the Customs Union until they
voluntarily offered to enter it, there was some difficulty in overcoming
their opposition. Bismarck, with characteristic energy, proposed to take
steps, by altering the position of the imperial customs stations, which
would practically destroy the commerce of Hamburg, and some of his
proposals which seemed contrary to the constitution aroused a very sharp
resistance in the Bundesrat. It was, however, not necessary to go to
extremities, for in 1881 the senate of Hamburg accepted an agreement
which, after a keen struggle, was ratified by the citizens. By this
Hamburg was to enter the _Zollverein_; a part of the harbour was to
remain a free port, and the empire contributed two million pounds
towards rearranging and enlarging the harbour. A similar treaty was made
with Bremen, the free port of that city being situated near the mouth of
the Weser at Bremerhaven; and in 1888, the necessary works having been
completed, the cities entered the Customs Union. They have had no reason
to regret the change, for no part of the country profited so much by the
great prosperity of the following years, notwithstanding the temporary
check caused by the serious outbreak of cholera at Hamburg in 1892.


During the first years of the empire Bismarck had occasionally been
asked to interest himself in colonial enterprise. He had refused, for he
feared that foreign complications might ensue, and that the country
might weaken itself by dissipation of energy. He was satisfied that the
Germans should profit by the commercial liberty allowed in the British
colonies. Many of the Germans were, however, not contented with this,
and disputes regarding the rights of German settlers in Fiji caused some
change of feeling. The acquisition of German colonies was really the
logical and almost necessary sequel of a protective policy. For that
reason it was always opposed by the extreme Liberal party.

The failure of the great Hamburg house of Godefroy in 1879 threatened to
ruin the growing German industries in the South Seas, which it had
helped to build up. Bismarck therefore consented to apply to the
Reichstag for a state guarantee to a company which would take over its
great plantations in Samoa. This was refused, chiefly owing to the
influence of the Liberal party. Bismarck therefore, who took this rebuff
much to heart, said he would have nothing more to do with the matter,
and warned those interested in colonies that they must depend on
self-help; he could do nothing for them. By the support of some of the
great financial firms they succeeded in forming a company, which carried
on the business and undertook fresh settlements on the islands to the
north of New Guinea. This event led also to the foundation of a society,
the _Deutscher Kolonial Verein_, under the presidency of the prince of
Hohenlohe-Langenburg, to educate public opinion. Their immediate object
was the acquisition of trading stations. The year 1884 brought a
complete change. Within a few months Germany acquired extended
possessions in several parts both of Africa and the South Seas. This was
rendered possible owing to the good understanding which at that time
existed between Germany and France. Bismarck therefore no longer feared,
as he formerly had, to encounter the difficulties with Great Britain
which would be the natural result of a policy of colonial expansion.


His conversion to the views of the colonial party was gradual, as was
seen in his attitude to the proposed acquisition of German stations in
South-West Africa. In Namaqualand and Damaraland, British influence,
exercised from Cape Colony, had long been strong, but the British
government had refused to annex the country even when asked so to do by
the German missionaries who laboured among the natives. In 1882 F. A.
Lüderitz, a Bremen tobacco merchant, approached Bismarck on the question
of establishing a trading station on the coast at Angra Pequeña. The
chancellor, while not discouraging Lüderitz, acted with perfect fairness
to Great Britain, and throughout 1883 that country might have acted had
she known her mind. She did not, and in the summer of 1884 Bismarck
decided no longer to await her pleasure, and the south-west coast of
Africa from the frontier of the Portuguese possessions to the Orange
river, with the exception of Walfish Bay, was taken under German
protection. During the same year Dr Nachtigal was despatched to the west
coast, and stealing a march on his British and French rivals he secured
not only Togoland but Cameroon for the Germans. On the east coast
Bismarck acted decisively without reference to British interests. A
company, the _Gesellschaft für deutsche Kolonization_, was founded early
in 1884 by Dr Carl Peters, who with two companions went off to the east
coast of Africa and succeeded in November of that year in negotiating
treaties with various chiefs on the mainland who were alleged to be
independent of Zanzibar. In this region British opposition had to be
considered, but in February 1885 a German protectorate over the
territory acquired by Peters was proclaimed.

  The Pacific.

Similar events took place in the South Seas. The acquisition of Samoa,
where German interests were most extensive, was prevented (for the time
being) by the arrangement made in 1879 with Great Britain and the United
States. But in 1884 and 1885 the German flag was hoisted on the north of
New Guinea (to which the name Kaiser Wilhelmsland has been given), on
several parts of the New Britain Archipelago (which afterwards became
the Bismarck Archipelago), and on the Caroline Islands. The last
acquisition was not kept. The Spanish government claimed the islands,
and Bismarck, in order to avoid a struggle which would have been very
disastrous to monarchical government in Spain, suggested that the pope
should be asked to mediate. Leo XIII. accepted the offer, which was an
agreeable reminiscence of the days when popes determined the limits of
the Spanish colonial empire, all the more gratefully that it was made by
a Protestant power. He decided in favour of Spain, Germany being granted
certain rights in the islands. The loss of the islands was amply
compensated for by the political advantages which Bismarck gained by
this attention to the pope, and, after all, not many years elapsed
before they became German.

Bismarck in his colonial policy had repeatedly explained that he did not
propose to found provinces or take over for the government the
responsibility for their administration; he intended to leave the
responsibility for their material development to the merchants, and even
to entrust to them the actual government. He avowedly wished to imitate
the older form of British colonization by means of chartered companies,
which had been recently revived in the North Borneo Company; the only
responsibility of the imperial government was to be their protection
from foreign aggression. In accordance with this policy, the territories
were not actually incorporated in the empire (there would also have been
constitutional difficulties in doing that), and they were officially
known as Protectorates (_Schutzgebiete_), a word which thus acquired a
new signification. In 1885 two new great companies were founded to
undertake the government. The _Deutsch-Ost-Afrika Gesellschaft_, with a
capital of £200,000, took over the territories acquired by Dr Peters,
and for the South Seas the _Neu-Guinea Gesellschaft_, founded by an
amalgamation of a number of firms in 1884, received a charter in 1885.
It was not, however, possible to limit the imperial responsibility as
Bismarck intended. In East Africa the great revolt of the Arabs in 1888
drove the company out of all their possessions, with the exception of
the port of Dar-es-Salam. The company was not strong enough to defend
itself; troops had to be sent out by the emperor under Captain Wissmann,
who as imperial commissioner took over the government. This, which was
at first a temporary arrangement, was afterwards made permanent.

The New Guinea Company had less formidable enemies to contend with, and
with the exception of a period of three years between 1889 and 1892,
they maintained a full responsibility for the administration of their
territory till the year 1899, when an agreement was made and ratified in
the Reichstag, by which the possession and administration was
transferred to the empire in return for a subsidy of £20,000 a year, to
be continued for ten years. The whole of the colonies have therefore now
come under the direct administration of the empire. They were at first
placed under the direction of a special department of the Foreign
Office, and in 1890 a council of experts on colonial matters was
instituted, while in 1907 a separate office for colonial affairs was
created. In 1887 the two chief societies for supporting the colonial
movement joined under the name of the _Deutsche Kolonialgesellschaft_.
This society takes a great part in forming public opinion on colonial

  Germany and Great Britain.

This new policy inevitably caused a rivalry of interests with other
countries, and especially with Great Britain. In every spot at which the
Germans acquired territory they found themselves in opposition to
British interests. The settlement of Angra Pequeña caused much
ill-feeling in Cape Colony, which was, however, scarcely justified, for
the Cape ministry was equally responsible with the British government
for the dilatoriness which led to the loss of what is now German
South-West Africa. In Togoland and Cameroon British traders had long
been active, and the proclamation of British sovereignty was impending
when the German flag was hoisted. The settlement in East Africa menaced
the old-established British influence over Zanzibar, which was all the
more serious because of the close connexion between Zanzibar and the
rulers of the Persian Gulf; and Australia saw with much concern the
German settlement in New Guinea, especially as a British Protectorate
(which in the view of Australians should have included the whole of what
Germany was allowed to take) had previously been established in the
island. In Africa Britain and France proceeded to annex territory
adjacent to the German acquisitions, and a period followed during which
the boundaries of German, French and British possessions were determined
by negotiation. The overthrow of Jules Ferry and the danger of war with
France made a good understanding with Great Britain of more importance.
Bismarck, by summoning a conference to Berlin (1884-1885) to discuss
African questions, secured for Germany a European recognition which was
very grateful to the colonial parties; and in 1888, by lending his
support to the anti-slavery movement of Cardinal Lavigerie, he won the
support of the Centre, who had hitherto opposed the colonial policy.
Finally a general agreement for the demarcation of Africa was made in
1890 (see AFRICA, § 5). A similar agreement had been made in 1886
regarding the South Seas. It was made after Bismarck had retired from
office, and he, as did the colonial party, severely criticized the
details; for the surrender of Zanzibar and Witu cut short the hopes
which had been formed of building up a great German empire controlling
the whole of East Africa. Many of the colonial party went further, and
criticized not only the details, but the principle. They were much
offended by Caprivi's statement that no greater injury could be done to
Germany than to give her the whole of Africa, and they refused to accept
his contention that "the period of flag-hoisting was over," and that the
time had come for consolidating their possessions. It must, however, be
recognized that a continuation of the ambitious policy of the last few
years might easily have involved Germany in dangerous disputes.


It appeared a small compensation that Great Britain surrendered to
Germany the island of Heligoland, which she had taken from the Danes in
the Napoleonic wars. It was annexed to Prussia; the natives born before
the year 1880 were exempted from military service, and till the year
1901 no additional import duties were to be imposed. It has been
strongly fortified and made a naval station.

  Progress of German colonial expansion.

  Colonial wars. The Herero rising.

It was easy for the Opposition to criticize the colonial policy. They
could point out that, with the exception of parts of South-West Africa,
no territory had been acquired in which any large number of German
emigrants could live and rear families. They went as a rule to the
United States and South America, or to territories under the British
flag. As markets for German products the colonies remained of small
importance; in 1907 the whole value of the trade, import and export,
between Germany and her colonies was less than £3,300,000, and the cost
of administration, including the grant to the shipping companies, often
exceeded the total trade. Many mistakes were made in the administration,
and cases of misconduct by individual officials formed the text for
attacks on the whole system. Generally, however, these criticisms were
premature; it was surely wise, while the opportunity was still open, to
take care that Germany, in the partition of the world among European
races, should not alone go entirely without a share. The lack of
colonial experience, and, often, the lack of sympathy with, or
understanding of, the negro and other races over whom they had assumed a
protectorate, were contributory causes in the slow development of
Germany's African colonies. The unwillingness of the Reichstag to
sanction the expenditure of any large sums on railways and other public
works also hindered the exploitation of the economic resources of very
large areas. Yet at the close of the first twenty-five years' existence
of the colonial empire it might be said that the initial difficulties
had been overcome, and sufficient knowledge gained to ensure Germany a
return fairly commensurate with the efforts she had put forth. The
necessity to enlist the interests of the natives on the side of the
government, if any progress was to be made in industry or trade, was a
lesson slowly learned. After the Arab opposition had been crushed on the
east coast of Africa, there still remained the native states to be dealt
with, and few tribes voluntarily submitted to European control. There
was a serious rising in 1905-1906, when thousands of lives were lost. In
Togoland there were disturbances of a comparatively minor character; in
the Cameroon hinterland campaigns were undertaken against the Fulu and
Bornuese princes. It was, however, in South-West Africa that the Germans
had their chief and most bitter experience in colonial warfare. Though
"annexed" in 1884 it was not till ten years later, after protracted
fighting, that the Hottentots of Namaqualand recognized Germany. After
another decade of comparative peace war again broke out (1903) and
spread from the Hottentots to the Herero. The Anglo-Boer War had then
but recently ended, and in Germany generally, and especially in military
circles, it had provoked much adverse criticism on the inability of the
British to bring the contest to a speedier conclusion. To their surprise
the Germans now found that, against an inferior foe operating in a more
restricted area, they were unable to do as well as the British army had
done. The story of the war is told elsewhere (see GERMAN SOUTH-WEST
AFRICA); it lasted well into 1908 and the Germans were indebted to the
Cape Mounted Police for material help in bringing it to an end. As it
progressed the Germans adopted many of the methods employed by the
British in their colonial wars, and they learned to appreciate more
accurately the immensity of the task which Lord Kitchener accomplished
in overcoming the guerrilla warfare in the Boer republics.

  Enlarged industrial policy.

It was obviously little use acquiring colonies and creating manufactures
if German foreign trade was to be in the hands of other nations. As
early as 1881 the government had published a proposal for a subvention
to German shipping; it was criticized with peculiar energy by Bamberger
and the Free Traders; a Bill introduced in 1884 was abandoned, but in
1885 Bismarck succeeded in carrying a vote by which, for fifteen years,
four million marks could annually be devoted to helping a line of mail
steamers to the Pacific and Australia and a branch line in the
Mediterranean. An agreement was made with the Norddeutsche Lloyd, one
clause of which was that all the new steamers were to be built in
Germany; in 1890 a further vote was passed for a line to Delagoa Bay and
Zanzibar. This far from exhausts the external activity of the nation and
the government: the establishment of studentships for the study of
oriental languages enabled Germans to make their way in the Turkish and
Persian empires, and to open up a fresh market for German goods; by the
great excavations at Pergamum and Olympia Germany entered with great
distinction on a field in which the way had been shown by France and
Great Britain. The progress of technical studies and industrial
enterprise enabled Germany to take a leading place in railway and
shipbuilding, in the manufacture of military weapons, in chemical
experiments, and in electrical work.

  Social reforms.

  Christian socialism.

It was a part of the new policy not only to combat Social Democracy by
repression, but to win the confidence of the working men by extending to
them the direct protection of the state. Recent legislation, culminating
in the _Gewerbeordnung_ of 1869, had, in accordance with the principles
of the Liberal Economists, or, as the Germans called it, the Manchester
School, instituted freedom from state control in the relations between
employers and workmen. The old gilds had been destroyed, compulsory
apprenticeship had ceased; little protection, however, was given to the
working men, and the restrictions on the employment of women and
children were of little use, as there was no efficient system of factory
inspection. It was difficult for the men by their own exertions to
improve their condition, for the masters had full liberty of
association, which the law refused to the workmen. Even before 1870 a
protest was raised against this system among the Roman Catholics, who
were chiefly concerned for the preservation of family life, which was
threatened by the growth of the factory system and also by the teaching
of the Social Democrats. Baron von Ketteler, archbishop of Mainz, had
maintained that it was the duty of the state to secure working men work
and provision during sickness and old age. The general interest of the
Church in the social question was recognized by a congress of the
bishops at Fulda. Ketteler's work was continued by Canon Moufang, and
Catholics brought forward motions in the Reichstag demanding new factory
legislation. The peculiar importance of the Catholic movement is that it
alone was able to some extent to meet the Socialists on their own
ground. The Catholics formed societies which were joined by large
numbers of workmen. Originated by Father Kolping on the Rhine, they soon
spread over the whole of Catholic Germany. Herr von Schorlemer-Ast, a
Catholic landed proprietor from Westphalia, formed similar associations
among the peasants. The result of this has been that the Social
Democrats have failed to conquer the Catholic as they have the
Protestant districts. A similar movement began among the Protestants
after the commercial crisis of 1873, which forms an epoch in German
thought, since it was from that year that men first began to question
the economic doctrines of Liberalism, and drew attention to the
demoralization which seemed to arise from the freedom of speculation and
the influence of the stock exchange--a movement which in later years led
to some remarkable attempts to remedy the evil by legislation. A
minister, Rudolph Todt, and Rudolph Meyer criticized the moral and
economic doctrines of Liberalism; his writings led to the foundation of
the _Christlich-Soziale-Arbeiterverein_, which for a few years attained
considerable notoriety under the leadership of Adolph Stöcker. The
Protestant movement has not succeeded in attaining the same position as
has the Catholic among the working men; but it received considerable
support among the influential classes at court, and part of the
programme was adopted by the Conservative party, which in 1876 demanded
restriction of industrial liberty and legislation which would prevent
the ruin of the independent artizans.

In a country where learned opinion has so much influence on public
affairs it was of especial importance that several of the younger
teachers separated themselves from the dominant Manchester School and
asserted the duty of the state actively to promote the well-being of the
working classes. At a congress held in Erfurt in 1873, Schmoller,
Wagner, Brentano and others founded the _Verein für Sozial-Politik_,
which by its publications has had much influence on German thought.


The peculiar social conditions brought it about that in many cases the
Christian Social movement took the form of Anti-Semitism (q.v.). Nearly
all the bankers and stockbrokers in Germany were Jews. Many of the
leaders of the Liberal parties, e.g. Bamberger and Lasker, were of
Jewish origin; the doctrines of Liberalism were supported by papers
owned and edited by Jews; hence the wish to restore more fully the
avowedly Christian character of the state, coinciding with the attack on
the influence of finance, which owed so much to the Liberal economic
doctrines, easily degenerated into attacks on the Jews. The leader in
this was Stöcker. During the years 1879 to 1881 the anti-Semite
agitation gained considerable importance in Berlin, Breslau and other
Prussian cities, and it culminated in the elections of that year,
leading in some cases to riots and acts of violence.

So long as the government was under the influence of the National
Liberals, it was indifferent, if not hostile to these movements. The
Peasants' Union had actually been forbidden by the police; Bismarck
himself was violently attacked for his reputed connexion with a great
Jewish firm of bankers. He had, however, kept himself informed regarding
these movements, chiefly by means of Hermann Wagener, an old editor of
the _Kreuzzeitung_, and in the year 1878 he felt himself free to return
in this matter to his older opinions. The new policy suggested in that
year was definitely announced at the opening of the session in the
spring of 1881, and at the meeting of the new Reichstag in November
1881. It was explained in a speech from the throne, which, as the
emperor could not be present, became an imperial message. This is
generally spoken of as the beginning of a new era. The help of the
Reichstag was asked for "healing social evils by means of legislation
... based on the moral foundation of Christianity." Compulsory
insurance, the creation of corporate unions among working men under the
protection of the state, and the introduction of indirect taxes, were
the chief elements in the reform.

The condition of parties was such that Bismarck could not hope to win a
majority for his schemes, especially as he could not obtain the monopoly
on tobacco on which he depended to cover the expense. The first reform
was the restoration of the gilds, to which the Conservatives attached
great importance. Since 1869 they continued to exist only as voluntary
associations with no public duties; many had been dissolved, and this is
said to have brought about bad results in the management of
lodging-houses, the condition of apprentices, support during illness,
and the maintenance of labour bureaus. It was supposed that, if they
could be restored, the corporate spirit would prevent the working men
from falling under the influence of the Socialists. The law of 1881,
while it left membership voluntary, gave to them many duties of a
semi-public nature, especially that of arbitration between masters and
men. These were extended by a further law in 1884.

  Compulsory insurance.

The really important element was the scheme for a great imperial system
by which all working men and women should be provided for in case of
sickness, accident or old age. Bismarck hoped by this to relieve the
parishes of the burden of the poor-rate, which would be transferred to
the empire; at the same time the power of the government would be
greatly extended. The first proposal in March 1881 was for compulsory
insurance against accidents. Every one employed on railways, mines and
factories was to be insured in an imperial office; the premium was to be
divided equally between masters, workmen and the state. It was bitterly
opposed by the Liberals, especially by Bamberger; all essential features
were altered by the Reichstag, and it was withdrawn by the government
after it had passed the third reading.

In 1882 a fresh scheme was laid before the newly elected Reichstag
dealing with insurance against accident and against sickness. The two
parts were separated by the Reichstag; the second, which was the
necessary prelude to the other, was passed in 1883. The law was based on
an old Prussian principle; insurance was made compulsory, but the state,
instead of doing the work itself, recognized the existing friendly and
other societies; they were still to enjoy their corporate existence and
separate administration, but they were placed under state control, and
for this purpose an imperial insurance department was created in the
office of the secretary of state for the interior. Uniform regulations
were to be followed in all trades and districts; one-third of the
premium was paid by the employer, two-thirds by the workmen.

The Accident Law of 1883 was rejected, for it still included the state
contribution to which the Reichstag would not assent, and also
contributions from the workmen. A new law, drafted according to their
wishes, was passed in 1884. It applied only to those occupations, mines
and factories, in which the use of machinery was common; it threw the
whole burden of compensation on to the masters; but, on the other hand,
for the first thirteen weeks after an accident the injured workman
received compensation from the sick fund, so that the cost only fell on
the masters in the more serious cases. The masters were compelled to
insure themselves against the payments for which they might become
liable, and for this purpose had to form trades associations,
self-governing societies, which in each district included all the
masters for each particular trade. The application of this law was
subsequently extended to other trades. It was not till 1889 that the
greatest innovation, that of insurance against old age, was carried. The
obligation to insure rested on all who were in receipt of wages of not
more than two pounds a week. Half the premium, according to the wages
received, was paid by the master. The pension began at the age of
seventy, the amount varying by very complicated rules, but the state
paid a fixed sum of two pounds ten shillings annually in addition to the
pension. These measures worked well. They were regarded with
satisfaction by masters and men alike. Alterations have been made in
detail, and further alterations demanded, but the laws have established
themselves in practice. The large amount of self-administration has
prevented an undue increase of bureaucratic power. The co-operation of
masters and men in the administration of the societies has a good effect
on the relations of the classes.

Except in the matter of insurance, the total result, however, for the
moment was small. The demands repeatedly made by the Centre and the
Conservatives for effective factory legislation and prohibition of
Sunday labour were not successful. Bismarck did not wish to lay heavier
burdens on the capitalists, and it was not till a later period that they
were carried out.

  Foreign affairs: the Triple Alliance.

During all this period Bismarck's authority was so great, that in the
conduct of foreign affairs he was freed from the criticism and
opposition which so often hampered him in his internal policy, and he
was able to establish that system of alliances on which for so many
years the political system of Europe depended. The close union of the
three empires which had existed since the meeting of the emperors in
1872 did not survive the outbreak of disturbances in the East. Bismarck
had maintained an attitude of neutrality, but after the congress of
Berlin he found himself placed between the alternatives of friendship
with Austria or Russia. Movements of Russian troops on the western
frontier threatened Austria, and the tsar, in a letter to the German
emperor, stated that peace could only be maintained if Germany gave her
support to Russia. Bismarck, now that the choice was forced upon him,
determined in favour of Austria, and during a visit to Vienna in
October, arranged with Count Andrássy an alliance by which in the event
of either being attacked by Russia the other was to assist; if either
was attacked by any power other than Russia, the other was to preserve
benevolent neutrality unless the attacking power was helped by Russia.
The effect of this was to protect Austria from attack by Russia, and
Germany from the danger of a combined attack by France and Russia.
Bismarck with some difficulty procured the consent of the emperor, who
by arranging a meeting with the tsar had attempted to preserve the old
friendship. From that time the alliance with Austria has continued. In
1883 it was joined by Italy, and was renewed in 1887, and in 1891 for
six years, and if not then denounced, for twelve.

In 1882, after the retirement of Gorchakov, the relations with Russia
again improved. In 1884 there was a meeting of the three emperors, and
at the same time Bismarck came to a close understanding with France on
colonial questions. The period of quiet did not last long. The disaster
in Tongking brought about a change of ministry in France, and Bulgarian
affairs again alienated Austria and Russia. Bismarck with great skill
used the growing foreign complications as a means of freeing himself
from parliamentary difficulties at the same time that he secured the
position of Germany in Europe.

  Elections of 1887.

To meet the increase in the French army, and the open menaces in which
the Russian press indulged, a further increase in the German army seemed
desirable. The Septennate would expire in 1888. In the autumn of 1886 a
proposal was laid before the Reichstag to increase the peace
establishment for the next seven years to 468,409 men. The Reichstag
would not assent to this, but the opposition parties offered to vote the
required increase for three years. Bismarck refused to accept this
compromise, and the Reichstag was dissolved. Under his influence the
Conservatives and National Liberals formed a coalition or _Cartel_ by
which each agreed to support the candidates of the other. The elections
caused greater excitement than any which had taken place since 1870.
The numbers who went to the poll were much larger, and all the
opposition parties, except the Catholics, including even the Socialists,
suffered severe loss. Bismarck, in order to win the support of the
Centre, appealed directly to the pope, but Windthorst took the
responsibility of refusing to obey the pope's request on a matter purely
political. The National Liberals again became a government party, but
their position was much changed. They were no longer, as in the old
days, the leading factor. They had to take the second place. They were
subordinate to the Conservatives. They could no longer impose their will
upon the government. In the new parliament the government proposals were
accepted by a majority of 223 to 48 (seven members of the Centre voted
for it, the others abstained). The opposition consisted chiefly of
Socialists and Radicals (_Freisinnigen_).

  Relations with Russia.

The fall of Boulanger removed the immediate danger from France, but for
the rest of the year the relations with Russia caused serious
apprehensions. Anti-German articles appeared in Russian newspapers. The
growth of the Nationalist party in Russia led to measures injurious to
German trade and German settlers in Russia. German vessels were
forbidden to trade on the Niemen. The increase of the duties on iron
injured German trade. Stringent measures were taken to stamp out German
nationality in the Baltic provinces, similar to those used by the
Germans against the Poles. Foreigners were forbidden to hold land in
Russia. The German government retaliated by a decree of the Reichsbank
refusing to deal with Russian paper. Large accumulations of troops on
the western frontier excited alarm in Germany and Austria. During a
short visit paid by the emperor of Russia to Berlin in November Bismarck
discovered that forged despatches misrepresenting the policy of Germany
in the Eastern Question had been communicated to him. This did not seem
to remove all danger, and in February 1888 the government introduced an
amendment to the imperial Military Law extending the obligation for
service from twelve to eighteen years. In this way it was possible to
increase the war establishment, excluding the Landsturm, by about half a
million men without adding to the burden in time of peace. Another law
authorized a loan of £14,000,000 for military equipment. At the same
time the text of the Triple Alliance was published. The two laws were
adopted without opposition. Under the effect of one of Bismarck's
speeches, the Military Bill was unanimously passed almost without

  Secret treaty with Russia.

It was probably at the meeting of 1884 that a secret treaty, the
existence of which was not known for many years, was arranged between
Germany and Russia. The full text has never been published, and the
exact date is uncertain. Either state pledged itself to observe
benevolent neutrality in case the other were attacked by a third power.
Apparently the case of an attack by France on Germany, or by Austria on
Russia, was expressly mentioned. The treaty lapsed in 1890, and owing to
Bismarck's dismissal was not renewed. Caprivi refused to renew it
because it was doubtful whether by increasing the number of treaties the
value of them was not diminished. Under this system it was to be
apprehended that if war broke out between Austria and Russia, Austria
would claim the support of Germany under the Triple Alliance, Russia
neutrality under this treaty. The decision of Germany would
theoretically have to depend on the question which party was the
aggressor--a question which notoriously is hardly ever capable of an
answer. (For this treaty see the debate in the Reichstag of the 16th of
November 1896; the _Hamburger Nachrichten_ of 24th October in the same
year; and Schulthess, _Europäisches Geschichtskalendar_, 1896.)

  Reign of Frederick III.

The emperor William died on the 9th of March 1888. He was succeeded by
his son, who took the title of Frederick III. In Italy the older title
of king of Piedmont has been absorbed in the newer kingdom of Italy;
this is not the case in Germany, where the title German emperor is
merely attached to and not substituted for that of king of Prussia. The
events of this short reign, which lasted only ninety-nine days, have
chiefly a personal interest, and are narrated under the articles
FREDERICK III. and BISMARCK. The illness and death of the emperor,
however, destroyed the last hope of the Liberals that they might at
length succeed to power. For a generation they had waited for his
accession, and bitter was their disappointment, for it was known that
his son was more inclined to follow the principles of Bismarck than
those of his own father. The emperor, crippled and dying though he was,
showed clearly how great a change he would, had he lived, have
introduced in the spirit of the government. One of his first acts was
severely to reprimand Puttkammer for misusing government influence at
elections. The minister sent in his resignation, which was accepted, and
this practice, which had been deliberately revived during the last ten
years, was thereby publicly disavowed. Bismarck's own position would
naturally have been seriously affected by the fall of a colleague with
whom he was closely connected, and another point of internal policy
showed also how numerous were the differences between the chancellor and
the emperor. Laws had been passed prolonging the period of both the
Prussian and Imperial parliaments from three to five years; when they
were laid before the emperor for his signature he said that he must
consider them. Bismarck then pointed out that the constitution of the
empire did not authorize the emperor to withhold his assent from a law
which had passed both the Reichstag and the Bundesrat; he could as king
of Prussia oppose it by his representatives in the federal council, but
when it had been accepted there, it was his duty as emperor to put the
law into execution. The emperor accepted this exposition of the
constitution, and after some delay eventually gave his consent also to
the Prussian law, which he was qualified to reject.

  William II.

He was succeeded by his eldest son, William II. (q.v.). The first year
of the new reign was uneventful. In his public speeches the emperor
repeatedly expressed his reverence for the memory of his grandfather,
and his determination to continue his policy; but he also repudiated the
attempt of the extreme Conservatives to identify him with their party.
He spent much time on journeys, visiting the chief courts of Europe, and
he seemed to desire to preserve close friendship with other nations,
especially with Russia and Great Britain. Changes were made in the
higher posts of the army and civil service, and Moltke resigned the
office of chief of the staff, which for thirty years he had held with
such great distinction.

  Fall of Bismarck.

The beginning of the year 1890 brought a decisive event. The period of
the Reichstag elected in 1887 expired, and the new elections, the first
for a quinquennial period, would take place. The chief matter for
decision was the fate of the Socialist law; this expired on the 30th of
September 1890. The government at the end of 1889 introduced a new law,
which was altered in some minor matters, and which was to be permanent.
The Conservatives were prepared to vote for it; the Radicals and Centre
opposed it; the decision rested with the National Liberals, and they
were willing to accept it on condition that the clause was omitted which
allowed the state governments to exclude individuals from districts in
which the state of siege had been proclaimed. The final division took
place on the 25th of February 1890. An amendment had been carried
omitting this clause, and the National Liberals therefore voted for the
bill in its amended form. The Conservatives were ready to vote as the
government wished; if Bismarck was content with the amended bill, they
would vote for it, and it would be carried; no instructions were sent to
the party; they therefore voted against the bill, and it was lost. The
House was immediately dissolved. It was to have been expected that, as
in 1878, the government would appeal to the country to return a
Conservative majority willing to vote for a strong law against the
Socialists. Instead of this, the emperor, who was much interested in
social reform, published two proclamations. In one addressed to the
chancellor he declared his intention, as emperor, of bettering the lot
of the working classes; for this purpose he proposed to call an
international congress to consider the possibility of meeting the
requirements and wishes of the working men; in the other, which he
issued as king of Prussia, he declared that the regulation of the time
and conditions of labour was the duty of the state, and the council of
state was to be summoned to discuss this and kindred questions.
Bismarck, who was less hopeful than the emperor, and did not approve of
this policy, was thereby prevented from influencing the elections as he
would have wished to do; the coalition parties, in consequence, suffered
severe loss; Socialists, Centre and Radicals gained numerous seats. A
few days after the election Bismarck was dismissed from office. The
difference of opinion between him and the emperor was not confined to
social reform; beyond this was the more serious question as to whether
the chancellor or the emperor was to direct the course of the
government. The emperor, who, as Bismarck said, intended to be his own
chancellor, required Bismarck to draw up a decree reversing a cabinet
order of Frederick William IV., which gave the Prussian
minister-president the right of being the sole means of communication
between the other ministers and the king. This Bismarck refused to do,
and he was therefore ordered to send in his resignation.

  Chancellorship of Count von Caprivi.

Among those more immediately connected with the government his fall was
accompanied by a feeling of relief which was not confined to the
Opposition, for the burden of his rule had pressed heavily upon all.
There was, however, no change in the principles of government or avowed
change in policy; some uncertainty of direction and sudden oscillations
of policy showed the presence of a less experienced hand. Bismarck's
successor, General von Caprivi, held a similar combination of offices,
but the chief control passed now into the hands of the emperor himself.
He aspired by his own will to direct the policy of the state; he put
aside the reserve which in modern times is generally observed even by
absolute rulers, and by his public speeches and personal influence took
a part in political controversy. He made very evident the monarchical
character of the Prussian state, and gave to the office of emperor a
prominence greater than it had hitherto had.

One result of this was that it became increasingly difficult in
political discussions to avoid criticizing the words and actions of the
emperor. Prosecutions for _lèse-majesté_ became commoner than they were
in former reigns, and the difficulty was much felt in the conduct of
parliamentary debate. The rule adopted was that discussion was permitted
on those speeches of the emperor which were officially published in the
_Reichsanzeiger_. It was, indeed, not easy to combine that respect and
reverence which the emperor required should be paid to him, with that
open criticism of his words which seemed necessary (even for
self-defence) when the monarch condescended to become the censor of the
opinions and actions of large parties and classes among his subjects.
The attempts to combine personal government with representative
institutions was one of much interest; it was more successful than might
have been anticipated, owing to the disorganization of political parties
and the absence of great political leaders; in Germany, as elsewhere,
the parliaments had not succeeded in maintaining public interest, and it
is worth noting that even the attendance of members was very irregular.
There was below the surface much discontent and subdued criticism of the
exaggeration of the monarchical power, which the Germans called
_Byzantinismus_; but after all the nation seemed to welcome the
government of the emperor, as it did that of Bismarck. The uneasiness
which was caused at first by the unwonted vigour of his utterances
subsided, as it became apparent how strong was his influence for peace,
and with how many-sided an activity he supported and encouraged every
side of national life. Another result of the personal government by the
emperor was that it was impossible, in dealing with recent history, to
determine how far the ministers of state were really responsible for the
measures which they defended, and how far they were the instruments and
mouthpieces of the policy of the emperor.

  Factory laws.

The first efforts of the "New course," as the new administration was
termed, showed some attempt to reconcile to the government those parties
and persons whom Bismarck had kept in opposition. The continuation of
social reform was to win over the allegiance of the working men to the
person of the emperor; an attempt was made to reconcile the Guelphs,
and even the Poles were taken into favour; Windthorst was treated with
marked distinction. The Radicals alone, owing to their ill-timed
criticism on the private relations of the imperial family, and their
continued opposition to the army, were excluded. The attempt, however,
to unite and please all parties failed, as did the similar attempt in
foreign policy. Naturally enough, it was social reform on which at first
activity was concentrated, and the long-delayed factory legislation was
now carried out. In 1887 and 1888 the Clerical and Conservative majority
had carried through the Reichstag laws restricting the employment of
women and children and prohibiting labour on Sundays. These were not
accepted by the Bundesrat, but after the International Congress of 1890
an important amendment and addition to the _Gewerbeordnung_ was carried
to this effect. It was of even greater importance that a full system of
factory inspection was created. A further provision empowered the
Bundesrat to fix the hours of labour in unhealthy trades; this was
applied to the bakeries by an edict of 1895, but the great outcry which
this caused prevented any further extension.

  Progress of Socialism.

These acts were, however, accompanied by language of great decision
against the Social Democrats, especially on the occasion of a great
strike in Westphalia, when the emperor warned the men that for him every
Social Democrat was an enemy to the empire and country. None the less,
all attempts to win the working men from the doctrinaire Socialists
failed. They continued to look on the whole machinery of government,
emperor and army, church and police, as their natural enemies, and
remained completely under the bondage of the abstract theories of the
Socialists, just as much as fifty years ago the German bourgeois were
controlled by the Liberal theories. It is strange to see how the
national characteristics appeared in them. What began as a great
revolutionary movement became a dogmatic and academic school of thought;
it often almost seemed as though the orthodox interpretation of Marx's
doctrine was of more importance than an improvement in the condition of
the working men, and the discussions in the annual Socialist Congress
resembled the arguments of theologians rather than the practical
considerations of politicians. The party, however, prospered, and grew
in strength beyond all anticipation. The repeal of the Socialist law was
naturally welcome to them as a great personal triumph over Bismarck; in
the elections of 1890 they won thirty-five, in 1893 forty-four, in 1898
fifty-six seats. Their influence was not confined to the artisans; among
their open or secret adherents were to be found large numbers of
government employés and clerks. In the autumn of 1890 they were able,
for the first time, to hold in Germany a general meeting of delegates,
which was continued annually. In the first meetings it appeared that
there were strong opposing tendencies within the party which for the
first time could be brought to public discussion. On the one side there
was a small party, _die Jungen_, in Berlin, who attacked the
parliamentary leaders on the ground that they had lent themselves to
compromise and had not maintained the old _intransigeant_ spirit. In
1891, at Erfurt, Werner and his followers were expelled from the party;
some of them drifted into anarchism, others disappeared. On the other
hand, there was a large section, the leader of whom was Herr von
Vollmar, who maintained that the social revolution would not come
suddenly, as Bebel and the older leaders had taught, but that it would
be a gradual evolution; they were willing to co-operate with the
government in remedial measures by which, within the existing social
order, the prosperity and freedom of the working classes might be
advanced; their position was very strong, as Vollmar had succeeded in
extending Socialism even in the Catholic parts of Bavaria. An attempt to
treat them as not genuine Socialists was frustrated, and they continued
in co-operation with the other branch of the party. Their position would
have been easier were it not for the repeated attempts of the Prussian
government to crush the party by fresh legislation and the supervision
exercised by the police. It was a sign of most serious import for the
future that in 1897 the electoral law in the kingdom of Saxony was
altered with the express purpose of excluding the Socialists from the
Saxon Landtag. This and other symptoms caused serious apprehension that
some attempt might be made to alter the law of universal suffrage for
the Reichstag, and it was policy of this kind which maintained and
justified the profound distrust of the governing classes and the class
hatred on which Social democracy depends. On the other hand, there were
signs of a greater willingness among the Socialists to co-operate with
their old enemies the Liberals.

  Military legislation.

In foreign affairs a good understanding with Great Britain was
maintained, but the emperor failed at that time to preserve the
friendship of Russia. The close understanding between France and Russia,
and the constant increase in the armies of these states, made a still
further increase of the German army desirable. In 1890, while the
Septennate had still three more years to run, Caprivi had to ask for an
additional 20,000 men. It was the first time that an increase of this
kind had been necessary within the regular period. When, in 1893, the
proposals for the new period were made, they formed a great change.
Compulsory service was to be made a reality; no one except those
absolutely unfit was to escape it. To make enlistment of so large an
additional number of recruits possible, the period of service with the
colours was reduced to two years. The parliamentary discussion was very
confused; the government eventually accepted an amendment giving them
557,093 for five and a half years instead of the 570,877 asked for; this
was rejected by 210 to 162, the greater part of the Centre and of the
Radicals voting against it. Parliament was at once dissolved. Before the
elections the Radical party broke up, as about twenty of them determined
to accept the compromise. They took the name of the _Freisinnige
Vereinigung_, the others who remained under the leadership of Richter
forming the _Freisinnige Volkspartei_. The natural result of this split
was a great loss to the party. The Liberal opposition secured only
twenty-three seats instead of the sixty-seven they had held before. It
was, so far as now can be foreseen, the final collapse of the old
Radical party. Notwithstanding this the bill was only carried by sixteen
votes, and it would have been thrown out again had not the Poles for the
first time voted for the government, since the whole of the Centre voted
in opposition.

This vote was a sign of the increasing disorganization of parties and of
growing parliamentary difficulties which were even more apparent in the
Prussian Landtag. Miquel, as minister of finance, succeeded indeed in
carrying a reform by which the proceeds of the tax on land and buildings
were transferred to the local government authorities, and the loss to
the state exchequer made up by increased taxation of larger incomes and
industry. The series of measures which began in 1891, and were completed
in 1895, won a more general approbation than is usual, and Miquel in
this successfully carried out his policy of reconciling the growing
jealousies arising from class interests.

  Commercial treaties.

Caprivi's administration was further remarkable for the arrangement of
commercial treaties. In 1892 treaties with Austria-Hungary, Italy,
Belgium and Switzerland for twelve years bound together the greater part
of the continent, and opened a wide market for German manufactures; the
idea of this policy was to secure, by a more permanent union of the
middle European states, a stable market for the goods which were being
excluded owing to the great growth of Protection in France, Russia and
America. These were followed by similar treaties with Rumania and
Servia, and in 1894, after a period of sharp customs warfare, with
Russia. In all these treaties the general principle was a reduction of
the import duties on corn in return for advantages given to German
manufactures, and it is this which brought about the struggle of the
government with the Agrarians which after 1894 took the first place in
party politics.


The agricultural interests in Germany had during the middle of the 19th
century been in favour of Free Trade. The reason of this was that, till
some years after the foundation of the empire, the production of corn
and food-stuffs was more than sufficient for the population; as long as
they exported corn, potatoes and cattle, they required no protection
from foreign competition, and they enjoyed the advantages of being able
to purchase colonial goods and manufactured articles cheaply.
Mecklenburg and Hanover, the purely agricultural states, had, until
their entrance into the Customs Union, followed a completely Free Trade
policy. The first union of the Agrarian party, which was formed in 1876
under the name of the Society for the Reform of Taxation, did not place
protection on their programme; they laid stress on bimetallism, on the
reform of internal taxation, especially of the tax on land and
buildings, and on the reform of the railway tariff, and demanded an
increase in the stamp duties. These last three points were all to some
extent attained. About this time, however, the introduction of cheap
corn from Russia began to threaten them, and it was in 1879 that,
probably to a great extent influenced by Bismarck, they are first to be
found among those who ask for protection.

After that time there was a great increase in the importation of
food-stuffs from America. The increase of manufactures and the rapid
growth of the population made the introduction of cheap food from abroad
a necessity. In the youth of the empire the amount of corn grown in
Germany was sufficient for the needs of its inhabitants; the amount
consumed in 1899 exceeded the amount produced by about one-quarter of
the total. At the same time the price, making allowance for the
fluctuations owing to bad harvests, steadily decreased, notwithstanding
the duty on corn. In twenty years the average price fell from about 235
to 135 marks the 1000 kilo. There was therefore a constant decrease in
the income from land, and this took place at a time when the great
growth of wealth among the industrial classes had made living more
costly. The agriculturists of the north and east saw themselves and
their class threatened with loss, and perhaps ruin; their discontent,
which had long been growing, broke out into open fire during the
discussion of the commercial treaties. As these would inevitably bring
about a large increase in the importation of corn from Rumania and
Russia, a great agitation was begun in agricultural circles, and the
whole influence of the Conservative party was opposed to the treaties.
This brought about a curious situation, the measures being only carried
by the support of the Centre, the Radicals, and the Socialists, against
the violent opposition of those classes, especially the landowners in
Prussia, who had hitherto been the supporters of the government. In
order to prevent the commercial treaty with Russia, a great agricultural
league was founded in 1893, the _Bund der Landwirte_; some 7000
landowners joined it immediately. Two days later the Peasants' League,
or _Deutsche Bauernbund_, which had been founded in 1885 and included
some 44,000 members, chiefly from the smaller proprietors in Pomerania,
Posen, Saxony and Thuringia, merged itself in the new league. This
afterwards gained very great proportions. It became, with the Social
Democrats, the most influential society which had been founded in
Germany for defending the interests of a particular class; it soon
numbered more than 200,000 members, including landed proprietors of all
degrees. Under its influence a parliamentary union, the
_Wirtschaftsvereinigung_, was founded to ensure proper consideration for
agricultural affairs; it was joined by more than 100 members of the
Reichstag; and the Conservative party fell more and more under the
influence of the Agrarians.

Having failed to prevent the commercial treaties, Count Kanitz
introduced a motion that the state should have a monopoly of all
imported corn, and that the price at which it was to be sold should be
fixed by law. On the first occasion, in 1894, only fifty members were
found to vote for this, but in the next year ninety-seven supported the
introduction of the motion, and it was considered worth while to call
together the Prussian council of state for a special discussion. The
whole agitation was extremely inconvenient to the government. The
violence with which it was conducted, coming, as it did, from the
highest circles of the Prussian nobility, appeared almost an imitation
of Socialist methods; but the emperor, with his wonted energy,
personally rebuked the leaders, and warned them that the opposition of
Prussian nobles to their king was a monstrosity. Nevertheless they were
able to overthrow the chancellor, who was specially obnoxious to them.
In October 1894 he was dismissed suddenly, without warning, and almost
without cause, while the emperor was on a visit to the Eulenburgs, one
of the most influential families of the Prussian nobility.

  Fall of Caprivi.

Caprivi's fall, though it was occasioned by a difference between him and
Count Eulenburg, and was due to the direct act of the emperor, was
rendered easier by the weakness of his parliamentary position. There was
no party on whose help he could really depend. The Military Bill had
offended the prejudices of conservative military critics; the British
treaty had alienated the colonial party; the commercial treaties had
only been carried by the help of Poles, Radicals and Socialists; but it
was just these parties who were the most easily offended by the general
tendencies of the internal legislation, as shown in the Prussian School
Bill. Moreover, the bitter and unscrupulous attacks of the Bismarckian
press to which Caprivi was exposed made him unpopular in the country,
for the people could not feel at ease so long as they were governed by a
minister of whom Bismarck disapproved. There was therefore no prospect
of forming anything like a stable coalition of parties on which he could

  Chancellor Prince v. Hohenlohe.

The emperor was fortunate in securing as his successor Prince Chlodwig
von Hohenlohe. Though the new chancellor once more united with this
office that of Prussian minister-president, his age, and perhaps also
his character, prevented him from exercising that constant activity and
vigilance which his two predecessors had displayed. During his
administration even the secretary of state for foreign affairs, Baron
Marschall von Bieberstein, and afterwards Count von Bülow, became the
ordinary spokesman of the government, and in the management of other
departments the want of a strong hand at the head of affairs was often
missed. Between the emperor, with whom the final direction of policy
rested, and his subordinates, the chancellor often appeared to evade
public notice. The very first act of the new chancellor brought upon him
a severe rebuff. At the opening of the new buildings which had been
erected in Berlin for the Reichstag, cheers were called for the emperor.
Some of the Socialist members remained seated. It was not clear that
their action was deliberate, but none the less the chancellor himself
came down to ask from the House permission to bring a charge of
_lèse-majesté_ against them, a request which was, of course, almost
unanimously refused.

The Agrarians still maintained their prominent position in Prussia. They
opposed all bills which would appear directly or indirectly to injure
agricultural interests. They looked with suspicion on the naval policy
of the emperor, for they disliked all that helps industry and commerce.
They would only give their support to the Navy Bills of 1897 and 1900 in
return for large concessions limiting the importation of margarine and
American preserved meat, and the removal of the _Indemnitäts Nachweis_
acted as a kind of bounty on the export of corn. They successfully
opposed the construction of the great canal from Westphalia to the Elbe,
on the ground that it would facilitate the importation of foreign corn.
They refused to accept all the compromises which Miquel, who was very
sympathetic towards them, suggested, and thereby brought about his
retirement in May 1901.

The opposition of the Agrarians was for many reasons peculiarly
embarrassing. The franchise by which the Prussian parliament is elected
gave the Conservatives whom they controlled a predominant position. Any
alteration of the franchise was, however, out of the question, for that
would admit the Socialists. It was, moreover, the tradition of the
Prussian court and the Prussian government (and it must be remembered
that the imperial government is inspired by Prussian traditions) that
the nobility and peasants were in a peculiar way the support of the
crown and the state. The old distrust of the towns, of manufacturers and
artisans, still continued. The preservation of a peasant class was
considered necessary in the interests of the army. Besides, intellectual
and social prejudices required a strong Conservative party. In the south
and west of Germany, however, the Conservative party was practically
non-existent. In these parts, owing to the changes introduced at the
revolution, the nobility, who hold little land, are, comparatively
speaking, without political importance. In the Catholic districts the
Centre had become absolutely master, except so far as the Socialists
threaten their position. Those of the great industrialists who belonged
to the National Liberals or the Moderate Conservatives did not command
that influence which men of their class generally hold in Great Britain,
because the influence of Social Democracy banded together the whole of
the working men in a solid phalanx of irreconcilable opposition, the
very first principle of which was the hostility of classes. The
government, therefore, were compelled to turn for support to the Centre
and the Conservatives, the latter being almost completely under the
influence of the old Prussian nobility from the north-east. But every
attempt to carry out the policy supported by these parties aroused an
opposition most embarrassing to the government.

  Exchange regulations.

The Conservatives distrusted the financial activity which centred round
the Exchanges of Berlin and other towns, and in this they had the
sympathy of Agrarians and Anti-Semites, as well as of the Centre. The
Agrarians believed that the Berlin Exchange was partly responsible for
the fall of prices in corn; the Anti-Semites laid stress on the fact
that many of the financiers were of Jewish extraction; the Centre feared
the moral effects of speculation. This opposition was shown in the
demand for additional duties on stamps (this was granted by Bismarck),
in the opposition to the renewal of the Bank Charter, and especially in
the new regulations for the Exchange which were carried in 1896. One
clause in this forbade the dealing in "futures" in corn, and at the same
time a special Prussian law required that there should be
representatives of agriculture on the managing committee of the
Exchange. The members of the Exchanges in Berlin and other towns refused
to accept this law. When it came into effect they withdrew and tried to
establish a private Exchange. This was prevented, and after two years
they were compelled to submit and the Berlin Bourse was again opened.

  Political bargaining.

Political parties now came to represent interests rather than
principles. The government, in order to pass its measures, was obliged
to purchase the votes by class legislation, and it bought those with
whom it could make the best bargain--these being generally the Centre,
as the ablest tacticians, and the Conservatives, as having the highest
social position and being boldest in declaring their demands. No great
parliamentary leader took the place of Windthorst, Lasker and Bennigsen;
the extra-parliamentary societies, less responsible and more violent,
grew in influence. The Anti-Semites gained in numbers, though not in
reputation. The Conservatives, hoping to win votes, even adopted an
anti-Semite clause in their programme. The general tendency among the
numerous societies of Christian Socialism, which broke up almost as
quickly as they appeared, was to drift from the alliance with the
ultra-Conservatives and to adopt the economic and many of the political
doctrines of the Social Democrats. The _National-Sozialer Verein_
defended the union of Monarchy and Socialism. Meanwhile the extreme
spirit of nationality was fostered by the _All-deutscher Verein_, the
policy of which would quickly involve Germany in war with every other
nation. More than once the feelings to which they gave expression
endangered the relations of Germany and Austria-Hungary. The persecution
of the Poles in Prussia naturally aroused indignation in Austria, where
the Poles had for long been among the strongest elements on which the
government depended; and it was not always easy to prevent the agitation
on behalf of the Germans in Bohemia from assuming a dangerous aspect.

In the disintegration of parties the Liberals suffered most. The unity
of the Conservatives was preserved by social forces and the interests of
agriculture; the decay of the Liberals was the result of universal
suffrage. Originally the opponents of the landed interest and the
nobility, they were the party of the educated middle class, of the
learned, of the officials and finance. They never succeeded in winning
the support of the working men. They had identified themselves with the
interests of the capitalists, and were not even faithful to their own
principles. In the day of their power they showed themselves as
intolerant as their opponents had been. They resorted to the help of the
government in order to stamp out the opinions with which they disagreed,
and the claims of the artisans to practical equality were rejected by
them, as in earlier days the claims of the middle class had been by the

The Centre alone maintained itself. Obliged by their constitution to
regard equally the material interests of all classes--for they represent
rich and poor, peasants and artisans--they were the natural support of
the government when it attempted to find a compromise between the
clamour of opposing interests. Their own demands were generally limited
to the defence of order and religion, and to some extent coincided with
the wishes of the emperor; but every attempt to introduce legislation in
accordance with their wishes led to a conflict with the educated opinion
of the country, which was very detrimental to the authority of the
government. In the state parliaments of Bavaria, Baden and Hesse their
influence was very great. There was, moreover, a tendency for local
parties to gain in numbers and influence--the _Volkspartei_ in
Württemberg, the Anti-Semites in Hesse, and the _Bauernbund_ (Peasants'
League) in Bavaria. The last demanded that the peasants should be freed
from the payment to the state, which represented the purchase price for
the remission of feudal burdens. It soon lost ground, however, partly
owing to personal reasons, and partly because the Centre, in order to
maintain their influence among the peasants, adopted some features of
their programme.


Another class which, seeing itself in danger from the economic changes
in society, agitated for special legislation was the small retail
traders of the large towns. They demanded additional taxation on the
vast shops and stores, the growth of which in Berlin, Munich and other
towns seemed to threaten their interests. As the preservation of the
smaller middle class seemed to be important as a bulwark against
Socialism, they won the support of the Conservative and Clerical
parties, and laws inspired by them were passed in Bavaria, Württemberg
and Prussia. This _Mittelstand-Politik_, as it is called, was very
characteristic of the attitude of mind which was produced by the policy
of Protection. Every class appealed to the government for special laws
to protect itself against the effects of the economic changes which had
been brought about by the modern industrial system. Peasants and
landlords, artisans and tradesmen, each formed their own league for the
protection of their interests, and all looked to the state as the proper
guardian of their class interests.

  Moral and religious policy.


  Lex Heinze.

After the fall of Caprivi the tendency of the German government to revert
to a strong Conservative policy in matters of religion, education, and in
the treatment of political discussions became very marked. The complete
alienation of the working classes from Christianity caused much natural
concern, combined as it was with that indifference to religion which
marks the life of the educated classes in the large towns, and especially
in Berlin. A strong feeling arose that social and political dangers could
only be avoided by an increase in religious life, and the emperor gave
the authority of his name to a movement which produced numerous societies
for home mission work, and (at least in Berlin) led to the erection of
numerous churches. Unfortunately, this movement was too often connected
with political reaction, and the working classes were inclined to believe
that the growth of religion was valued because it afforded an additional
support to the social and political order. The situation was somewhat
similar to that which existed during the last years of Frederick William
IV., when the close association of religion with a Conservative policy
made orthodoxy so distasteful to large sections of society. The
government, which had not taken warning by the fate of the School Bill,
attempted to carry other measures of the same kind. The emperor had
returned to Bismarck's policy of joining social reform with repressive
legislation. In a speech at Königsberg in November 1894, he summoned the
nobles of Prussia to support him in the struggle for religion, for
morality, for order, against the parties of _Umsturz_, or Revolution,
and shortly afterwards an amendment of the Criminal Code, commonly called
the _Umsturz-Vorlage_, was introduced, containing provisions to check
attempts to undermine the loyalty of the soldiers, and making it a crime
punishable with three years' imprisonment to attack religion, monarchy,
marriage, the family or property by abusive expressions in such a manner
as to endanger public peace. The discussion of this measure occupied most
of the session of 1895; the bill was amended by the Centre so as to make
it even more strongly a measure for the defence of religion; and clauses
were introduced to defend public morality, by forbidding the public
exhibition of pictures or statues, or the sale of writings, which,
"without being actually obscene, might rudely offend the feeling of
modesty." These Clerical amendments aroused a strong feeling of
indignation. It was represented that the freedom of art and literature
was being endangered, and the government was obliged to withdraw the
bill. The tendency towards a stricter censorship was shown by a proposal
which was carried through the Prussian parliament for controlling the
instruction given at the universities by the _Privatdozenten_. Some of
the Conservative leaders, especially Baron von Stumm, the great
manufacturer (one of Bismarck's chief advisers on industrial matters),
demanded protection against the teaching of some of the professors with
whose economic doctrines they did not agree; pastors who took part in the
Christian-Social movement incurred the displeasure of the government; and
Professor Delbrück was summoned before a disciplinary court because, in
the _Preussische Jahrbücher_, which he edited, he had ventured to
criticize the policy of the Prussian government towards the Danes in
Schleswig. All the discontent and suspicion caused by this policy broke
out with greater intensity when a fresh attempt was made in 1900 to carry
those clauses of the old _Umsturz-Vorlage_ which dealt with offences
against public morality. The gross immoralities connected with
prostitution in Berlin had been disclosed in the case of a murderer
called Heinze in 1891; and a bill to strengthen the criminal law on the
subject was introduced but not carried. The measure continued, however,
to be discussed, and in 1900 the government proposed to incorporate with
this bill (which was known as the _Lex Heinze_) the articles from the
_Umsturz-Vorlage_ subjecting art and literature to the control of the
criminal law and police. The agitation was renewed with great energy. A
_Goethe-Verein_ was founded to protect _Kultur_, which seemed to be in
danger. In the end the obnoxious clauses were only withdrawn when the
Socialists used the forms of the House to prevent business from being
transacted. It was the first time that organized obstruction had appeared
in the Reichstag, and it was part of the irony of the situation that the
representatives of art and learning owed their victory to the Socialists,
whom they had so long attacked as the great enemies of modern

  Law of combination.

These were not the only cases in which the influence of the parties of
reaction caused much discontent. There was the question of the right of
combination. In nearly every state there still existed old laws
forbidding political societies to unite with one another. These laws had
been passed in the years immediately after the revolution of 1848, and
were quite out of place under modern conditions. The object of them was
to prevent a network of societies from being formed extending over large
districts, and so acquiring political power. In 1895 the Prussian police
used a law of 1850 as a pretext for dissolving the Socialist organization
in Berlin, as had been done twenty years before. A large majority of the
Reichstag demanded that an imperial law should be passed repealing these
laws and establishing the right of combination, and they refused to pass
the revised Civil Code until the chancellor promised that this should be
done. Instead of this course being adopted, however, special laws were
introduced in most of the states, which, especially in Prussia and
Saxony, while they gave the right of combination, increased the power of
the police to forbid assemblies and societies. It was apparent that large
and influential parties still regarded political meetings as something
in themselves dangerous and demoralizing, and hence the demand of the
Conservatives that women and young persons should be forbidden to attend.
In Prussia a majority of the Upper House and a very large minority of the
Lower House (193 to 206) voted for an amendment expressly empowering the
police to break up meetings in which anarchistic, socialistic or
communistic doctrines were defended in such a manner as to be dangerous
to society; the Saxon Conservatives demanded that women at least should
be forbidden to attend socialistic meetings, and it remained illegal for
any one under twenty-one years of age to be present at a political
meeting. In consequence of the amendments in the Upper House the Prussian
law was lost; and at last, in 1899, a short imperial law was carried to
the effect that "societies of every kind might enter into union with one
another." This was at once accepted by the chancellor; it was the time
when the Navy Bill was coming on, and it was necessary to win votes. The
general feeling of distrust which this prolonged controversy aroused was,
however, shown by the almost contemptuous rejection in 1899 of a Bill to
protect artisans who were willing to work against intimidation or
violence (the _Zuchthaus-Vorlage_), a vote which was the more significant
as it was not so much occasioned by the actual provisions of the bill,
but was an expression of the distrust felt for the motives by which the
government was moved and the reluctance to place any further powers in
their hands.


  The "mailed fist."

Meanwhile the emperor had set himself the task of doing for the German
fleet what his grandfather had done for the army. The acquisition of
Heligoland enabled a new naval station to be established off the mouth
of the Elbe; the completion of the canal from Kiel to the mouth of the
Elbe, by enabling ships of war to pass from the Baltic to the North Sea
greatly increased the strategic strength of the fleet. In 1890 a change
in the organization separated the command of the fleet from the office
of secretary of state, who was responsible for the representation of the
admiralty in the Reichstag, and the emperor was brought into more direct
connexion with the navy. During the first five years of the reign four
line-of-battle ships were added and several armoured cruisers for the
defence of commerce and colonial interests. With the year 1895 began a
period of expansion abroad and great naval activity. The note was given
in a speech of the emperor's on the twenty-fifth anniversary of the
foundation of the empire, in which he said, "the German empire has
become a world empire." The ruling idea of this new _Welt-Politik_ was
that Germany could no longer remain merely a continental power; owing to
the growth of population she depended for subsistence on trade and
exports; she could not maintain herself amid the rivalry of nations
unless the government was able actively to support German traders in all
parts of the world. The extension of German trade and influence has, in
fact, been carried out with considerable success. There was no prospect
of further territory in Equatorial Africa, and the hope of bringing
about a closer union with the South African Republic was not fulfilled.
On the Pacific, however, there were great gains;[7] long-established
plans for obtaining a port in China which might serve as a base for the
growing trade at Tientsin were carried out at the end of 1897; the
murder of two Catholic missionaries was made the pretext for landing
troops in the bay of Kiao-chau; and in amends China granted the lease of
some 50 sq. m. of territory, and also a concession for building
railways. The emperor showed his strong personal interest by sending his
brother, Prince Henry, in command of a squadron to take possession of
this territory, and the visit of a German prince to the emperor of China
strongly appealed to the popular imagination. The emperor's
characteristically rhetorical speeches on this occasion--particularly
his identification of his brother with the "mailed fist" of
Germany--excited considerable comment. In Turkey the government, helped
again by the personal interest of the emperor, who himself visited the
sultan at Constantinople, gained important concessions for German
influence and German commerce. The Turkish armies were drilled and
commanded by German officers, and in 1899 a German firm gained an
important concession for building a railway to Baghdad. In Brazil
organized private enterprise established a considerable settlement of
German emigrants, and though any political power was for the time
impossible, German commerce increased greatly throughout South America.

  Naval programme, 1897.

Encouraged by the interest which the events in China had aroused, a very
important project was laid before the Reichstag in November 1897, which
would enable Germany to take a higher place among the maritime powers. A
completely new procedure was introduced. Instead of simply proposing to
build a number of new ships, the bill laid down permanently the number
of ships of every kind of which the navy was to consist. They were to be
completed by 1904; and the bill also specified how often ships of each
class were to be replaced. The plan would establish a normal fleet, and
the Reichstag, having once assented, would lose all power of controlling
the naval budget. The bill was strongly opposed by the Radicals; the
Centre was divided; but the very strong personal influence of the
emperor, supported by an agitation of the newly-formed _Flottenverein_
(an imitation of the English Navy League), so influenced public opinion
that the opposition broke down. A general election was imminent, and no
party dared to go to the country as the opponents of the fleet.

  Hostility to England.

  Pro-Boer movement.

  Navy Bill, 1900.

Scarcely had the bill been carried when a series of events took place
which still more fully turned public attention to colonial affairs, and
seemed to justify the action of the government. The war between the
United States and Spain showed how necessary an efficient fleet was
under modern conditions, and also caused some feeling of apprehension
for the future arising from the new policy of extension adopted by the
United States. And the brewing of the storm in South Africa, where the
Boers were preparing to resist British suzerainty, helped to make the
nation regret that their fleet was not sufficiently strong to make
German sympathies effective. The government used with great address the
bitter irritation against Great Britain which had become one of the most
deep-seated elements in modern German life. This feeling had its origin
at first in a natural reaction against the excessive admiration for
English institutions which distinguished the Liberals of an older
generation. This reaction was deliberately fostered during Bismarck's
later years for internal reasons; for, as Great Britain was looked upon
as the home of parliamentary government and Free Trade, a less
favourable view might weaken German belief in doctrines and institutions
adopted from that country. There also existed in Germany a curious
compound of jealousy and contempt, natural in a nation the whole
institutions of which centred round the army and compulsory service, for
a nation whose institutions were based not on military, but on
parliamentary and legal institutions. It came about that in the minds of
many Germans the whole national regeneration was regarded as a
liberation from British influence. This feeling was deliberately
fostered by publicists and historians, and was intensified by commercial
rivalry, since in the struggle for colonial expansion and trade Germans
naturally came to look on Great Britain, who held the field, as their
rival. The sympathy which the events of 1896 and 1899 awakened for the
Boers caused all these feelings, which had long been growing, to break
out in a popular agitation more widespread than any since the foundation
of the empire. It was used by the Nationalist parties, in Austria as
well as in Germany, to spread the conception of Pan-Germanism; the Boers
as Low Germans were regarded as the representatives of Teutonic
civilization, and it seemed possible that the conception might be used
to bring about a closer friendship, and even affiance, with Holland. In
1896 the emperor, by despatching a telegram of congratulation to
President Kruger after the collapse of the Jameson Raid, had appeared
to identify himself with the national feeling. When war broke out in
1899 it was obviously impossible to give any efficient help to the
Boers, but the government did not allow the moment to pass without using
it for the very practical purpose of getting another bill through the
Reichstag by which the navy was to be nearly doubled. Some difficulties
which arose regarding the exercise by the British government of the
right of search for contraband of war were also used to stimulate public
feeling. The Navy Bill was introduced in January 1900. There were some
criticisms of detail, but the passing of the bill was only a matter of
bargaining. Each party wished in return for its support to get some
concessions from the government. The Agrarians asked for restrictions on
the importation of food; the Centre for the Lex Heinze and the repeal of
the Jesuit law; the Liberals for the right of combination.

  Von Bülow, chancellor.

The murder of the German ambassador, Baron von Ketteler, at Peking in
1900 compelled the government to take a leading part in the joint
expedition of the powers to China. A force of over 20,000 men was
organized by voluntary enlistment from among the regular army; and the
supreme command was obtained by the emperor for Count von Waldersee, who
had succeeded Moltke as chief of the staff. The government was, however,
sharply criticized for not first consulting the Reichstag in a matter
involving the first military expedition since the foundation of the
empire. It was desirable in such circumstances that a younger and more
vigorous statesman than Prince Hohenlohe should be placed at the head of
affairs before the Reichstag met; and on the 17th of October he
resigned, and was succeeded as chancellor by Herr von Bülow, the foreign
secretary.     (J. W. He.; W. A. P.)

  Naval Progress.

It remains only to sketch the main features of German history in later
years. In spite of the denunciation by the Social Democratic leaders of
what they stigmatized as a "policy of brag," the general popularity of
the idea of establishing a strong sea power was proved by the rapid
extension of the Navy League, which in 1904 had already 3595 branches.
For an increase in the navy there was, indeed, sufficient excuse in the
enormous expansion of German oversea commerce and the consequent growth
of the mercantile marine; the value of foreign trade, which in 1894 was
£365,000,000, had risen in 1904 to £610,000,000, and in the same period
the tonnage of German merchant shipping had increased by 234%. In the
session of 1901 Admiral von Tirpitz, the minister of marine, admitted in
answer to a Socialist interpellation that the naval programme of 1900
would have to be enlarged. In 1903 Count Bülow declared in the Reichstag
that the government was endeavouring to pursue a middle course between
"the extravagant aspirations of the Pan-Germans and the parochial policy
of the Social Democrats, which forgets that in a struggle for life and
death Germany's means of communication might be cut off." At the same
time the emperor presented to the Reichstag a comparative table, drawn
up by his own hand, showing the relative strength of the British and
German navies. An inspired article in the _Grenzboten_ declared the
object of this to be to moderate at once the aggressive attitude of the
Pan-Germans towards Great Britain and British alarms at the naval
development of Germany. This gave a fresh impetus to the naval agitation
and counter-agitation. In 1904 Count Bülow again found it necessary, in
reply to the Socialist leader Bebel, to declare that the German naval
armaments were purely defensive. "I cannot conceive," he said, "that the
idea of an Anglo-German war should be seriously entertained by sensible
people in either country." On the 16th of November 1905 a new Navy Bill
amplifying the programme of 1900 was accepted by the Federal Diet. The
Navy League, encouraged by its success, now redoubled its exertions and
demanded that the whole programme should be completed by 1912 instead of
1917. Bebel denounced this agitation as obviously directed against
England; and the government thought it expedient to disavow the action
of its too zealous allies. A telegram addressed by the emperor William
to the presidents of the League, Generals Keim and Menges, led to their
resignation; but the effect of this was largely counteracted by the
presence of Prince Henry of Prussia and the king of Württemberg at the
annual congress of the League at Stuttgart in May, while at the Colonial
Congress in the autumn the necessity for a powerful navy was again one
of the main themes of discussion. That the government was, in fact, at
one with the League as to the expediency of pushing on the naval
programme was proved by the revelations of the first lord of the
admiralty, Mr McKenna, in the debate on the naval estimates in the
British parliament of 1909. From these it was clear that the German
government had for some time past been pressing on its naval armaments
with little regard to the ostensible programme, and that in the matter
of the newest types of battleships, Great Britain had to reckon with the
fact that, before the date fixed for the completion of the programme,
Germany might establish at least an equality.

  Foreign policy.

  The Königsberg trial.

The same determined spirit which characterized German naval policy was
evident also in her relations with the other powers. The suspicions as
to the stability of the Triple Alliance produced, indeed, for some years
a kind of nervousness in the attitude of the government, whose
determination to assert for Germany a leading international rôle tended
to isolate her in Europe. This nervousness was, in 1903 and 1904,
especially evident in the efforts to weaken the Franco-Russian alliance
by the policy of what Bebel denounced as Germany "crawling on her
stomach before Russia." Germany not only backed up Russian policy in the
East, and at the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War took up towards her
an attitude of more than benevolent neutrality, but the cabinets of
Berlin and St Petersburg entered into an agreement under which political
offenders against either government were to be treated as traitors to
both. This arrangement, which made the Prussian police the active allies
of the Third Section in the persecution of political suspects, created
vast indignation among all shades of Liberal opinion in Germany, an
indignation which culminated with the famous Königsberg trial. This was
a prosecution of nine German subjects for sedition, conspiracy and
_lèse-majesté_ against the Russian emperor, and for the circulation of
books and pamphlets attacking him and his government. The defendants
were poor smugglers from the Esthonian border marshes, who in the course
of their ordinary avocations had carried bales of revolutionary tracts
into Russia without troubling as to their contents. The trial, which
took place in July 1904, excited widespread attention. The prosecution
was conducted with all the force of the government; the defence was
undertaken by some of the most brilliant Liberal advocates of Germany
and developed in effect into an elaborate indictment, supported by a
great weight of first-hand evidence, of the iniquities of the Russian
régime. The verdict of the court was a serious rebuff for the
government; after a preliminary investigation of nine months, and a
public trial of a fortnight, the major charges against the prisoners
were dismissed, and six of them were condemned only to short terms of
imprisonment for conspiracy.

The progress of the Russo-Japanese War, however, soon relieved Germany
of all anxiety as to the safety of her eastern frontiers, and produced a
corresponding change in her attitude. The Russian disasters in Manchuria
at the beginning of 1905 were followed by an extraordinary demonstration
of the emperor William's ideas as to "the world-wide dominion of the
Hohenzollerns," in a sort of imperial progress in the East, made for the
purpose of impressing the Mahommedan world with the power of Germany. In
1904 the German attitude towards Great Britain had been in the highest
degree conciliatory; the Anglo-French agreement as to Egypt was agreed
to at Berlin; a visit of King Edward VII. to Kiel was reciprocated by
that of the German squadron to Plymouth; in July a treaty of arbitration
was signed between the two countries, while in the Reichstag the
chancellor declared that, Germany's interests in Morocco being purely
commercial, the understanding between France and England as to that
country, embodied in the convention of the 8th of April 1904, did not
immediately concern her. This attitude was now changed. On the 31st of
March 1905 the emperor William landed at Tangier, and is reported on
this occasion to have used language which in effect amounted to a
promise to support the sultan of Morocco in resisting French control.
His visit to the Holy Land and the solemn pilgrimage to Jerusalem were,
in the same way, a striking _coup de théâtre_ designed to strengthen the
influence won by Germany in the councils of the Ottoman empire, an
influence which she had been careful not to weaken by taking too active
a part in the concert of the powers engaged in pressing on the question
of Macedonian reform.

Meanwhile pressure was being put upon France to admit the German claim
to a voice in the affairs of North Africa, a claim fortified by the
mission of Count von Tattenbach, German minister at Lisbon, to Fez for
the purpose of securing from the sherifian government special privileges
for Germany. This aggressive policy was firmly resisted by M. Delcassé,
the French minister of foreign affairs, and for a while war seemed to be
inevitable. At Berlin powerful influences, notably that of Herr von
Holstein--that mysterious omnipotence behind the throne--were working
for this end; the crippling of Russia seemed too favourable an
opportunity to be neglected for crushing the menace of French armaments.
That an actual threat of war was conveyed to the French government
(through the German ambassador at Rome, it is said) there can be no
doubt. That war was prevented was due partly to the timidity of French
ministers, partly to the fact that at the last moment Herr von Holstein
shrank from the responsibility of pressing his arguments to a practical
conclusion. The price of peace, however, was the resignation of M.
Delcassé, who had been prepared to maintain a bold front. Germany had
perhaps missed an opportunity for putting an end for ever to the rivalry
of France; but she had inflicted a humiliation on her rival, and proved
her capacity to make her voice heard in the councils of Europe.[8] The
proceedings of the conference of Algeciras (see MOROCCO) emphasized the
restored confidence of Germany in her international position. It was
notably the part played by Austria in supporting the German point of
view throughout at the conference that strengthened the position of
Germany in Europe, by drawing closer the bonds of sympathy between the
two empires. How strong this position had become was demonstrated during
the crisis that arose after the revolution in Turkey and the annexation
of Bosnia and Herzegovina by Austria in October 1908. The complete
triumph of Baron von Aehrenthal's policy, in the face of the opposition
of most of the European powers, was due to German support, and Germany
suddenly appeared as the arbiter of the affairs of the European
continent (see EUROPE: _History_). German nervousness, which had seen
British intrigues everywhere, and suspected in the beneficent activities
of King Edward VII. a Machiavellian plan for isolating Germany and
surrounding her with a net of hostile forces, gave way to a spirit of
confidence which could afford to laugh at the terror of Germany which,
to judge from the sensational reports of certain popular British
journals, had seized upon Great Britain.

  Internal difficulties.

The great position gained by the German empire in these years was won in
the face of great and increasing internal difficulties. These
difficulties were, in the main, the outcome of the peculiar constitution
of the empire, of the singular compromise which it represented between
the traditional medieval polity and the organization of a modern state,
and of the conflicts of ideals and of interests to which this gave rise;
these being complicated by the masterful personality of the emperor
William, and his tendency to confuse his position as German emperor by
the will of the princes with his position as king of Prussia by the
grace of God.

In general, Germany had passed since the war through a social and
economic revolution similar to that undergone by Great Britain during
the earlier half of the 19th century, though on a greater scale and at a
much accelerated pace. A country mainly agricultural, and in parts
purely feudal, was changed into one of vast industries and of great
concentrations of population; and for the ferment created by this change
there was no such safety-valve in the representative system as had
existed in England since the Reform Bill. In spite of the election of
the Reichstag by manhood suffrage, there existed, as Count Bülow pointed
out in 1904, no real parliamentary system in Germany, and "owing to the
economic, political, social and religious structure of the nation" there
could never be one. Of the numerous groups composing the German
parliament no one ever secured a majority, and in the absence of such a
majority the imperial government, practically independent of parliament,
knew how to secure its assent to its measures by a process of bargaining
with each group in turn. This system had curious and very far-reaching
results. The only group which stood outside it, in avowed hostility to
the whole principle on which the constitution was based, was that of the
Social Democrats, "the only great party in Germany which," so the
veteran Mommsen declared in 1901, "has any claim to political respect."
The consequence was the rapid extension and widening of the chasm that
divided the German people. The mass of the working-class population in
the Protestant parts of Germany belonged to the Social Democracy, an
inclusive term covering variations of opinion from the doctrinaire
system of Marx to a degree of Radicalism which in England would not be
considered a bar to a peerage. To make head against this, openly
denounced by the emperor himself as a treasonable movement, the
government was from time to time forced to make concessions to the
various groups which placed their sectional interests in the forefront
of their programmes. To conciliate the Catholic Centre party,
numerically the strongest of all, various concessions were from time to
time made to the Roman Catholic Church, e.g. the repeal in 1904 of the
clause of the Anti-Jesuit Law forbidding the settlement of individual
members of the order in Germany. The Conservative Agrarians were
conciliated by a series of tariff acts placing heavy duties on the
importation of agricultural produce and exempting from duty agricultural

  Social Democracy.

The first of these tariffs, which in order to overcome Socialist
obstruction was passed _en bloc_ on December 13-14, 1902, led to an
alarming alteration in the balance of parties in the new Reichstag of
1903, the Socialists--who had previously numbered 58--winning 81 seats,
a gain of 23. Of the other groups only one, and that hostile to the
government--the Poles--had gained a seat. This startling victory of the
Social Democracy, though to a certain extent discounted by the
dissensions between the two wings of the party which were revealed at
the congress at Dresden in the same year, was in the highest degree
disconcerting to the government; but in the actual manipulation of the
Reichstag it facilitated the work of the chancellor by enabling him to
unite the other groups more readily against the common enemy. The most
striking effect of the development of this antagonism was the gradual
disappearance as a factor in politics of the Liberals, the chief
builders of the Empire. Their part henceforth was to vote blindly with
the Conservative groups, in a common fear of the Social Democracy, or to
indulge in protests, futile because backed by no power inside or outside
the parliament; their impotence was equally revealed when in December
1902 they voted with the Agrarians for the tariff, and in May 1909 when
they withdrew in dudgeon from the new tariff committee, and allowed the
reactionary elements a free hand. The political struggle of the future
lay between the Conservative and Clerical elements in the state, alike
powerful forces, and the organized power of the Social Democracy. In the
elections of 1907, indeed, the Social Democratic party, owing to the
unparalleled exertion of the government, had a set-back, its
representation in parliament sinking to 43; but at the International
Socialist Congress, which met at Stuttgart on the 18th of August, Herr
Bebel was able to point out that, in spite of its defeat at the polls,
the Socialist cause had actually gained strength in the country, their
total poll having increased from 3,010,771 in 1903 to 3,250,000.

  Prussia and the Empire.

In addition to the political strife and anxiety due to this fundamental
cleavage within the nation, Germany was troubled during the first decade
of the 20th century by friction and jealousies arising out of the
federal constitution of the Empire and the preponderant place in it of
Prussia. In the work of pressing on the national and international
expansion of Germany the interests and views of the lesser constituent
states of the Empire were apt to be overlooked or overridden; and in the
southern states there was considerable resentment at the unitarian
tendency of the north, which seemed to aim at imposing the Prussian
model on the whole nation. This resentment was especially conspicuous in
Bavaria, which clings more tenaciously than the other states to its
separate traditions. When, on the 1st of April 1902, a new stamp, with
the superscription "Deutsches Reich," was issued for the Empire,
including Württemberg, Bavaria refused to accept it, retaining the stamp
with the Bavarian lion, thus emphasizing her determination to retain her
separate postal establishment. On the 23rd of October 1903 Baron
Podevils, the new premier, addressing the Bavarian diet, declared that
his government "would combat with all its strength" any tendency to
assure the future of the Empire on any lines other than the federative
basis laid down in the imperial constitution.

  Personal intervention of the emperor.

This protest was the direct outcome of an instance of the tendency of
the emperor to interfere in the affairs of the various governments of
the Empire. In 1902 the Clerical majority in the Bavarian diet had
refused to vote £20,000 asked by the government for art purposes,
whereupon the emperor had telegraphed expressing his indignation and
offering to give the money himself, an offer that was politely declined.
Another instance of the emperor's interference, constitutionally of more
importance as directly affecting the rights of the German sovereigns,
was in the question of the succession to the principality of Lippe (see
LIPPE). The impulsive character of the emperor, which led him, with the
best intentions and often with excellent effect, to interfere everywhere
and in everything and to utter opinions often highly inconvenient to his
ministers, was the subject of an interpellation in the Reichstag on the
20th of January 1903 by the Socialist Herr von Vollmar, himself a
Bavarian. Count Bülow, in answer to his criticisms, declared that "the
German people desired, not a shadow, but an emperor of flesh and blood."
None the less, the continued "indiscretions" of the emperor so incensed
public opinion that, five years later, the chancellor himself was forced
to side with it in obtaining from the emperor an undertaking to submit
all his public utterances previously to his ministers for approval (see
WILLIAM II., German emperor).

  The non-German nationalities.

Meanwhile, the attempt to complete the Germanization of the frontier
provinces of the Empire by conciliation or repression continued. In this
respect progress was made especially in Alsace-Lorraine. In May 1902, in
return for the money granted by the _Reichsländer_ for the restoration
of the imperial castle of Hohekönigsburg in the Vosges, the emperor
promised to abolish the _Diktaturparagraphen_; the proposal was accepted
by the Reichstag, and the exceptional laws relating to Alsace-Lorraine
were repealed. Less happy were the efforts of the Prussian government at
the Germanization of Prussian Poland and Schleswig. In the former, in
spite of, or perhaps because of, the attempt to crush the Polish
language and spirit, the Polish element continuously increased,
reinforced by immigrants from across the frontier; in the latter the
Danish language more than held its own, for similar reasons, but the
treaty signed on the 11th of January 1907 between Prussia and Denmark,
as to the status of the Danish "optants" in the duchies, removed the
worst grievance from which the province was suffering (see

  Resignation of Prince von Bülow.

Of more serious import were the yearly and increasing deficits in the
imperial budget, and the consequent enormous growth of the debt. This
was partly due to the commercial and industrial depression of the early
years of the century, partly was another outcome of the federal
constitution, which made it difficult to adjust the budget to the
growing needs of the Empire without disarranging the finances of its
constitutent states. The crisis became acute when the estimates for the
year 1909 showed that some £25,000,000 would have to be raised by
additional taxes, largely to meet the cost of the expanded naval
programme. The budget presented to the Reichstag by Prince Bülow, which
laid new burdens upon the landed and capitalist classes, was fiercely
opposed by the Agrarians, and led to the break-up of the
Liberal-Conservative _bloc_ on whose support the chancellor had relied
since the elections of 1906. The budget was torn to pieces in the
committee selected to report on it; the Liberal members, after a vain
protest, seceded; and the Conservative majority had a free hand to amend
it in accordance with their views. In the long and acrimonious debates
that followed in the Reichstag itself the strange spectacle was
presented of the chancellor fighting a coalition of the Conservatives
and the Catholic Centre with the aid of the Socialists and Liberals. The
contest was from the first hopeless, and, but for the personal request
of the emperor that he would pilot the Finance Bill through the House in
some shape or other, Prince Bülow would have resigned early in the year.
So soon as the budget was passed he once more tendered his resignation,
and on the 14th of July a special edition of the _Imperial Gazette_
announced that it had been accepted by the emperor. The post of imperial
chancellor was at the same time conferred on Theobald von
Bethmann-Hollweg, the imperial secretary of state for the interior.[9]
     (W. A. P.)

_Bibliography of German History._--Although the authorities for the
history of Germany may be said to begin with Caesar, it is Tacitus who
is especially useful, his _Germania_ being an invaluable mine of
information about the early inhabitants of the country. In the dark and
disordered centuries which followed there are only a few scanty notices
of the Germans, mainly in the works of foreign writers like Gregory of
Tours and Jordanes; and then the 8th and 9th centuries, the time of the
revival of learning which is associated with the name of Charlemagne, is
reached. By the end of this period Christianity had been firmly
established among most of the German tribes; the monks were the trustees
of the new learning, and we must look mainly, although not exclusively,
to the monasteries for our authorities. The work of the monks generally
took the form of _Annales_ or _Chronica_, and among the numerous German
monasteries which are famous in this connexion may be mentioned Fulda,
Reichenau, St Gall and Lorsch. For contemporary history and also for the
century or so which preceded the lifetimes of their authors these
writings are fairly trustworthy, but beyond this they are little more
than collections of legends. There are also a large number of lives of
saints and churchmen, in which the legendary element is still more

With regard to the _Annales_ and _Chronica_ three important
considerations must be mentioned. They are local, they are monastic, and
they are partisan. The writer in the Saxon abbey of Corvey, or in the
Franconian abbey of Fulda, knows only about events which happened near
his own doors; he records, it is true, occurrences which rumour has
brought to his ears, but in general he is trustworthy only for the
history of his own neighbourhood. The Saxon and the Franconian annalists
know nothing of the distant Bavarians; there is even a gulf between the
Bavarian and the Swabian. Then the Annals are monastic. To their writers
the affairs of the great world are of less importance than those of the
monastery itself. The Saxon Widukind, for instance, gives more space to
the tale of the martyrdom of St Vitus than he does to several of the
important campaigns of Henry the Fowler. Lastly, the annalist is a
partisan. One is concerned to glorify at all costs the Carolingian
house; another sacrifices almost everything to attack the emperor Henry
IV. and to defend the Papacy; while a third holds a brief for some king
or emperor, like Louis the Pious or Otto the Great.

Two difficulties are met with in giving an account of the sources of
German history. In the 7th, 8th and 9th centuries it is hard, if not
impossible, to disentangle the history of Germany from that of the rest
of the Frankish empire of which it formed part; in fact it is not until
the time of the dissensions between the sons of the emperor Louis I.
that there are any signs of demarcation between the East and the West
Franks, or, in other words, any separate history of Germany. The second
difficulty arises later and is due to the connexion of Germany with the
Empire. Germany was always the great pillar of the imperial power; for
several centuries it was the Empire in everything but in name, and yet
its political history is often overshadowed by the glamour of events in
Italy. While the chroniclers were recording the deeds of Frederick I.
and of Frederick II. in the peninsula, the domestic history of Germany
remained to a large extent unwritten.

Among the early German chroniclers the Saxon Widukind, the author of the
_Res gestae Saxonicae_, is worthy of mention. He was a monk of Corvey,
and his work is the best authority for the early history of Saxony.
Lambert, a monk of Hersfeld, and Widukind's countryman, Bruno, in his
_De bello Saxonico_, tell the story of the great contest between the
emperor Henry IV. and Pope Gregory VII., with special reference to the
Saxon part of the struggle. But perhaps the ablest and the most
serviceable of these early writers is Otto of Freising, a member of the
Babenberg family. Otto was also related to the great house of
Hohenstaufen, a relationship which gave him access to sources of
information usually withheld from the ordinary monastic annalist, and
his work is very valuable for the earlier part of the career of
Frederick I. Something is learned, too, from biographies written by the
monks, of which Einhard's _Vita Karoli Magni_ is the greatest and the
best, and Wipo's life of the emperor Conrad II. is valuable, while
another Carolingian courtier, Nithard, has a special interest as, almost
alone among these early chroniclers, being a soldier and not a monk.

The monastic writers remain our chief authorities until the great change
brought about by the invention of printing, although a certain amount of
work was done by clerical writers attached to the courts of various
rulers. Parallel with this event the revival of learning was producing a
great number of men who could write, and, more important still, of men
who were throwing off the monastic habits of thought and passing into a
new intellectual atmosphere. The Renaissance was followed by the fierce
controversies aroused by the Reformation, and the result was the output
of an enormous mass of writings covering every phase of the mighty
combat and possessing every literary virtue save that of impartiality.
But apart from these polemical writings, many of which had only an
ephemeral value, the Renaissance was the source of another stream of
historical literature. Several princes and other leading personages,
foremost among whom was the emperor Maximilian I., had spent a good deal
of time and money in collecting the manuscripts of the medieval
chroniclers, and these now began to be printed. The chronicle of Otto of
Freising, which appeared in 1515, and the _Vita_ of Einhard, which
appeared six years later, are only two among the many printed at this
time. The publication of collections of chronicles began in 1529, and
the uncritical fashion in which these were reproduced made forgeries
easy and frequent. There was, indeed, more than a zeal for pure learning
behind this new movement; for both parties in the great religious
controversy of the time used these records of the past as a storehouse
of weapons of offence. The Protestants eagerly sought out the writings
which exposed and denounced the arrogance of the popes, while the
Romanists attempted to counter them with the numerous lives of the

But before the raw material of history thus began to increase enormously
in bulk, it had already begun to change its character and to assume its
modern form. The _Chronicle_ still survived as a medium of conveying
information, though more often than not this was now written by a
layman; but new stores of information were coming into existence, or
rather the old stores were expanding and taking a different form. Very
roughly these may be divided into six sections. (1) Official documents
issued by the emperors and other German rulers. (2) Treaties concluded
between Germany and other powers and also between one German state and
another. (3) Despatches sent to England, Spain and other countries by
their representatives in various parts of Germany. (4) Controversial
writings or treatises written to attack or defend a given position,
largely the product of the Reformation period. (5) The correspondence of
eminent and observant persons. (6) An enormous mass of personal
impressions taking the form of Commentaries, Memoirs and Diaries
(_Tagebücher_). Moreover, important personages still find eulogistic
biographers and defenders, e.g. the fanciful writings about the emperor
Maximilian I. or Pufendorf's _De rebus gestis Friderici Wilhelmi Magni
electoris Brandenburgici_.

Through the dust aroused by the great Reformation controversy appear the
dim beginnings of the scientific spirit in the writing of history, and
in this connexion the name of Aventinus, "the Bavarian Herodotus," may
be mentioned. But for many years hardly any progress was made in this
direction. Even if they possessed the requisite qualifications the
historiographers attached to the courts of the emperor Charles V. and of
lesser potentates could not afford to be impartial. Thus new histories
were written and old ones unearthed, collected and printed, but no
attempt was made to criticize and collate the manuscripts of the past,
or to present two sides of a question in the writings of the present.
Among the collections of authorities made during the 16th and 17th
centuries those of J. Pistorius (Frankfort, 1583-1607), of E. Lindenbrog
(Frankfort, 1609) and of M. Freher (Frankfort, 1600-1611), may be
noticed, although these were only put together and printed in the most
haphazard and unconnected fashion. Passing thus through these two
centuries we reach the beginning of the 18th century and the work done
for German historical scholarship by the philosopher Leibnitz, who
sought to do for his own country what Muratori was doing for Italy. For
some years it had been recognized that the collection and arrangement of
the authorities for German history was too great an undertaking for any
one man, and societies under very influential patronage were founded for
this purpose. But very slight results attended these elaborate schemes,
although their failure did not deter Leibnitz from pursuing the same
end. The two chief collections which were issued by the philosopher are
the _Accessiones historicae_ (1698-1700) and the _Scriptores rerum
Brunsvicensium_; the latter of these, containing documents centring
round the history of the Welf family, was published in three volumes at
Hanover (1707-1711). Leibnitz worked at another collection, the
_Origines Guelficae_, which was completed and issued by his pupils
(Hanover, 1750-1780), and also at _Annales imperii occidentis
Brunsvicenses_, which, although the most valuable collection of the kind
yet made, was not published until edited by G. H. Pertz (Hanover,
1843-1846). Other collections followed those of Leibnitz, among which
may be mentioned the _Corpus historicum medii aevi_ of J. G. Eccard
(Leipzig, 1723) and the _Scriptores rerum Germanicarum_ of J. B. Mencke
(Leipzig, 1728). But these collections are merely heaps of historical
material, good and bad; the documents therein were not examined and they
are now quite superseded. They give, however, evidence of the great
industry of their authors, and are the foundations upon which modern
German scholarship has built.

In the 19th century the scientific spirit received a great impetus from
the German system of education, one feature of which was that the
universities began to require original work for some of their degrees.
In this field of scientific research the Germans were the pioneers, and
in it they are still pre-eminent, with Ranke as their most famous name
and the _Monumenta Germaniae historica_ as their greatest production.
The _Monumenta_ is a critical and ordered collection of documents
relating to the history of Germany between 500 and 1500. It owes its
origin mainly to the efforts of the statesman Stein, who was responsible
for the foundation of the _Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche
Geschichtskunde_, under the auspices of which the work was begun. The
_Gesellschaft_ was established in 1819, and, the editorial work having
been entrusted to G. H. Pertz, the first volume of the _Monumenta_ was
published in 1826. The work was divided into five sections:
_Scriptores_, _Leges_, _Diplomata_, _Epistolae_ and _Antiquitates_, but
it was many years before anything was done with regard to the two
last-named sections. In the three remaining ones, however, folio volumes
were published regularly, and by 1909 thirty folio volumes of
_Scriptores_, five of _Leges_ and one of _Diplomata imperii_ had
appeared. But meanwhile a change of organization had taken place. When
Pertz resigned his editorial position in 1874 and the _Gesellschaft_ was
dissolved, twenty-four folio volumes had been published. The Prussian
Academy of Sciences now made itself responsible for the continuance of
the work, and a board of direction was appointed, the presidents of
which were successively G. Waitz, W. Wattenbach, E. Dümmler and O.
Holder-Egger. Soon afterwards as money became more plentiful the scope
of work was extended; the production of the folio volumes continued, but
the five sections were subdivided and in each of these a series of
quarto volumes was issued. The titles of these new sections give a
sufficient idea of their contents. The _Scriptores_ are divided into
_Auctores antiquissimi_, _Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum_, _Scriptores
rerum Langobardicarum et Italicarum_, _Libelli de lite imperatorum et
pontificum_, _Gesta pontificum Romanorum_ and _Deutsche Chroniken_, or
_Scriptores qui vernacula lingua usi sunt_. The _Leges_ are divided into
_Leges nationum Germanicarum_, _Capitularia regum Francorum_,
_Concilia_, _Constitutiones imperatorum et regum_ and _Formulae_. Three
quarto volumes of _Diplomata regum et imperatorum Germaniae_ and one of
_Diplomata Karolingorum_ had been published by 1909. Work was also begun
upon the _Antiquitates_ and the _Epistolae_. The sections of the former
are _Poëtae Latini medii aevi_, _Libri confraternitatum_ and _Necrologia
Germaniae_, and of the latter _Epistolae saeculi XIII._ and _Epistolae
Merovingici et Karolini aevi_. Meanwhile the publication of the
_Scriptores_ proper continues, although the thirty-first and subsequent
volumes are in quarto and not in folio, and the number of volumes in the
whole undertaking is continually being increased. The archives of the
_Gesellschaft_ have been published in twelve volumes, and a large number
of volumes of the _Neues Archiv_ have appeared. Some of the MSS. have
been printed in facsimile, and an index to the _Monumenta_, edited by O.
Holder-Egger and K. Zeumer, appeared in 1890. The writings of the more
important chroniclers have been published separately, and many of them
have been translated into German.

It will thus be seen that the ground covered by the _Monumenta_ is
enormous. The volumes of the _Scriptores_ contain not only the domestic
chroniclers, but also selections from the work of foreign writers who
give information about the history of Germany--for example, the
Englishman Matthew Paris. In the main these writings are arranged in
chronological order. Each has been edited by an expert, and the various
introductions give evidence of the number of MSS. collated and the great
pains taken to ensure textual accuracy on the part of the different
editors, among whom may be mentioned Mommsen and Lappenberg. Other great
names in German historical scholarship have also assisted in this work.
In addition to Waitz the _Leges_ section has enjoyed the services of F.
Bluhme and of H. Brunner, and the _Diplomata_ section of T. Sickel, H.
Bresslau and E. Mühlbacher.

The progress of the _Monumenta_ stimulated the production of other works
of a like nature, and among the smaller collections of authorities which
appeared during the 19th century two are worthy of mention. These are
the _Fontes rerum Germanicarum_, edited by J. F. Böhmer (Stuttgart,
1843-1868), a collection of sources of the 12th, 13th and 14th
centuries, and the _Bibliotheca rerum Germanicarum_, edited by Ph.
Jaffé (Berlin, 1864-1873). Another development followed the production
of the _Monumenta_, this being the establishment in most of the German
states of societies the object of which was to foster the study of local
history. Reference may be made to a _Verein_ for this purpose in Saxony
and to others in Silesia and in Mecklenburg. Much has also been done in
Prussia, in Brandenburg, in Bavaria, in Hanover, in Württemberg and in
Baden, and collections of authorities have been made by competent
scholars, of which the _Geschichtsquellen der Provinz Sachsen und
angrenzender Gebiete_ (Halle, 1870, fol.), which extends to forty
volumes, the smaller _Scriptores rerum Prussicarum_ (Leipzig,
1861-1874), and the seventy-seven volumes of the _Publikationen aus den
königlichen preussischen Staatsarchiven, veranlasst und unterstützt
durch die königliche Archiverwaltung_ (Leipzig, 1878, fol.), may be
cited as examples. The cities have followed the same path and their
archives are being thoroughly examined. In 1836 an _Urkundenbuch_ of
Frankfort was published, and this example has been widely followed, the
work done in Cologne, in Bremen and in Mainz being perhaps specially
noticeable. Moreover an historical commission at Munich has published
twenty-eight volumes in the series _Die Chroniken der deutschen Städte
vom 14. bis ins 16. Jahrhundert_ (Leipzig, 1862, fol.). Lastly, many
documents relating to the great families of Germany, among them those of
Hohenzollern and of Wittelsbach, have been carefully edited and given to
the world.

With this great mass of material collected, sifted and edited by
scholars of the highest standing it is not surprising that modern works
on the history of Germany are stupendous in number and are generally of
profound learning, and this in spite of the fact that some German
historians--Gregorovius, Pauli and Lappenberg, for example--have devoted
their time to researches into the history of foreign lands.

  The earliest period is dealt with by K. Zeuss in _Die Deutschen und
  die Nachbarstämme_ (Munich, 1837; new ed., Göttingen, 1904); and then
  by F. Dahn in his _Urgeschichte der germanischen und romanischen
  Völker_ (Berlin, 1880-1889) and his _Die Könige der Germanen_, volumes
  of which have appeared at intervals between 1861 and 1909.

  The Carolingian time is covered by E. Dümmler's _Geschichte des
  ostfränkischen Reichs_ (Leipzig, 1887-1888), and then follow Ranke's
  _Jahrbücher des deutschen Reichs unter dem sächsischen Hause_ (Berlin,
  1837-1840), W. von Giesebrecht's _Geschichte der deutschen Kaiserzeit_
  (1855-1888), and F. Raumer's _Geschichte der Hohenstaufen_.

  For the reigns of Lothair the Saxon and Conrad III. P. Jaffé's books,
  _Geschichte des deutschen Reiches unter Lothar dem Sachsen_ (Berlin,
  1843) and _Geschichte des deutschen Reiches unter Conrad III._
  (Hanover, 1845), may be consulted.

  The chief histories on the period between the fall of the Hohenstaufen
  and the Renaissance are: T. Lindner, _Deutsche Geschichte unter den
  Habsburgern und Luxemburgern_ (Stuttgart, 1888-1893); O. Lorenz,
  _Deutsche Geschichte im 13. und 14. Jahrhundert_ (Vienna, 1863-1867);
  J. Aschbach, _Geschichte Kaiser Sigmunds_ (Hamburg, 1838-1845); K.
  Fischer, _Deutsches Leben und deutsche Zustände von der
  Hohenstaufenzeit bis ins Reformationszeitalter_ (Gotha, 1884); V. von
  Kraus, _Deutsche Geschichte im Ausgange des Mittelalters_ (Stuttgart,
  1888-1905), and A. Bachmann, _Deutsche Reichsgeschichte im Zeitalter
  Friedrichs III. und Maximilians I._ (Leipzig, 1884-1894).

  The two greatest works on the Reformation period are L. von Ranke's
  _Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der Reformation_ (Leipzig, 1882) and
  J. Janssen's _Geschichte des deutschen Volkes seit dem Ausgang des
  Mittelalters_ (1897-1903). Other works which may be mentioned are: F.
  B. von Bucholtz, _Geschichte der Regierung Ferdinands I._ (Vienna,
  1831-1838); C. Egelhaaf, _Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der
  Reformation_ (Berlin, 1893), and F. von Bezold, _Geschichte der
  deutschen Reformation_ (Berlin, 1890).

  For the years after the Reformation we have Ranke, _Zur deutschen
  Geschichte--Vom Religionsfrieden bis zum 30-jährigen Kriege_ (Leipzig,
  1888); M. Ritter, _Deutsche Geschichte im Zeitalter der
  Gegenreformation und des dreissigjährigen Krieges_ (Stuttgart, 1887,
  fol.); G. Droysen, _Geschichte der Gegenreformation_ (Berlin, 1893);
  A. Gindely, _Rudolf II. und seine Zeit_ (Prague, 1862-1868) and
  _Geschichte des dreissigjährigen Krieges_ (Prague, 1869-1880).
  Gindely's book is, of course, only one among an enormous number of
  works on the Thirty Years' War.

  For the period leading up to the time of Frederick the Great we have
  B. Erdmannsdörffer, _Deutsche Geschichte vom Westfälischen Frieden bis
  zum Regierungsantritt Friedrichs des Grossen_ (Berlin, 1892-1893); and
  then follow Ranke, _Zur Geschichte von Österreich und Preussen
  zwischen den Friedensschlüssen von Aachen und Hubertusburg_ (Leipzig,
  1875) and _Die deutschen Mächte und der Fürstenbund_ (Leipzig,
  1871-1872); K. Biedermann, _Deutschland im 18. Jahrhundert_ (Leipzig,
  1854-1880); W. Oncken, _Das Zeitalter Friedrichs des Grossen_ (Berlin,
  1880-1882); A. von Arneth, _Geschichte Maria Theresias_ (Vienna,
  1863-1879); L. Häusser, _Deutsche Geschichte vom Tode Friedrichs des
  Grossen bis zur Gründung des Deutschen Bundes_ (Berlin, 1861-1863),
  and K. T. von Heigel, _Deutsche Geschichte vom Tode Friedrichs des
  Grossen bis zur Auflösung des alten Reichs_ (Stuttgart, 1899, fol.).

  For the 19th century we may mention: H. von Treitschke, _Deutsche
  Geschichte im 19. Jahrhundert_ (Leipzig, 1879-1894); H. von Sybel,
  _Die Begründung des deutschen Reiches durch Wilhelm I._ (Munich,
  1889-1894); G. Kaufmann, _Politische Geschichte Deutschlands im 19.
  Jahrhundert_ (Berlin, 1900), and H. von Zwiedeneck-Südenhorst,
  _Deutsche Geschichte von der Auflösung des alten bis zur Gründung des
  neuen Reiches_ (Stuttgart, 1897-1905). These are perhaps the most
  important, but there are many others of which the following is a
  selection: K. Fischer, _Die Nation und der Bundestag_ (Leipzig, 1880);
  K. Klüpfel, _Geschichte der deutschen Einheitsbestrebungen bis zu
  ihrer Erfüllung_ (Berlin, 1872-1873); H. Blum, _Die deutsche
  Revolution_ 1848-1849 (Florence, 1897) and _Das deutsche Reich zur
  Zeit Bismarcks_ (Leipzig, 1893); W. Maurenbrecher, _Gründung des
  deutschen Reiches_ (Leipzig, 1892); H. Friedjung, _Der Kampf um die
  Vorherrschaft in Deutschland_ 1859-1866 (Stuttgart, 1897); C. von
  Kaltenborn, _Geschichte der deutschen Bundesverhältnisse und
  Einheitsbestrebungen von 1806-1856_ (Berlin, 1857); J. Jastrow,
  _Geschichte des deutschen Einheitstraumes und seiner Erfüllung_
  (Berlin, 1885), and P. Klöppel, _Dreissig Jahre deutscher
  Verfassungsgeschichte_ (Leipzig, 1900).

  For the most recent developments of German politics see H. Schulthess,
  _Europäischer Geschichtskalender_ (Nördlingen, 1861, fol., a work
  similar to the English _Annual Register_); W. Müller and K.
  Wippermann, _Politische Geschichte der Gegenwart_ (Berlin, 1868,
  fol.); the _Statistisches Jahrbuch des deutschen Reichs_, and A. L.
  Lowell, _Governments and Parties in Continental Europe_ (1896).

  A good general history of Germany is the _Bibliothek deutscher
  Geschichte_, edited by H. von Zwiedeneck-Südenhorst (Stuttgart, 1876,
  fol.). Other general histories, although on a smaller scale, are K.
  Lamprecht, _Deutsche Geschichte_ (Berlin, 1891-1896); O. Kämmel,
  _Deutsche Geschichte_ (Dresden, 1889); K. Biedermann, _Deutsche Volks-
  und Kulturgeschichte_ (Wiesbaden, 1885); T. Lindner, _Geschichte des
  deutschen Volks_ (Stuttgart, 1894); the _Handbuch der deutschen
  Geschichte_, edited by B. Gebhardt (Stuttgart, 1901), and K. W.
  Nitzsch, _Geschichte des deutschen Volkes bis zum Augsburger
  Religionsfrieden_ (Leipzig, 1883-1885).

  Special reference is deservedly made to three works of the highest
  value. These are J. G. Droysen's great _Geschichte der preussischen
  Politik_ (Berlin, 1855-1886); the _Deutsche Reichstagsakten_, the
  first series of which was published at Munich (1867, fol.) and the
  second at Gotha (1893-1901); and the collection known as the _Regesta
  imperii_, which owes its existence to the labours of J. F. Böhmer.
  Nearly the whole of the period between 751 and 1347 is covered by
  these volumes; the charters and other documents of some of the German
  kings being edited by Böhmer himself, and new and enlarged editions of
  certain sections have been brought out by J. Ficker, E. Winkelmann and
  others. Much useful information on the history of different periods is
  contained in the lives of individual emperors and others. Among these
  are H. Prutz, _Kaiser Friedrich I._ (Danzig, 1871-1874); F. W.
  Schirrmacher, _Kaiser Friedrich II._ (Göttingen, 1859-1865); H.
  Ulmann, _Kaiser Maximilian I._ (Stuttgart, 1884-1891); F. von Hurter,
  _Geschichte Kaiser Ferdinands II._ (Schaffhausen, 1857-1864), and H.
  Blum, _Fürst Bismarck und seine Zeit_ (Munich, 1895). There is also
  the great series of volumes, primary and supplementary, forming the
  _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_ (Leipzig, 1875, fol.), in which the
  word _deutsche_ is interpreted in the widest possible sense.

  Apart from political histories there are useful collections of laws
  and other official documents of importance, and also a large number of
  valuable works on the laws and constitutions of the Germans and on
  German institutions generally. Among the collections are M. Goldast,
  _Collectio constitutionum imperialium_ (1613; new and enlarged
  edition, 1673); the _Capitulationes imperatorum et regum
  Romana-Germanorum_ (Strassburg, 1851) of Johann Limnäus, and the
  _Corpus juris Germanici antiqui_ (Berlin, 1824) of F. Walter.
  Collections dealing with more recent history are J. C. Glaser's
  _Archiv des norddeutschen Bundes. Sammlung aller Gesetze, Verträge und
  Aktenstücke, die Verhältnisse des norddeutschen Bundes betreffend_
  (Berlin, 1867); W. Jungermann's _Archiv des deutschen Reiches_
  (Berlin, 1873, fol.), and the _Acta Borussica. Denkmäler der
  preussischen Staatsverwaltung im 18. Jahrhundert_ (Berlin, 1892,
  fol.). Mention may also be made of C. C. Homeyer's edition of the
  _Sachsenspiegel_ and L. A. von Lassberg's edition of the
  _Schwabenspiegel_; the many volumes of Wallenstein's letters and
  papers; the eighteen volumes of the _Urkunden und Aktenstücke zur
  Geschichte des Kurfürsten Friedrich Wilhelm von Brandenburg_ (Berlin,
  1864, fol.); and the thirty volumes of the _Politische Korrespondenz
  Friedrichs des Grossen_ (Berlin, 1879-1905). Modern writers on these
  subjects distinguished for their learning are G. Waitz (_Deutsche
  Verfassungsgeschichte_, Kiel and Berlin, 1844, fol.) and G. L. von
  Maurer (_Geschichte der Städteverfassung in Deutschland_, Erlangen,
  1869-1871, and other cognate writings), their works being valuable not
  only for the early institutions of the Germans, but also for those of
  other Teutonic peoples. Other works on the German constitution and
  German laws are K. F. Eichhorn, _Deutsche Staats- und
  Rechtsgeschichte_ (Göttingen, 1843-1844); R. Schröder, _Lehrbuch der
  deutschen Rechtsgeschichte_ (Leipzig, 1889 and again 1902); H.
  Brunner, _Deutsche Rechtsgeschichte_ (Leipzig, 1887-1892), and
  _Grundzüge der deutschen Rechtsgeschichte_ (Leipzig, 1901-1903), and
  E. Mayer, _Deutsche und französische Verfassungsgeschichte vom 9.-11.
  Jahrhundert_ (Leipzig, 1899).

  Manners and customs are dealt with in J. Scherr's _Deutsche Kultur-
  und Sittengeschichte_ (Leipzig, 1852-1853); J. Lippert's _Deutsche
  Sittengeschichte_ (Vienna and Prague, 1889); O. Henne am Rhyn's
  _Kulturgeschichte des deutschen Volkes_ (Berlin, 1886); the
  _Geschichte des deutschen Volkes und seiner Kultur im Mittelalter_
  (Leipzig, 1891-1898) of H. Gerdes, and F. von Löher's
  _Kulturgeschichte der Deutschen im Mittelalter_ (Munich, 1891-1894).
  Among the works on husbandry may be mentioned: K. Bücher, _Die
  Entstehung der Volkswirtschaft_ (Tübingen, 1893); K. T. von
  Inama-Sternegg, _Deutsche Wirtschaftsgeschichte_ (Leipzig, 1879-1901),
  and K. Lamprecht, _Deutsches Wirtschaftsleben im Mittelalter_
  (Leipzig, 1886). For antiquities see M. Heyne, _Fünf Bücher deutscher
  Hausaltertümer von den ältesten geschichtlichen Zeiten bis zum 16.
  Jahrhundert_ (Leipzig, 1899-1903), and L. Lindenschmit, _Handbuch der
  deutschen Altertumskunde_ (Brunswick, 1880-1889). For the history of
  the German church see A. Hauck, _Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands_
  (Leipzig, 1887-1903); F. W. Rettberg, _Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands_
  (Göttingen, 1846-1848), and J. Friedrich, _Kirchengeschichte
  Deutschlands_ (Bamberg, 1867-1869). For finance see K. D. Hüllmann,
  _Deutsche Finanzgeschichte des Mittelalters_ (1805); for the
  administration of justice, O. Franklin, _Das Reichshofgericht im
  Mittelalter_ (Weimar, 1867-1869), and A. Stölzel, _Die Entwicklung des
  gelehrten Richtertums in deutschen Territorien_ (Stuttgart, 1872); for
  the towns and their people see J. Jastrow, _Die Volkszahl deutscher
  Städte zu Ende des Mittelalters und zu Beginn der Neuzeit_ (Berlin,
  1886); F. W. Barthold, _Geschichte der deutschen Städte und des
  deutschen Bürgertums_ (Leipzig, 1850-1854), and K. Hegel, _Städte und
  Gilden der germanischen Völker im Mittelalter_ (Leipzig, 1891); and
  for manufactures and commerce see J. Falke, _Die Geschichte des
  deutschen Handels_ (Leipzig, 1859-1860); H. A. Mascher, _Das deutsche
  Gewerbewesen von der frühesten Zeit bis auf die Gegenwart_ (Potsdam,
  1866); F. W. Stahl, _Das deutsche Handwerk_ (Giessen, 1874); the
  numerous writings on the history of the Hanseatic League and other
  works. The nobles and the other social classes have each their
  separate histories, among these being C. F. F. von Strantz,
  _Geschichte des deutschen Adels_ (Breslau, 1845), and K. H. Roth von
  Schreckenstein, _Die Ritterwürde und der Ritterstand_ (Freiburg,

  The Germans have produced some excellent historical atlases, among
  them K. von Spruner's _Historisch-geographischer Handatlas_ (Gotha,
  1853); a new edition of this by T. Menke called _Handatlas für die
  Geschichte des Mittelalters und der neueren Zeit_ (Gotha, 1880), and
  G. Droysen's _Allgemeiner historischer Handatlas_ (Leipzig, 1886). The
  historical geography of Germany is dealt with in B. Knüll's
  _Historische Geographie Deutschlands im Mittelalter_ (Breslau, 1903);
  in F. H. Müller's _Die deutschen Stämme und ihre Fürsten_ (Hamburg,
  1852), and in many other works referring to the different parts of the

  English books on the history of Germany are not very numerous. There
  is a short _History of Germany_ by James Sime (1874), another by E. F.
  Henderson (1902), and _A History of Germany 1715-1815_ by C. T.
  Atkinson (1909). H. A. L. Fisher's _Medieval Empire_ (1898) is very
  useful for the earlier period, and J. Bryce's _Holy Roman Empire_ is
  indispensable. There is a translation of Janssen's _Geschichte_ by M.
  A. Mitchell and A. M. Christie (1896, fol.), and there are useful
  chapters in the different volumes of the _Cambridge Modern History_.
  Two English historians have distinguished themselves by their work on
  special periods: Carlyle with his _History of Friedrich II., called
  the Great_ (1872-1873), and W. Robertson with his _History of the
  Reign of Charles V._ (1820). There is also E. Armstrong's Charles V.
  (London, 1902). Among German historical periodicals are the
  _Historische Zeitschrift_, long associated with the name of H. von
  Sybel, and the _Historisches Jahrbuch_.

  In guides to the historical sources and to modern historical works
  Germany is well served. There is the _Quellenkunde der deutschen
  Geschichte_ (Leipzig, 1906) of Dahlmann-Waitz, a most compendious
  volume, and the learned _Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen im
  Mittelalter_ (Berlin, 1893-1894) of W. Wattenbach; A. Potthast's
  _Bibliotheca historica medii aevi_ (Berlin, 1896), and the
  _Deutschlands Geschichtsquellen seit der Mitte des 13. Jahrhunderts_
  (Berlin, 1886-1887) of O. Lorenz and A. Goldmann.     (A. W. H.*)


  [1] So called from the badge worn by the knights (_Löwenritter_) who
    composed it.

  [2] The best account, in English, of the development of the
    Zollverein is in Percy Ashley's _Modern Tariff History_ (London,

  [3] The only formal change is that the duchy of Lauenburg, which
    since 1865 had been governed by the king of Prussia as a separate
    principality (but without a vote in the Bundesrat), was in 1876
    incorporated in the Prussian province of Schleswig-Holstein.

  [4] See _Annual Register_ (1908), pp. 289 et seq.

  [5] The whole question is exhaustively treated from the Danish point
    of view in _La Question de Slesvig_ (Copenhagen, 1906), a collective
    work edited by F. de Jessens.

  [6] Reinhard Karl Friedrich von Dalwigk (1802-1880). Though a
    Lutheran, he had been accused in 1854 of an excessive subserviency to
    the Roman Catholic Church. He was responsible for the policy which
    threatened to involve the grand-duchy of Hesse in the fate of the
    Electorate in 1866. But it was due to his diplomatic skill that Upper
    Hesse was saved for the grand-duke.

  [7] In 1899, following the Spanish-American War, Germany purchased
    the Caroline, Pelew and Marianne Islands from Spain; in 1899-1900 by
    agreement with Great Britain and America she acquired the two largest
    of the Samoan islands, renouncing in favour of Britain her
    protectorate over certain of the Solomon islands.

  [8] The elevation of Count Bülow to the rank of prince immediately
    after the crisis was significantly compared with the same honour
    bestowed on Bismarck at Versailles in 1871.

  [9] He was born on November 29, 1856, the son of a wealthy Rhenish
    landowner, and grandson of Moritz August von Bethmann-Hollweg
    (1795-1877), professor of law at Bonn, ennobled in 1840, and from
    1858 to 1862 minister of education and religion at Berlin. Herr von
    Bethmann-Hollweg studied law at Strassburg, Leipzig and Berlin,
    entered the Prussian civil service in 1882, and, passing successfully
    through the various stages of a German administrative career, became
    governor (Oberpräsident) of the province of Brandenburg in 1899. In
    1905 he became Prussian minister of the interior. Two years later he
    succeeded Count Posadowsky as imperial secretary of state for the
    interior and representative of the imperial chancellor, and was at
    the same time made vice-president of the council of Prussian
    ministers, an office and title which had been in abeyance for some
    years and were now again suppressed.

GERMERSHEIM, a fortified town of Germany in Rhenish Bavaria, at the
confluence of the Queich and the Rhine, 8 m. S.W. of Speyer. Pop. (1905)
5914. It possesses a Roman Catholic and an Evangelical church, a
synagogue, a progymnasium and a hospital. The industries include
fishing, shipbuilding and brewing. Germersheim existed as a Roman
stronghold under the name of _Vicus Julius_. The citadel was rebuilt by
the emperor Conrad II., but the town itself was founded in 1276 by the
emperor Rudolph I., who granted it the rights of a free imperial city.
From 1330 to 1622, when it was conquered by Austria, the town formed
part of the Palatinate of the Rhine. From 1644 to 1650 it was in the
possession of France; but on the conclusion of the peace of Westphalia
it was again joined to the Palatinate. In 1674 it was captured and
devastated by the French under Turenne, and after the death of the
elector Charles (1685) it was claimed by the French as a dependency of
Alsace. As a consequence there ensued the disastrous Germersheim war of
succession, which lasted till the peace of Ryswick in 1697. Through the
intervention of the pope in 1702, the French, on payment of a large sum,
agreed to vacate the town, and in 1715 its fortifications were rebuilt.
On the 3rd of July 1744 the French were defeated there by the imperial
troops, and on the 19th and 22nd of July 1793 by the Austrians. In 1835
the new town was built, and the present fortifications begun.

  See Probst, _Geschichte der Stadt und Festung Germersheim_ (Speyer,

GERMISTON, a town of the Transvaal, 9 m. E. of Johannesburg. Pop. of the
municipality (1904) 29,477, of whom 9123 were whites. It lies 5478 ft.
above the sea, in the heart of the Witwatersrand gold-mining district,
and is an important railway junction. The station, formerly called
Elandsfontein Junction, is the meeting-point of lines from the ports of
the Cape and Natal, and from Johannesburg, Pretoria and Delagoa Bay.
Though possessing a separate municipality, Germiston is practically a
suburb of Johannesburg (q.v.).

GERMONIUS, ANASTASIUS [ANASTASE GERMON] (1551-1627), canon lawyer,
diplomatist and archbishop of Tarantaise, belonged to the family of the
marquises of Ceve, in Piedmont, where he was born. As archdeacon at
Turin he was a member of the commission appointed by Pope Clement VIII.
to edit the _Liber septimus decretalium_; and he also wrote _Paratitla_
on the five books of the _Decretals of Gregory IX._ He represented the
duke of Savoy at the court of Rome under Clement VIII. and Paul V., and
was ambassador to Spain under Kings Philip III. and IV. He died on the
4th of August 1627. Germonius is best known for his treatise on
ambassadors, _De legatis principum et populorum libri tres_ (Rome,
1627). The book is diffuse, pedantic and somewhat heavy in style, but
valuable historically as written by a theorist who was also an expert
man of affairs. (See DIPLOMACY.)

GERO (c. 900-965), margrave of the Saxon east mark, was probably a
member of an influential Saxon family. In 937 he was entrusted by the
German king Otto, afterwards the emperor Otto the Great, with the
defence of the eastern frontier of Saxony against the Wends and other
Slavonic tribes; a duty which he discharged with such ability and
success that in a few years he extended the Saxon frontier almost to the
Oder, and gained the chief credit for the suppression of a rising of the
conquered peoples in a great victory on the 16th of October 955. In 963
he defeated the Lusatians, compelled the king of the Poles to recognize
the supremacy of the German king, and extended the area of his mark so
considerably that after his death it was partitioned into three, and
later into five marks. Gero, who is said to have made a journey to Rome,
died on the 20th of May 965, and was buried in the convent of Gernrode
which he had founded on his Saxon estates. He is referred to by the
historian Widukind as a _preses_, and is sometimes called the "great
margrave." He has been accused of treachery and cruelty, is celebrated
in song and story, and is mentioned as the "marcgrâve Gêre" in the

  See Widukind, "Res gestae Saxonicae," in the _Monumenta Germaniae
  historica_. _Scriptores_, Band iii.; O. von Heinemann, _Markgraf Gero_
  (Brunswick, 1860).

GEROLSTEIN, a village and climatic health resort of Germany, in the
Prussian Rhine Province, attractively situated on the Kyll, in the Eifel
range, 1100 ft. above the sea, 58 m. W. of Andernach by rail, and at the
junction of lines to Trèves and St Vith. The castle of Gerolstein, built
in 1115 and now in ruins, affords a fine view of the Kyllthal.
Gerolstein is celebrated for its lithia waters, which are largely
exported. Pop. (1900) 1308.

GÉRÔME, JEAN LÉON (1824-1904), French painter, was born on the 11th of
May 1824 at Vesoul (Haute-Saône). He went to Paris in 1841 and worked
under Paul Delaroche, whom he accompanied to Italy (1844-1845). On his
return he exhibited "The Cock-fight," which gained him a third-class
medal in the Salon of 1847. "The Virgin with Christ and St John" and
"Anacreon, Bacchus and Cupid" took a second-class medal in 1848. He
exhibited "Bacchus and Love, Drunk," a "Greek Interior" and "Souvenir
d'Italie," in 1851; "Paestum" (1852); and "An Idyll" (1853). In 1854
Gérôme made a journey to Turkey and the shores of the Danube, and in
1857 visited Egypt. To the exhibition of 1855 he contributed a
"Pifferaro," a "Shepherd," "A Russian Concert" and a large historical
canvas, "The Age of Augustus and the Birth of Christ." The last was
somewhat confused in effect, but in recognition of its consummate
ability the State purchased it. Gérôme's reputation was greatly enhanced
at the Salon of 1857 by a collection of works of a more popular kind:
the "Duel: after a Masquerade," "Egyptian Recruits crossing the Desert,"
"Memnon and Sesostris" and "Camels Watering," the drawing of which was
criticized by Edmond About. In "Caesar" (1859) Gérôme tried to return to
a severer class of work, but the picture failed to interest the public.
"Phryne before the Areopagus," "Le Roi Candaule" and "Socrates finding
Alcibiades in the House of Aspasia" (1861) gave rise to some scandal by
reason of the subjects selected by the painter, and brought down on him
the bitter attacks of Paul de Saint-Victor and Maxime Ducamp. At the
same Salon he exhibited the "Egyptian chopping Straw," and "Rembrandt
biting an Etching," two very minutely finished works. Gérôme's best
paintings are of Eastern subjects; among these may be named the "Turkish
Prisoner" and "Turkish Butcher" (1863); "Prayer" (1865); "The Slave
Market" (1867); and "The Harem out Driving" (1869). He often illustrated
history, as in "Louis XIV. and Molière" (1863); "The Reception of the
Siamese Ambassadors at Fontainebleau" (1865); and the "Death of Marshal
Ney" (1868). Gérôme was also successful as a sculptor; he executed,
among other works, "Omphale" (1887), and the statue of the duc d'Aumale
which stands in front of the château of Chantilly (1899). His "Bellona"
(1892), in ivory, metal, and precious stones, which was also exhibited
in the Royal Academy of London, attracted great attention. The artist
then began an interesting series of "Conquerors," wrought in gold,
silver and gems--"Bonaparte entering Cairo" (1897); "Tamerlane" (1898);
and "Frederick the Great" (1899). Gérôme was elected member of the
Institut in 1865. He died in 1904.

GERONA, a maritime frontier province in the extreme north-east of Spain,
formed in 1833 of districts taken from Catalonia, and bounded on the N.
by France, E. and S.E. by the Mediterranean Sea, S.W. and W. by
Barcelona, and N.W. by Lérida. Pop. (1900) 299,287; area, 2264 sq. m. In
the north-west a small section of the province, with the town of Llivía,
is entirely isolated and surrounded by French territory; otherwise
Gerona is separated from France by the great range of the Pyrenees. Its
general aspect is mountainous, especially in the western districts. Most
of the lower chains are covered with splendid forests of oak, pine and
chestnut. There are comparatively level tracts of arable land along the
lower course of the three main rivers--the Ter, Muga and Fluvia, which
rise in the Pyrenees and flow in a south-easterly direction to the sea.
The coast-line is not deeply indented, but includes one large bay, the
Gulf of Rosas. Its two most conspicuous promontories, Capes Creus and
Bagur, are the easternmost points of the Iberian Peninsula. The climate
is generally temperate and rainy during several months in the valleys
and near the coast, but cold in the Cerdaña district and other
mountainous regions during eight months, while Gerona, La Bisbal and
Santa Coloma are quite Mediterranean in their hot summers and mild
winters. Agriculture is backward, but there are profitable fisheries and
fish-curing establishments along the whole seaboard, notably at the
ports of Llansá, Rosas, Palamós, San Felíu de Guixols and Blanes. Next
in importance is the cork industry at San Felíu de Guixols, Palafrugell
and Cassa. More than one hundred mineral springs are scattered over the
province, and in 1903 twenty mines were at work, although their total
output, which included antimony, coal, copper, lead, iron and other
ores, was valued at less than £7000. There are also important hydraulic
cement and ochre works, and no fewer than twenty-two of the towns are
centres of manufactures of linen, cotton, woollen stuffs, paper, cloth,
leather, steel and furniture. The commerce of the province is important,
Port Bou (or Portbou) being, after Irun, the most active outlet for the
trade by railway not only with France but with the rest of the
continent. The main railway from Barcelona to France runs through the
province, and several branch railways, besides steam and electric
tramways, connect the principal towns. Gerona, the capital (pop. 1900,
15,787), and Figueras (10,714), long a most important frontier fortress,
are described in separate articles; the only other towns with more than
7000 inhabitants are San Felíu de Guixols (11,333), Olot (7938) and
Palafrugell (7087). The inhabitants of the province are, like most
Catalans, distinguished for their enterprise, hardiness and keen local
patriotism; but emigration, chiefly to Barcelona, kept their numbers
almost stationary during the years 1875-1905. The percentage of
illegitimate births (1.5) is lower than in any other part of Spain. (See

GERONA, the capital of the province of Gerona, in north-eastern Spain,
on the railway from Barcelona to Perpignan in France, and on the right
bank of the river Ter, at its confluence with the Oña, a small
right-hand tributary. Pop. (1900) 15,787. The older part of the town
occupies the steep slope of the Montjuich, or Hill of the Capuchins, and
with its old-fashioned buildings presents a picturesque appearance
against a background of loftier heights; the newer portion stretches
down into the plain and beyond the Oña, which is here crossed by a
bridge of three arches. The old city walls and their bastions still
remain, though in a dilapidated state; and the hill is crowned by what
were at one time very strong fortifications, now used as a prison.
Gerona is the seat of a bishop, has a seminary, a public library and a
theatre, and carries on the manufacture of paper and cotton and woollen
goods. Its churches are of exceptional interest. The cathedral is one of
the grandest specimens of Gothic architecture in Spain, the nave being
the widest pointed vault in Christendom, as it measures no less than 73
ft. from side to side, while Albi, the next in size, is only 58 ft., and
Westminster Abbey is only 38. The old cathedral on the same site was
used as a mosque by the Moors, and on their expulsion in 1015 it appears
to have been very greatly modified, if not entirely rebuilt. During the
14th century new works were again carried out on an extensive scale, but
it was not till the beginning of the 15th that the proposal to erect the
present magnificent nave was originated by the master of the works,
Guillermo Boffiy. The general appearance of the exterior is rather
ungainly, but there is a fine approach by a flight of 86 steps to the
façade, which rises in tiers and terminates in an oval rose-window.
Among the tombs may be mentioned those of Bishop Berenger or Berenguer
(d. 1408), Count Ramon Berenger II. (d. 1082) and the countess Ermesinda
(d. 1057). The collegiate church of San Felíu (St Felix) is mainly of
the 14th century, but it was considerably modified in the 16th, and its
façade dates from the 18th. It is one of the few Spanish churches that
can boast of a genuine spire, and it thus forms a striking feature in
the general view of the town. The Benedictine church of San Pedro de
Galligans (or de los Gallos) is an interesting Romanesque building of
early date. It is named from the small river Galligans, an affluent of
the Oña, which flows through the city. In the same neighbourhood is a
small church worthy of notice as a rare Spanish example of a transverse
triapsal plan.

Gerona is the ancient Gerunda, a city of the Auscetani. It claims to be
the place in which St Paul and St James first rested when they came to
Spain; and it became the see of a bishop about 247. For a considerable
period it was in the hands of the Moors, and their emir, Suleiman, was
in alliance with Pippin the Short, king of the Franks, about 759. It was
taken by Charlemagne in 785; but the Moors regained and sacked it in
795, and it was not till 1015 that they were finally expelled. At a
later date it gave the title of count to the king of Aragon's eldest
son. It has been besieged no fewer than twenty-five times in all, and
only four of the sieges have resulted in its capture. The investment by
the French under Marshal Hocquincourt in 1653, that of 1684 by the
French under Marshal Bellefonds, and the successful enterprise of
Marshal Noailles in 1694 are the three great events of its history in
the 17th century. Surrendered by the French at the peace of Ryswick, it
was again captured by the younger Marshal Noailles in 1706, after a
brilliant defence; and in 1717 it held out against the Austrians. But
its noblest resistance was yet to be made. In May 1809 it was besieged
by the French, with 35,000 troops, under J. A. Verdier, P. F. Augereau
and Gouvion St Cyr; forty batteries were erected against it and a heavy
bombardment maintained; but under the leadership of Mariano Alvarez de
Castro it held out till famine and fever compelled a capitulation on the
12th of December. The French, it is said, had spent 20,000 bombs and
60,000 cannon balls, and their loss was estimated at 15,000 men.

  See Juan Gaspar Roig y Jalpi, _Resumen de las Grandezas_, &c.
  (Barcelona, 1678); J. A. Nieto y Samaniego, _Memorias_ (Tarragona,
  1810); G. E. Street, _Gothic Architecture in Spain_ (London, 1869).

GEROUSIA ([Greek: gerousia], Doric [Greek: gerôïa]), the ancient council
of elders at Sparta, corresponding in some of its functions to the
Athenian Boule. In historical times it numbered twenty-eight members, to
whom were added _ex officio_ the two kings and, later, the five ephors.
Candidates must have passed their sixtieth year, i.e. they must no
longer be liable to military service, and they were possibly restricted
to the nobility. Vacancies were filled by the Apella, that candidate
being declared elected whom the assembly acclaimed with the loudest
shouts--a method which Aristotle censures as childish (_Polit._ ii. 9,
p. 1271 a 9). Once elected, the _gerontes_ held office for life and were
irresponsible. The functions of the council were among the most
important in the state. It prepared the business which was to be
submitted to the Apella, and was empowered to set aside, in conjunction
with the kings, any "crooked" decision of the people. Together with the
kings and ephors it formed the supreme executive committee of the state,
and it exercised also a considerable criminal and political
jurisdiction, including the trial of kings; its competence extended to
the infliction of a sentence of exile or even of death. These powers, or
at least the greater part of them, were transferred by Cleomenes III. to
a board of _patronomi_ (Pausanias ii. 9. 1); the gerousia, however,
continued to exist at least down to Hadrian's reign, consisting of
twenty-three members annually elected, but eligible for re-election
(_Sparta Museum Catalogue_, Nos. 210, 612 and Introduction § 17).

  Fuller discussions of the gerousia will be found in Aristotle,
  _Politics_, ii. 9, 17-19: Plutarch, _Lycurgus_, 5, 26; G. F. Schömann,
  _Antiquities of Greece; The State_ (Eng. trans.), p. 230 ff.; G.
  Gilbert, _Constitutional Antiquities of Sparta and Athens_ (Eng.
  trans.), p. 47 ff.; C. O. Müller, _History and Antiquities of the
  Doric Race_ (Eng. trans.), iii. c. 6, §§ 1-3; G. Busolt, _Die
  griechischen Staats- und Rechtsaltertümer_ (Iwan Müller's _Handbuch
  der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft_, iv. 1), § 89; _Griechische
  Geschichte_, 2te Auflage i. 550 ff.; A. H. J. Greenidge, _Handbook of
  Greek Constitutional History_, 100 ff.; H. Gabriel, _De magistratibus
  Lacedaemoniorum_, 31 ff.     (M. N. T.)

GERRESHEIM, a town of Germany, in the Prussian Rhine Province, 6 m. by
rail E. of Düsseldorf. It contains a fine Romanesque church, dating from
the 13th century, which forms a portion of an ancient nunnery (founded
in the 10th century and secularized in 1806), and has extensive glass
manufactures and wire factories. Pop. (1905) 14,434.

GERRHA (Arab. _al-Jar`a_), an ancient city of Arabia, on the west side
of the Persian Gulf, described by Strabo (Bk. xvi.) as inhabited by
Chaldean exiles from Babylon, who built their houses of salt and
repaired them by the application of salt water. Pliny (_Hist. Nat._ vi.
32) says it was 5 m. in circumference with towers built of square blocks
of salt. Various identifications of the site have been attempted, J. P.
B. D'Anville choosing El Katif, C. Niebuhr preferring Kuwet and C.
Forster suggesting the ruins at the head of the bay behind the islands
of Bahrein.

  See A. Sprenger, _Die alte Geographie Arabiens_ (Bern, 1875), pp.

GERRÚS, a small province of Persia, situated between Khamseh and
Azerbaijan in the N., Kurdistan in the W. and Hamadan in the S. Its
population is estimated at 80,000, and its capital, Bíjár, 180 m. from
Hamadan, has a population of about 4000 and post and telegraph offices.
The province is fief of the chief of the Gerrús Kurds, pays a yearly
revenue of about £3000, and supplies a battalion of infantry (the 34th)
to the army.

GERRY, ELBRIDGE (1744-1814), American statesman, was born in Marblehead,
Massachusetts, on the 17th of July 1744, the son of Thomas Gerry (d.
1774), a native of Newton, England, who emigrated to America in 1730, and
became a prosperous Marblehead merchant. The son graduated at Harvard in
1762 and entered his father's business. In 1772 and 1773 he was a member
of the Massachusetts General Court, in which he identified himself with
Samuel Adams and the patriot party, and in 1773 he served on the Committee
of Correspondence, which became one of the great instruments of
intercolonial resistance. In 1774-1775 he was a member of the
Massachusetts Provincial Congress. The passage of a bill proposed by him
(November 1775) to arm and equip ships to prey upon British commerce, and
for the establishment of a prize court, was, according to his biographer,
Austin, "the first actual avowal of offensive hostility against the mother
country, which is to be found in the annals of the Revolution." It is also
noteworthy, says Austin, as "the first effort to establish an American
naval armament." From 1776 to 1781 Gerry was a member of the Continental
Congress, where he early advocated independence, and was one of those who
signed the Declaration after its formal signing on the 2nd of August 1776,
at which time he was absent. He was active in debates and committee work,
and for some time held the chairmanship of the important standing
committee for the superintendence of the treasury, in which capacity he
exercised a predominating influence on congressional expenditures. In
February 1780 he withdrew from Congress because of its refusal to respond
to his call for the yeas and nays. Subsequently he laid his protest before
the Massachusetts General Court which voted its approval of his action. On
his return to Massachusetts, and while he was still a member of Congress,
he was elected under the new state constitution (1780) to both branches of
the state legislature, but accepted only his election to the House of
Representatives. On the expiration of his congressional term, he was again
chosen a delegate by the Massachusetts legislature, but it was not until
1783 that he resumed his seat. During the second period of his service in
Congress, which lasted until 1785, he was a member of the committee to
consider the treaty of peace with Great Britain, and chairman of two
committees appointed to select a permanent seat of government. In 1784 he
bitterly attacked the establishment of the order of the Cincinnati on the
ground that it was a dangerous menace to democratic institutions. In 1786
he served in the state House of Representatives. Not favouring the
creation of a strong national government he declined to attend the
Annapolis Convention in 1786, but in the following year, when the
assembling of the Constitutional Convention was an assured fact, although
he opposed the purpose for which it was called, he accepted an appointment
as one of the Massachusetts delegates, with the idea that he might
personally help to check too strong a tendency toward centralization. His
exertions in the convention were ceaseless in opposition to what he
believed to be the wholly undemocratic character of the instrument, and
eventually he refused to sign the completed constitution. Returning to
Massachusetts, he spoke and wrote in opposition to its ratification, and
although not a member of the convention called to pass upon it, he laid
before this convention, by request, his reasons for opposing it, among
them being that the constitution contained no bill of rights, that the
executive would unduly influence the legislative branch of the government,
and that the judiciary would be oppressive. Subsequently he served as an
Anti-Federalist in the national House of Representatives in 1789-1793,
taking, as always, a prominent part in debates and other legislative
concerns. In 1797 he was sent by President John Adams, together with John
Marshall and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, on a mission to France to obtain
from the government of the Directory a treaty embodying a settlement of
several long-standing disputes. The discourteous and underhanded treatment
of this embassy by Talleyrand and his agents, who attempted to obtain
their ends by bribery, threats and duplicity, resulted in the speedy
retirement of Marshall and Pinckney. The episode is known in American
history as the "X Y Z Affair." Gerry, although despairing of any good
results, remained in Paris for some time in the vain hope that Talleyrand
might offer to a known friend of France terms that had been refused to
envoys whose anti-French views were more than suspected. This action of
Gerry's brought down upon him from Federalist partisans a storm of abuse
and censure, from which he never wholly cleared himself. In 1810-1812 he
was governor of Massachusetts. His administration, which was marked by
extreme partisanship, was especially notable for the enactment of a law by
which the state was divided into new senatorial districts in such a manner
as to consolidate the Federalist vote in a few districts, thus giving the
Democratic-Republicans an undue advantage. The outline of one of these
districts, which was thought to resemble a salamander, gave rise in 1812,
through a popular application of the governor's name, to the term
"Gerrymander" (q.v.). In 1812, Gerry, who was an ardent advocate of the
war with Great Britain, was elected vice-president of the United States,
on the ticket with James Madison. He died in office at Washington on the
23rd of November 1814.

  See J. T. Austin, _Life of Elbridge Gerry, with Contemporary Letters_
  (2 vols., Boston, 1828-1829).

GERRYMANDER (usually pronounced "jerrymander," but the _g_ was
originally pronounced hard), an American expression which has taken root
in the English language, meaning to arrange election districts so as to
give an unfair advantage to the party in power by means of a
redistribution act, and so to manipulate constituencies generally, or
arrange any political measure, with a view to an unfair party advantage.
The word is derived from the name of the American politician Elbridge
Gerry (q.v.). John Fiske, in his _Civil Government in the United States_
(1890), says that in 1812, when Gerry was governor of Massachusetts, the
Democratic state legislature (in order, according to Winsor, to secure
an increased representation of the Democratic party in the state senate)
"redistributed the districts in such wise that the shapes of the towns
forming a single district in Essex county gave to the district a
somewhat dragon-like contour. This was indicated upon a map of
Massachusetts which Benjamin Russell, an ardent Federalist and editor of
the _Centinel_, hung up over the desk in his office. The painter,
Gilbert Stuart, coming into the office one day and observing the uncouth
figure, added with his pencil a head, wings and claws, and exclaimed,
'That will do for a salamander!' 'Better say a Gerrymander,' growled the
editor; and the outlandish name, thus duly coined, soon came into
general currency." It was, however, only the name that was new. Fiske
(who also refers to Winsor's _Memorial History of Boston_, iii. 212, and
Bryce's _American Commonwealth_, i. 121) says that gerrymandering, as a
political dodge, "seems to have been first devised in 1788, by the
enemies of the Federal constitution in Virginia, in order to prevent the
election of James Madison to the first Congress, and fortunately it was
unsuccessful." But it was really earlier than that, and in the American
colonial period political advantage was often obtained by changing
county lines. In 1709 the Pennsylvania counties of Bucks, Chester and
Philadelphia formed a combination for preventing the city of
Philadelphia from securing its proportionate representation; and in 1732
George Burrington, royal governor of North Carolina, divided the voting
precincts of the province for his own advantage. Gerry was not the
originator of the Massachusetts law of 1812, which was probably drafted
by Samuel Dana or by Judge Story. The law resulted in 29 seats being
secured in Massachusetts by 50,164 Democratic votes, while 51,766
Federalist votes only returned 11 members; and Essex county, which,
undivided, sent 5 Federalists to the Senate, returned 3 Democrats and 2
Federalists after being "gerrymandered," Stuart's drawing (reproduced in
Fiske's book) was contrived so as to make the back line of the
creature's body form a caricature of Gerry's profile. The law of 1812
was repealed in 1813, when the Federalists had again gained control of
the Massachusetts legislature.

  See also Elmer C. Griffith, _The Rise and Development of the
  Gerrymander_ (Chicago, 1907); John W. Dean, "History of the
  Gerrymander," in _New England Historical and Genealogical Register_,
  vol. xlvi. (Boston, 1892).

GERS, a department of south-western France, composed of the whole or
parts of certain districts of Gascony, viz. Armagnac, Astarac, Fezensac,
Pardiac, Pays de Gaure, Lomagne, Comminges, Condomois and of a small
portion of Agenais. It is bounded N. by the department of
Lot-et-Garonne, N.E. by Tarn-et-Garonne, E. and S.E. by Haute-Garonne,
S. by Hautes-Pyrénées, S.W. by Basses-Pyrénées and W. by Landes. Pop.
(1906) 231,088. Area, 2428 sq. m. The department consists of a plateau
sloping from south to north and traversed by numerous rivers, most of
them having their source close together in the Plateau de Lannemezan
(Hautes-Pyrénées), from which point they diverge in the shape of a fan
to the north-west, north and north-east. In the south several summits
exceed 1100 ft. in height. Thence the descent towards the north is
gradual till on the northern limit of the department the lowest point
(less than 200 ft.) is reached. The greater part of the department
belongs to the basin of the Garonne, while a small portion in the west
is drained by the Adour. The chief affluents of the former are the Save,
Gimone, Arrats, Gers and Baïse, which derive their waters in great part
from the Canal de la Neste in the department of Hautes-Pyrénées; and of
the latter, the Arros, Midou and Douze, the last two uniting and taking
the name of Midouze before joining the Adour. The climate is temperate;
its drawbacks are the unwholesome south-east wind and the destructive
hail-storms which sometimes occur in spring. There is seldom any snow or
frost. Over the greater portion of the department the annual rainfall
varies between 28 and 32 in. Gers is primarily agricultural. The
south-western district is the most productive, but the valleys generally
are fertile and the grain produced is more than sufficient for local
consumption. Wheat, maize and oats are the principal cereals. About
one-third of the wine produced is used for home consumption, and the
remainder is chiefly manufactured into brandy, known by the name of
Armagnac, second only to Cognac in reputation. The natural pastures are
supplemented chiefly by crops of sainfoin and clover; horses, cattle,
sheep and swine are reared in considerable numbers; turkeys, geese and
other poultry are abundant. There are mineral springs at Aurenson,
Barbotan and several other places in the department. The mineral
production and manufactures are unimportant. Building stone and clay are
obtained. Flour-mills, saw-mills, tanneries, brickworks and cask-works
are the chief industrial establishments.

Gers is divided into the arrondissements of Auch, Lectoure, Mirande,
Condom and Lombez, with 29 cantons and 466 communes. The chief town is
Auch, the seat of an archbishopric. The department falls within the
circumscription of the appeal-court of Agen, and the region of the XVII.
army corps. It forms part of the académie (educational circumscription)
of Toulouse. Auch, Condom, Lectoure and Mirande are the principal towns.
The following are also of interest: Lombez, with its church of
Sainte-Marie, once a cathedral, dating from the 14th century, when the
bishopric was created; Flaran, with an abbey-church of the last half of
the 12th century; La Romieu, with a church of the same period and a
beautiful cloister; Simorre, with a fortified abbey-church of the 14th
century; and Fleurance, with a handsome church, also of the 14th
century, containing stained glass of the 16th century.

GERSON, JOHN (1363-1429), otherwise JEAN CHARLIER DE GERSON, French
scholar and divine, chancellor of the university of Paris, and the
ruling spirit in the oecumenical councils of Pisa and Constance, was
born at the village of Gerson, in the bishopric of Reims and department
of Ardennes, on the 14th of December 1363. His parents, Arnulph Charlier
and Elizabeth de la Chardenière, "a second Monica," were pious peasants,
and seven of their twelve children, four daughters and three sons,
devoted themselves to a religious life. Young Gerson was sent to Paris
to the famous college of Navarre when fourteen years of age. After a
five years' course he obtained the degree of licentiate of arts, and
then began his theological studies under two very celebrated teachers,
Gilles des Champs (Aegidius Campensis) and Pierre d'Ailly (Petrus de
Alliaco), rector of the college of Navarre, chancellor of the
university, and afterwards bishop of Puy, archbishop of Cambrai and
cardinal. Pierre d'Ailly remained his life-long friend, and in later
life the pupil seems to have become the teacher (see pref. to _Liber de
vita Spir. Animae_).

Gerson very soon attracted the notice of the university. He was elected
procurator for the French "nation" in 1383, and again in 1384, in which
year he graduated bachelor of theology. Three years later a still higher
honour was bestowed upon him; he was sent along with the chancellor and
others to represent the university in a case of appeal taken to the
pope. John of Montson (Monzon de Montesono), an Aragonese Dominican who
had recently graduated as doctor of theology at Paris, had in 1387 been
condemned by the faculty of theology because he had taught that the
Virgin Mary, like other ordinary descendants of Adam, was born in
original sin; and the Dominicans, who were fierce opponents of the
doctrine of the immaculate conception, were expelled the university.
John of Montson appealed to Pope Clement VII. at Avignon, and Pierre
d'Ailly, Gerson and the other university delegates, while they
personally supported the doctrine of the immaculate conception, were
content to rest their case upon the legal rights of the university to
test in its own way its theological teachers. Gerson's biographers have
compared his journey to Avignon with Luther's visit to Rome. It is
certain that from this time onwards he was zealous in his endeavours to
spiritualize the universities, to reform the morals of the clergy, and
to put an end to the schism which then divided the church. In 1392
Gerson became doctor of theology, and in 1395, when Pierre d'Ailly was
made bishop of Puy, he was, at the early age of thirty-two, elected
chancellor of the university of Paris, and made a canon of Notre Dame.
The university was then at the height of its fame, and its chancellor
was necessarily a man prominent not only in France but in Europe, sworn
to maintain the rights of his university against both king and pope, and
entrusted with the conduct and studies of a vast crowd of students
attracted from almost every country in Europe. Gerson's writings bear
witness to his deep sense of the responsibilities, anxieties and
troubles of his position. He was all his days a man of letters, and an
analysis of his writings is his best biography. His work has three
periods, in which he was engaged in reforming the university studies,
maturing plans for overcoming the schism (a task which after 1404
absorbed all his energies), and in the evening of his life writing books
of devotion.

Gerson wished to banish scholastic subtleties from the studies of the
university, and at the same time to put some evangelical warmth into
them. He was called at this period of his life Doctor Christianissimus;
later his devotional works brought him the title Doctor Consolatorius.
His plan was to make theology plain and simple by founding it on the
philosophical principles of nominalism. His method was a clear
exposition of the principles of theology where clearness was possible,
with a due recognition of the place of mystery in the Christian system
of doctrine. Like the great nominalist William of Occam, he saved
himself from rationalism by laying hold on mysticism--the Christian
mysticism of the school of St Victor. He thought that in this way he
would equally guard against the folly of the old scholasticism, and the
seductions of such Averroistic pantheism as was preached by heretics
like Amalric of Bena. His plans for the reformation of university
studies may be learned from his _Tract. de examinatione doctrinarum_
(Opp. i. 7), _Epistolae de reform, theol._ (i. 121), _Epistolae ad
studentes Collegii Navarrae, quid et qualiter studere debeat novus
theologiae auditor, et contra curiositatem studentium_ (i. 106), and
_Lectiones duae contra vanam curiositatem in negotio fidei_ (i. 86). The
study of the Bible and of the fathers was to supersede the idle
questions of the schools, and in his _Tract. contra romantiam de rosa_
(iii. 297) he warns young men against the evil consequences of
romance-reading. He was oftentimes weary of the chancellorship,--it
involved him in strife and in money difficulties; he grew tired of
public life, and longed for learned leisure. To obtain it he accepted
the deanery of Bruges from the duke of Burgundy, but after a short
sojourn he returned to Paris and to the chancellorship.

Gerson's chief work was what he did to destroy the great schism. Gregory
XI. had died in 1378, one year after Gerson went to the college of
Navarre, and since his death the church had had two popes, which to the
medieval mind meant two churches and a divided Christ. The schism had
practically been brought about by France. The popes had been under
French influence so long that it appeared to France a political
necessity to have her own pope, and pious Frenchmen felt themselves
somewhat responsible for the sins and scandals of the schism. Hence the
melancholy piety of Gerson, Pierre d'Ailly and their companions, and the
energy with which they strove to bring the schism to an end. During the
lifetime of Clement VII. the university of Paris, led by Pierre d'Ailly,
Gerson and Nicolas of Clamenges,[1] met in deliberation about the state
of Christendom, and resolved that the schism could be ended in three
ways,--by cession, if both popes renounced the tiara unconditionally, by
arbitration or by a general council. Clement died. The king of France,
urged by the university, sent orders that no new pope should be elected.
The cardinals first elected, and then opened the letter. In the new
elections, however, both at Rome and Avignon, the influence of Paris was
so much felt that each of the new popes swore to "cede" if his rival
would do so also.

Meanwhile in 1395 the national assembly of France and the French clergy
adopted the programme of the university--cession or a general council.
The movement gathered strength. In 1398 most of the cardinals and most
of the crowned heads in Europe had given their adhesion to the plan.
During this period Gerson's literary activity was untiring, and the
throb of public expectancy, of hope and fear, is revealed in his
multitude of pamphlets. At first there were hopes of a settlement by way
of cession. These come out in _Protest, super statum ecclesiae_ (ii. 1),
_Tract. de modo habendi se tempore schismatis_, _De schismate_, &c. But
soon the conduct of the popes made Europe impatient, and the desire for
a general council grew strong--see _De concilio generali unius
obedientiae_ (ii. 24). The council was resolved upon. It was to meet at
Pisa, and Gerson poured forth tract after tract for its guidance. The
most important are--_Trilogus in materia schismatis_ (ii. 83), and _De
unitate Ecclesiae_ (ii. 113), in which, following Pierre d'Ailly (see
Tschackert's _Peter v. Ailli_, p. 153), Gerson demonstrates that the
ideal unity of the church, based upon Christ, destroyed by the popes,
can only be restored by a general council, supreme and legitimate,
though unsummoned by a pope. The council met, deposed both antipopes,
and elected Alexander V. Gerson was chosen to address the new pope on
the duties of his office. He did so in his _Sermo coram Alexandro Papa
in die ascensionis in concilio Pisano_ (ii. 131). All hopes of
reformation, however, were quenched by the conduct of the new pope. He
had been a Franciscan, and loved his order above measure. He issued a
bull which laid the parish clergy and the universities at the mercy of
the mendicants. The great university of Paris rose in revolt, headed by
her chancellor, who wrote a fierce pamphlet--_Censura professorum in
theologia circa bullam Alexandri V._ (ii. 442). The pope died soon
after, and one of the most profligate men of that time, Pope John XXIII.
(Baldassare Cossa), was elected his successor. The council of Pisa had
not brought peace; it had only added a third pope. Pierre d'Ailly
despaired of general councils (see his _De difficultate reformationis in
concilio universali_), but Gerson struggled on. Another matter too had
roused him. The feuds between the houses of Orleans and Burgundy had
long distracted France. The duke of Orleans had been treacherously
murdered by the followers of the duke of Burgundy, and a theologian,
Jean Petit (c. 1360-1411), had publicly and unambiguously justified the
murder. His eight verities, as he called them--his apologies for the
murder--had been, mainly through the influence of Gerson, condemned by
the university of Paris, and by the archbishop and grand inquisitor,
and his book had been publicly burned before the cathedral of Notre
Dame. Gerson wished a council to confirm this sentence. His literary
labours were as untiring as ever. He maintained in a series of tracts
that a general council could depose a pope; he drew up indictments
against the reigning pontiffs, reiterated the charges against Jean
Petit, and exposed the sin of schism--in short, he did all he could to
direct the public mind towards the evils in the church and the way to
heal them. His efforts were powerfully seconded by the emperor
Sigismund, and the result was the council of Constance (see CONSTANCE,
COUNCIL OF). Gerson's influence at the council was supreme up to the
election of a new pope. It was he who dictated the form of submission
and cession made by John XXIII., and directed the process against Huss.
Many of Gerson's biographers have found it difficult to reconcile his
proceedings against Huss with his own opinions upon the supremacy of the
pope; but the difficulty has arisen partly from misunderstanding
Gerson's position, partly from supposing him to be the author of a
famous tract--_De modis uniendi ac reformandi Ecclesiam in concilio
universali_. All Gerson's high-sounding phrases about the supremacy of a
council were meant to apply to some time of emergency. He was
essentially a trimmer, and can scarcely be called a reformer, and he
hated Huss with all the hatred the trimmer has of the reformer. The
three bold treatises, _De necessitate reformationis Ecclesiae_, _De
modis uniendi ac reformandi Ecclesiam_, and _De difficultate
reformationis in concilio universali_, long ascribed to Gerson, were
proved by Schwab in his _Johannes Gerson_ not to be his work, and have
since been ascribed to Abbot Andreas of Randuf, and with more reason to
Dietrich of Nieheim (see NIEM, DIETRICH OF).

The council of Constance, which revealed the eminence of Gerson, became
in the end the cause of his downfall. He was the prosecutor in the case
of Jean Petit, and the council, overawed by the duke of Burgundy, would
not affirm the censure of the university and archbishop of Paris.
Petit's justification of murder was declared to be only a moral and
philosophical opinion, not of faith. The utmost length the council would
go was to condemn one proposition, and even this censure was annulled by
the new pope, Martin V., on a formal pretext. Gerson dared not return to
France, where, in the disturbed state of the kingdom, the duke of
Burgundy was in power. He lay hid for a time at Constance and then at
Rattenberg in Tirol, where he wrote his famous book _De consolatione
theologiae_. On returning to France he went to Lyons, where his brother
was prior of the Celestines. It is said that he taught a school of boys
and girls in Lyons, and that the only fee he exacted was to make the
children promise to repeat the prayer, "Lord, have mercy on thy poor
servant Gerson." His later years were spent in writing books of mystical
devotion and hymns. He died at Lyons on the 12th of July 1429. Tradition
declares that during his sojourn there he translated or adapted from the
Latin a work upon eternal consolation, which afterwards became very
famous under the title of _The Imitation of Christ_, and was attributed
to Thomas à Kempis. It has, however, been proved beyond a doubt that the
famous _Imitatio Christi_ was really written by Thomas, and not by John
Gerson or the abbot Gerson.

  The literature on Gerson is very abundant. See Dupin, _Gersoniana_,
  including _Vita Gersoni_, prefixed to the edition of Gerson's works in
  5 vols, fol., from which quotations have here been made; Charles
  Schmidt, _Essai sur Jean Gerson, chancelier de l'Université de Paris_
  (Strassburg, 1839); J. B. Schwab, _Johannes Gerson_ (Würzburg, 1859);
  H. Jadart, _Jean Gerson, son origine, son village natal et sa familie_
  (Reims, 1882). On the relations between Gerson and D'Ailly see Paul
  Tschackert, _Peter von Ailli_ (Gotha, 1877). On Gerson's public life
  see also histories of the councils of Pisa and Constance, especially
  Herm. v. der Hardt, _Con. Constantiensis libri iv._ (1695-1699). The
  best editions of his works are those of Paris (3 vols., 1606) and
  Antwerp (5 vols., 1706). See also Ulysse Chevalier, _Répertoire des
  sources hist. Bio-bibliographie_ (Paris, 1905, &c.), s.v. "Gerson."
       (T. M. L.; X.)


  [1] Born c. 1360; rector of the university of Paris 1393; afterwards
    treasurer of Langres and archdeacon of Bayeux; died at Paris in 1437.

(1288-1344), Jewish philosopher and commentator, was born at Bagnols in
Languedoc, probably in 1288. As in the case of the other medieval Jewish
philosophers little is known of his life. His family had been
distinguished for piety and exegetical skill, but though he was known in
the Jewish community by commentaries on certain books of the Bible, he
never seems to have accepted any rabbinical post. Possibly the freedom
of his opinions may have put obstacles in the way of his preferment. He
is known to have been at Avignon and Orange during his life, and is
believed to have died in 1344, though Zacuto asserts that he died at
Perpignan in 1370. Part of his writings consist of commentaries on the
portions of Aristotle then known, or rather of commentaries on the
commentaries of Averroes. Some of these are printed in the early Latin
editions of Aristotle's works. His most important treatise, that by
which he has a place in the history of philosophy, is entitled
_Milhamoth 'Adonai_ (The Wars of God), and occupied twelve years in
composition (1317-1329). A portion of it, containing an elaborate survey
of astronomy as known to the Arabs, was translated into Latin in 1342 at
the request of Clement VI. The _Milhamoth_ is throughout modelled after
the plan of the great work of Jewish philosophy, the _Moreh Nebuhim_ of
Moses Maimonides, and may be regarded as an elaborate criticism from the
more philosophical point of view (mainly Averroistic) of the syncretism
of Aristotelianism and Jewish orthodoxy as presented in that work. The
six books pass in review (1) the doctrine of the soul, in which
Gersonides defends the theory of impersonal reason as mediating between
God and man, and explains the formation of the higher reason (or
acquired intellect, as it was called) in humanity,--his view being
thoroughly realist and resembling that of Avicebron; (2) prophecy; (3)
and (4) God's knowledge of facts and providence, in which is advanced
the curious theory that God does not know individual facts, and that,
while there is general providence for all, special providence only
extends to those whose reason has been enlightened; (5) celestial
substances, treating of the strange spiritual hierarchy which the Jewish
philosophers of the middle ages accepted from the Neoplatonists and the
pseudo-Dionysius, and also giving, along with astronomical details, much
of astrological theory; (6) creation and miracles, in respect to which
Gerson deviates widely from the position of Maimonides. Gersonides was
also the author of a commentary on the Pentateuch and other exegetical
and scientific works.

  A careful analysis of the _Milhamoth_ is given in Rabbi Isidore Weil's
  _Philosophie religieuse de Lévi-Ben-Gerson_ (Paris, 1868). See also
  Munk, _Mélanges de phil. juive et arabe_; and Joel,
  _Religionsphilosophie d. L. Ben-Gerson_ (1862). The _Milhamoth_ was
  published in 1560 at Riva di Trento, and has been published at
  Leipzig, 1866.     (I. A.)

GERSOPPA, FALLS OF, a cataract on the Sharavati river in the North
Kanara district of Bombay. The falls are considered the finest in India.
The river descends in four separate cascades called the Raja or
Horseshoe, the Roarer, the Rocket and the Dame Blanche. The cliff over
which the river plunges is 830 ft. high, and the pool at the base of the
Raja Fall is 132 ft. deep. The falls are reached by boat from Honavar,
or by road from Gersoppa village, 18 m. distant. Near the village are
extensive ruins (the finest of which is a cruciform temple) of
Nagarbastikere, the capital of the Jain chiefs of Gersoppa. Their family
was established in power in 1409 by the Vijayanagar kings, but
subsequently became practically independent. The chieftaincy was several
times held by women, and on the death of the last queen (1608) it
collapsed, having been attacked by the chief of Bednur. Among the
Portuguese the district was celebrated for its pepper, and they called
its queen "Regina da pimenta" (queen of pepper).

GERSTÄCKER, FRIEDRICH (1816-1872), German novelist and writer of
travels, was born at Hamburg on the 10th of May 1816, the son of
Friedrich Gerstäcker (1790-1825), a celebrated opera singer. After being
apprenticed to a commercial house he learnt farming in Saxony. In 1837,
however, having imbibed from _Robinson Crusoe_ a taste for adventure, he
went to America and wandered over a large part of the United States,
supporting himself by whatever work came to hand. In 1843 he returned to
Germany, to find himself, to his great surprise, famous as an author.
His mother had shown his diary, which he regularly sent home, and which
contained descriptions of his adventures in the New World, to the editor
of the _Rosen_, who published them in that periodical. These sketches
having found favour with the public, Gerstäcker issued them in 1844
under the title _Streif-und Jagdzüge durch die Vereinigten Staaten
Nordamerikas_. In 1845 his first novel, _Die Regulatoren in Arkansas_,
appeared, and henceforth the stream of his productiveness flowed on
uninterruptedly. From 1849 to 1852 Gerstäcker travelled round the world,
visiting North and South America, Polynesia and Australia, and on his
return settled in Leipzig. In 1860 he again went to South America,
chiefly with a view to inspecting the German colonies there and
reporting on the possibility of diverting the stream of German
emigration in this direction. The result of his observations and
experiences he recorded in _Achtzehn Monate in Südamerika_ (1862). In
1862 he accompanied Duke Ernest of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha to Egypt and
Abyssinia, and on his return settled at Coburg, where he wrote a number
of novels descriptive of the scenes he had visited. In 1867-1868
Gerstäcker again undertook a long journey, visiting North America,
Venezuela and the West Indies, and on his return lived first at Dresden
and then at Brunswick, where he died on the 31st of May 1872. His genial
and straightforward character made him personally beloved; and his
works, dealing as they did with the great world hitherto hidden from the
narrow "parochialism" of German life, obtained an immense popularity.
This was not due to any graces of style, in which they are singularly
lacking; but the unstudied freshness of the author's descriptions, and
his sturdy humour, appealed to the wholesome instincts of the public.
Many of his books were translated into foreign languages, notably into
English, and became widely known on both sides of the Atlantic. His best
works, from a literary point of view, are, besides the above-mentioned
_Regulatoren_, his _Flusspiraten des Mississippi_ (1848); the novel
_Tahiti_ (1854); his Australian romance _Die beiden Sträflinge_ (1857);
_Aus dem Matrosenleben_ (1857); and _Blau Wasser_ (1858). His _Travels_
exist in an English translation.

  Gerstäcker's _Gesammelte Schriften_ were published at Jena in 44 vols.
  (1872-1879); a selection, edited by D. Theden in 24 vols. (1889-1890).
  See A. Karl, _Friedrich Gerstäcker, der Weitgereiste. Ein Lebensbild_

GERSTENBERG, HEINRICH WILHELM VON (1737-1823), German poet and critic,
was born at Tondern in Schleswig on the 3rd of January 1737. After
studying law at Jena he entered the Danish military service and took
part in the Russian campaign of 1762. He spent the next twelve years in
Copenhagen, where he was intimate with Klopstock. From 1775 to 1783 he
represented Denmark's interests as "Danish Resident" at Lübeck, and in
1786 received a judicial appointment at Altona, where he died on the 1st
of November 1823. In the course of his long life Gerstenberg passed
through many phases of his nation's literature. He began as an imitator
of the Anacreontic school (_Tändeleien_, 1759); then wrote, in imitation
of Gleim, _Kriegslieder eines dänischen Grenadiers_ (1762); with his
_Gedicht eines Skalden_ (1766) he joined the group of "bards" led by
Klopstock. His _Ariadne auf Naxos_ (1767) is the best cantata of the
18th century; he translated Beaumont and Fletcher's _Maid's Tragedy_
(1767), and helped to usher in the _Sturm und Drang_ period with a
gruesome but powerful tragedy, _Ugolino_ (1768). But he did perhaps even
better service to the new literary movement with his _Briefe über
Merkwürdigkeiten der Literatur_ (1766-1770), in which the critical
principles of the _Sturm und Drang_--and especially its enthusiasm for
Shakespeare,--were first definitely formulated. In later life
Gerstenberg lost touch with literature, and occupied himself mainly with
Kant's philosophy.

  His _Vermischte Schriften_ appeared in 3 vols. (1815). The _Briefe
  über Merkwürdigkeiten der Literatur_ were republished by A. von Weilen
  (1888), and a selection of his poetry, including _Ugolino_, by R.
  Hamel, will be found in Kürschner's _Deutsche Nationalliteratur_, vol.
  48 (1884).

GÉRUZEZ, NICOLAS EUGÈNE (1799-1865), French critic, was born on the 6th
of January 1799 at Reims. He was assistant professor at the Sorbonne,
and in 1852 he became secretary to the faculty of literature. He wrote a
_Histoire de l'éloquence politique et religieuse en France aux XIV^e,
XV^e, et XVI^e siècles_ (1837-1838); an admirable _Histoire de la
littérature française depuis les origines jusqu'à la Révolution_ (1852),
which he supplemented in 1859 by a volume bringing down the history to
the close of the revolutionary period; and some miscellaneous works.
Géruzez died on the 29th of May 1865 in Paris. A posthumous volume of
_Mélanges et pensées_ appeared in 1877.

GERVAIS, PAUL (1816-1879), French palaeontologist, was born on the 26th
of September 1816 at Paris, where he obtained the diplomas of doctor of
science and of medicine, and in 1835 he began palaeontological research
as assistant in the laboratory of comparative anatomy at the Museum of
Natural History. In 1841 he obtained the chair of zoology and
comparative anatomy at the Faculty of Sciences in Montpellier, of which
he was in 1856 appointed dean. In 1848-1852 appeared his important work
_Zoologie et paléontologie françaises_, supplementary to the
palaeontological publications of G. Cuvier and H. M. D. de Blainville;
of this a second and greatly improved edition was issued in 1859. In
1865 he accepted the professorship of zoology at the Sorbonne, vacant
through the death of L. P. Gratiolet; this post he left in 1868 for the
chair of comparative anatomy at the Paris museum of natural history, the
anatomical collections of which were greatly enriched by his exertions.
He died in Paris on the 10th of February 1879.

  He also wrote _Histoire naturelle des mammifères_ (1853, &c.);
  _Zoologie médicale_ (1859, with P. J. van Beneden); _Recherches sur
  l'ancienneté de l'homme et la période quaternaire_, 19 pl. (1867);
  _Zoologie et paléontologie générales_ (1867); _Ostéographie des
  cétacés_ (1869, &., with van Beneden).

GERVASE OF CANTERBURY (d. c. 1210), English monk and chronicler, entered
the house of Christchurch, Canterbury, at an early age. He made his
profession and received holy orders in 1163; but we have no further clue
to the date of his birth. We know nothing of his life beyond what may be
gathered from his own writings. Their evidence suggests that he died in
or shortly after 1210, and that he had resided almost continuously at
Canterbury from the time of his admission. The only office which we know
him to have held is that of sacrist, which he received after 1190 and
laid down before 1197. He took a keen interest in the secular quarrels
of the Canterbury monks with their archbishops, and his earliest
literary efforts were controversial tracts upon this subject. But from
1188 he applied his mind to historical composition. About that year he
began the compilation of his _Chronica_, a work intended for the private
reading of his brethren. Beginning with the accession of Stephen he
continued his narrative to the death of Richard I. Up to 1188 he relies
almost entirely upon extant sources; but from that date onwards is
usually an independent authority. A second history, the _Gesta Regum_,
is planned on a smaller scale and traces the fortunes of Britain from
the days of Brutus to the year 1209. The latter part of this work,
covering the years 1199-1209, is perhaps an attempt to redeem the
promise, which he had made in the epilogue to the _Chronica_, of a
continuation dealing with the reign of John. This is the only part of
the _Gesta_ which deserves much attention. The work was continued by
various hands to the year 1328. From the _Gesta_ the indefatigable
Gervase turned to a third project, the history of the see of Canterbury
from the arrival of Augustine to the death of Hubert Walter (1205). A
topographical work, with the somewhat misleading title _Mappa mundi_,
completes the list of his more important writings. The _Mappa mundi_
contains a useful description of England shire by shire, giving in
particular a list of the castles and religious houses to be found in
each. The industry of Gervase was greater than his insight. He took a
narrow and monastic view of current politics; he was seldom in touch
with the leading statesmen of his day. But he appears to be tolerably
accurate when dealing with the years 1188-1209; and sometimes he
supplements the information provided by the more important chronicles.

  See the introductions and notes in W. Stubbs's edition of the
  _Historical Works of Gervase of Canterbury_ (Rolls edition, 2 vols.,
  1879-1880).     (H. W. C. D.)

GERVASE OF TILBURY (fl. 1211), Anglo-Latin writer of the late 12th and
early 13th centuries, was a kinsman and schoolfellow of Patrick, earl of
Salisbury, but lived the life of a scholarly adventurer, wandering from
land to land in search of patrons. Before 1177 he was a student and
teacher of law at Bologna; in that year he witnessed the meeting of the
emperor Frederic I. and Pope Alexander III. at Venice. He may have hoped
to win the favour of Frederic, who in the past had found useful
instruments among the civilians of Bologna. But Frederic ignored him;
his first employer of royal rank was Henry fitz Henry, the young king of
England (d. 1183), for whom Gervase wrote a jest-book which is no longer
extant. Subsequently we hear of Gervase as a clerk in the household of
William of Champagne, cardinal archbishop of Reims (d. 1202). Here, as
he himself confesses, he basely accused of heretical opinions a young
girl, who had rejected his advances, with the result that she was burned
to death. He cannot have remained many years at Reims; before 1189 he
attracted the favour of William II. of Sicily, who had married Joanna,
the sister of Henry fitz Henry. William took Gervase into his service
and gave him a country-house at Nola. After William's death the kingdom
of Sicily offered no attractions to an Englishman. The fortunes of
Gervase suffered an eclipse until, some time after 1198, he found
employment under the emperor Otto IV., who by descent and political
interest was intimately connected with the Plantagenets. Though a clerk
in orders Gervase became marshal of the kingdom of Arles, and married an
heiress of good family. For the delectation of the emperor he wrote,
about 1211, his _Otia Imperialia_ in three parts. It is a farrago of
history, geography, folklore and political theory--one of those books of
table-talk in which the literature of the age abounded. Evidently
Gervase coveted but ill deserved a reputation for encyclopaedic
learning. The most interesting of his dissertations are contained in the
second part of the _Otia_, where he discusses, among other topics, the
theory of the Empire and the geography and history of England. We do not
know what became of Gervase after the downfall of Otto IV. But he became
a canon; and may perhaps be identified with Gervase, provost of
Ebbekesdorf, who died in 1235.

  See the _Otia Imperialia_ in G. Leibnitz's _Scriptores rerum
  Brunsvicensium_, vols. i. and ii. (Hanover, 1707); extracts in J.
  Stevenson's edition of _Coggeshall_ (Rolls series, 1875). Of modern
  accounts the best are those by W. Stubbs in his edition of _Gervase of
  Canterbury_, vol. i. introd. (Rolls series, 1879), and by R. Pauli in
  _Nachrichten der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen_ (1882).
  In the older biographers the _Dialogus de scaccario_ of Richard Fitz
  Neal (q.v.) is wrongly attributed to Gervase.     (H. W. C. D.)

GERVEX, HENRI (1852-   ), French painter, was born in Paris on the 10th
of December 1852, and studied painting under Cabanel, Brisset and
Fromentin. His early work belonged almost exclusively to the
mythological genre which served as an excuse for the painting of the
nude--not always in the best of taste; indeed, his "Rolla" of 1878 was
rejected by the jury of the Salon _pour immoralité_. He afterwards
devoted himself to representations of modern life and achieved signal
success with his "Dr Péan at the Salpétrière," a modernized paraphrase,
as it were, of Rembrandt's "Anatomy Lesson." He was entrusted with
several important official paintings and the decoration of public
buildings. Among the first are "The Distribution of Awards (1889) at the
Palais de l'Industrie" (now in the Versailles Museum), "The Coronation
of Nicolas II." (Moscow, May 14, 1896), "The Mayors' Banquet" (1900),
and the portrait group "La République Française"; and among the second,
the ceiling for the Salle des Fêtes at the hôtel de ville, Paris, and
the decorative panels painted in conjunction with Blanchon for the
mairie of the 19th arrondissement, Paris. He also painted, with Alfred
Stevens, a panorama, "The History of the Century" (1889). At the
Luxembourg is his painting "Satyrs playing with a Bacchante" as well as
the large "Members of the Jury of the Salon" (1885). Other pictures of
importance, besides numerous portraits in oils and pastel, are
"Communion at Trinity Church," "Return from the Ball," "Diana and
Endymion," "Job," "Civil Marriage," "At the Ambassadeurs," "Yachting in
the Archipelago," "Nana" and "Maternity."

GERVINUS, GEORG GOTTFRIED (1805-1871), German literary and political
historian, was born on the 20th of May 1805 at Darmstadt. He was
educated at the gymnasium of the town, and intended for a commercial
career, but in 1825 he became a student of the university of Giessen. In
1826 he went to Heidelberg, where he attended the lectures of the
historian Schlosser, who became henceforth his guide and his model. In
1828 he was appointed teacher in a private school at Frankfort-on-Main,
and in 1830 _Privatdozent_ at Heidelberg. A volume of his collected
_Historische Schriften_ procured him the appointment of professor
extraordinarius; while the first volume of his _Geschichte der
poëtischen Nationallitteratur der Deutschen_ (1835-1842, 5 vols.,
subsequently entitled _Geschichte der deutschen Dichtung_; 5th edition,
by K. Bartsch, 1871-1874) brought him the appointment to a regular
professorship of history and literature at Göttingen. This work is the
first comprehensive history of German literature written both with
scholarly erudition and literary skill. In the following year he wrote
his _Grundzüge der Historik_, which is perhaps the most thoughtful of
his philosophico-historical productions. The same year brought his
expulsion from Göttingen in consequence of his manly protest, in
conjunction with six of his colleagues, against the unscrupulous
violation of the constitution by Ernest Augustus, king of Hanover and
duke of Cumberland. After several years in Heidelberg, Darmstadt and
Rome, he settled permanently in Heidelberg, where, in 1844, he was
appointed honorary professor. He zealously took up in the following year
the cause of the German Catholics, hoping it would lead to a union of
all the Christian confessions, and to the establishment of a national
church. He also came forward in 1846 as a patriotic champion of the
Schleswig-Holsteiners, and when, in 1847, King Frederick William IV.
promulgated the royal decree for summoning the so-called "United Diet"
(Vereinigter Landtag), Gervinus hoped that this event would form the
basis of the constitutional development of the largest German state. He
founded, together with some other patriotic scholars, the _Deutsche
Zeitung_, which certainly was one of the best-written political journals
ever published in Germany. His appearance in the political arena secured
his election as deputy for the Prussian province of Saxony to the
National Assembly sitting in 1848 at Frankfort. Disgusted with the
failure of that body, he retired from all active political life.

Gervinus now devoted himself to literary and historical studies, and
between 1849 and 1852 published his work on _Shakespeare_ (4 vols., 4th
ed. 2 vols., 1872; Eng. trans. by F. E. Bunnett, 1863, new ed. 1877). He
also revised his _History of German Literature_, for a fourth edition
(1853), and began at the same time to plan his _Geschichte des
neunzehnten Jahrhunderts_ (8 vols., 1854-1860), which was preceded by an
_Einleitung in die Geschichte des neunzehnten Jahrhunderts_ (1853). The
latter caused some stir in the literary and political world, owing to
the circumstance that the government of Baden imprudently instituted a
prosecution against the author for high treason. In 1868 appeared
_Händel und Shakespeare, zur Ästhetik der Tonkunst_, in which he drew an
ingenious parallel between his favourite poet and his favourite
composer, showing that their intellectual affinity was based on the
Teutonic origin common to both, on their analogous intellectual
development and character. The ill-success of this publication, and the
indifference with which the latter volumes of his _History of the 19th
Century_ were received by his countrymen, together with the feeling of
disappointment that the unity of Germany had been brought about in
another fashion and by other means than he wished to see employed,
embittered his later years. He died at Heidelberg on the 18th of March

  Gervinus's autobiography (_G. G. Gervinus' Leben, von ihm selbst_) was
  published by his widow in 1893. It does not, however, go beyond the
  year 1836. See E. Lehmann, _Gervinus, Versuch einer Charakteristik_
  (1871); R. Gosche, _Gervinus_ (1871); J. Dörfel, _Gervinus als
  historischer Denker_ (1904).

GERYON (GERYONES, GERYONEUS), in Greek mythology, the son of Chrysaor
and Callirrhoë, daughter of Oceanus, and king of the Island of Erytheia.
He is represented as a monster with three heads or three bodies
(_triformis_, _trigeminus_), sometimes with wings, and as the owner of
herds of red cattle, which were tended by the giant shepherd Eurytion
and the two-headed dog Orthrus. To carry off these cattle to Greece was
one of the twelve "labours" imposed by Eurystheus upon Heracles. In
order to get possession of them, Heracles travelled through Europe and
Libya, set up the two pillars in the Straits of Gibraltar to show the
extent of his journey, and reached the great river Oceanus. Having
crossed Oceanus and landed on the island, Heracles slew Orthrus together
with Eurytion, who in vain strove to defend him, and drove off the
cattle. Geryon started in pursuit, but fell a victim to the arrows of
Heracles, who, after various adventures, succeeded in getting the cattle
safe to Greece, where they were offered in sacrifice to Hera by
Eurystheus. The geographical position of Erytheia is unknown, but all
ancient authorities agree that it was in the far west. The name itself
(= red) and the colour of the cattle suggest the fiery aspect of the
disk of the setting sun; further, Heracles crosses Oceanus in the golden
cup or boat of the sun-god Helios. Geryon (from [Greek: gêryô], the
howler or roarer) is supposed to personify the storm, his father
Chrysaor the lightning, his mother Callirrhoë the rain. The cattle are
the rain-clouds, and the slaying of their keepers typifies the victory
of the sun over the clouds, or of spring over winter. The euhemeristic
explanation of the struggle with the triple monster was that Heracles
fought three brothers in succession.

  See Apollodorus ii. 5. 10; Hesiod, _Theogony_, 287; Diod. Sic. iv. 17;
  Herodotus iv. 8; F. Wieseler in Ersch and Gruber, _Allgemeine
  Encyclopädie_; F. A. Voigt in Roscher's _Lexikon der Mythologie_; L.
  Preller, _Griechische Mythologie_; article "Hercules" in Daremberg and
  Saglio, _Dictionnaire des antiquités_.

GESENIUS, HEINRICH FRIEDRICH WILHELM (1786-1842), German orientalist and
biblical critic, was born at Nordhausen, Hanover, on the 3rd of February
1786. In 1803 he became a student of philosophy and theology at the
university of Helmstädt, where Heinrich Henke (1752-1809) was his most
influential teacher; but the latter part of his university course was
taken at Göttingen, where J. G. Eichhorn and T. C. Tychsen (1758-1834)
were then at the height of their popularity. In 1806, shortly after
graduation, he became _Repetent_ and _Privatdozent_ in that university;
and, as he was fond of afterwards relating, had Neander for his first
pupil in Hebrew. In 1810 he became professor extraordinarius in
theology, and in 1811 ordinarius, at the university of Halle, where, in
spite of many offers of high preferment elsewhere, he spent the rest of
his life. He taught with great regularity for upward of thirty years,
the only interruptions being that of 1813-1814 (occasioned by the War of
Liberation, during which the university was closed) and those occasioned
by two prolonged literary tours, first in 1820 to Paris, London and
Oxford with his colleague Johann Karl Thilo (1794-1853) for the
examination of rare oriental manuscripts, and in 1835 to England and
Holland in connexion with his Phoenician studies. He soon became the
most popular teacher of Hebrew and of Old Testament introduction and
exegesis in Germany; during his later years his lectures were attended
by nearly five hundred students. Among his pupils the most eminent were
Peter von Bohlen (1796-1840), A. G. Hoffmann (1769-1864), Hermann
Hupfeld, Emil Rödiger (1801-1874), J. F. Tuch (1806-1867), W. Vatke
(1806-1882) and Theodor Benfey (1809-1881). In 1827, after declining an
invitation to take Eichhorn's place at Göttingen, Gesenius was made a
_Consistorialrath_; but, apart from the violent attacks to which he,
along with his friend and colleague Julius Wegscheider, was in 1830
subjected by E. W. Hengstenberg and his party in the _Evangelische
Kirchenzeitung_, on account of his rationalism, his life was uneventful.
He died at Halle on the 23rd of October 1842. To Gesenius belongs in a
large measure the credit of having freed Semitic philology from the
trammels of theological and religious prepossession, and of inaugurating
the strictly scientific (and comparative) method which has since been so
fruitful. As an exegete he exercised a powerful, and on the whole a
beneficial, influence on theological investigation.

  Of his many works, the earliest, published in 1810, entitled _Versuch
  über die maltesische Sprache_, was a successful refutation of the
  widely current opinion that the modern Maltese was of Punic origin. In
  the same year appeared the first volume of the _Hebräisches u.
  Chaldäisches Handwörterbuch_, completed in 1812. Revised editions of
  this appear periodically in Germany, e.g. that of H. Zimmern and F.
  Buhl (1905). The publication of a new English edition was started in
  1892 under the editorship of Professors C. A. Briggs, S. R. Driver and
  F. Brown. _The Hebräische Grammatik_, published in 1813 (27th edition
  by E. Kautzsch; English translation from 25th and 26th German editions
  by G. W. Collins and A. E. Cowley, 1898), was followed in 1815 by the
  _Geschichte der hebräischen Sprache_ (now very rare), and in 1817 by
  the _Ausführliches Lehrgebäude der hebräischen Sprache_. The first
  volume of his well-known commentary on Isaiah (_Der Prophet Jesaja_),
  with a translation, appeared in 1821; but the work was not completed
  until 1829. The _Thesaurus philologico-criticus linguae Hebraicae et
  Chaldaicae V. T._, begun in 1829, he did not live to complete; the
  latter part of the third volume is edited by E. Rödiger (1858). Other
  works: _De Pentateuchi Samaritani origine, indole, et auctoritate_
  (1815), supplemented in 1822 and 1824 by the treatise _De
  Samaritanorum theologia_, and by an edition of _Carmina Samaritana_;
  _Paläographische Studien über phönizische u. punische Schrift_ (1835),
  a pioneering work which he followed up in 1837 by his collection of
  Phoenician monuments (_Scripturae linguaeque Phoeniciae monumenta
  quotquot supersunt_); an Aramaic lexicon (1834-1839); and a treatise
  on the Himyaritic language written in conjunction with E. Rödiger in
  1841. Gesenius also contributed extensively to Ersch and Gruber's
  _Encyclopädie_, and enriched the German translation of J. L.
  Burckhardt's _Travels in Syria and the Holy Land_ with valuable
  geographical notes. For many years he also edited the Halle
  _Allgemeine Litteraturzeitung_. A sketch of his life was published
  anonymously in 1843 (_Gesenius: eine Erinnerung für seine Freunde_),
  and another by H. _Gesenius, Wilhelm Gesenius, ein Erinnerungsblatt an
  den hundertjährigen Geburtstag_, in 1886. See also the article in the
  _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_.

GESNER, ABRAHAM (1797-1864), Canadian geologist, was born in Nova Scotia
in 1797. He qualified as a doctor of medicine in London in 1827.
Returning to the Dominion, he published in 1836 _Remarks on the Geology
and Mineralogy of Nova Scotia_, and continuing his researches he was
enabled in 1843 to bring before the Geological Society of London "A
Geological Map of Nova Scotia, with an accompanying Memoir" (_Proc.
Geol. Soc._ iv. 186). In 1849 he issued a volume on the industrial
resources of the country. He dealt also with the geology and mineralogy
of New Brunswick and Prince Edward's Island. Devoting himself to the
economic side of geology in various parts of North America, he was
enabled to bring out in 1861 _A Practical Treatise on Coal, Petroleum
and other Distilled Oils_. He died at Halifax, N.S., on the 29th of
April 1864.

GESNER, JOHANN MATTHIAS (1691-1761), German classical scholar and
schoolmaster, was born at Roth near Ansbach on the 9th of April 1691. He
studied at the university of Jena, and in 1714 published a work on the
_Philopatris_ ascribed to Lucian. In 1715 he became librarian and
conrector (vice-principal) at Weimar, in 1729 rector of the gymnasium at
Ansbach, and in 1730 rector of the Thomas school at Leipzig. On the
foundation of the university of Göttingen he became professor of
rhetoric (1734) and subsequently librarian. He died at Göttingen on the
3rd of August 1761. His special merit lies in the attention he devoted
to the explanation and illustration of the subject matter of the
classical authors.

  His principal works are: editions of the _Scriptores rei rusticae_, of
  Quintilian, Claudian, Pliny the Younger, Horace and the Orphic poems
  (published after his death); _Primae lineae isagoges in eruditionem
  universalem_ (1756); an edition of B. Faber's _Thesaurus eruditionis
  scholasticae_ (1726), afterwards continued under the title _Novus
  linguae et eruditionis Romanae thesaurus_ (1749); _Opuscula minora
  varii argumenti_ (1743-1745); _Thesaurus epistolicus Gesnerianus_ (ed.
  Klotz, 1768-1770); _Index etymologicus latinitatis_ (1749). See J. A.
  Ernesti, _Opuscula oratoria_ (1762), p. 305; H. Sauppe, _Göttinger
  Professoren_ (1872); C. H. Pöhnert, _J. M. Gesner und sein Verhältnis
  zum Philanthropinismus und Neuhumanismus_ (1898), a contribution to
  the history of pedagogy in the 18th century; articles by F. A.
  Eckstein in _Allgemeine deutsche Biographie_ ix.; and Sandys, _Hist.
  of Class. Schol._ iii. (1908), 5-9.

GESNER [improperly GESSNER; in Latin, GESNERUS], KONRAD VON (1516-1565),
German-Swiss writer and naturalist, called "the German Pliny" by Cuvier,
was born at Zürich on the 26th of March 1516. The son of a poor furrier,
he was educated in that town, but fell into great need after the death
of his father at the battle of Kappel (1531). He had good friends,
however, in his old master, Myconius, and subsequently in Heinrich
Bullinger, and he was enabled to continue his studies at the
universities of Strassburg and Bourges (1532-1533); he found also a
generous patron in Paris (1534), in the person of Joh. Steiger of Berne.
In 1535 the religious troubles drove him back to Zürich, where he made
an imprudent marriage. His friends again came to his aid, enabled him to
study at Basel (1536), and in 1537 procured for him the professorship of
Greek at the newly founded academy of Lausanne (then belonging to
Berne). Here he had leisure to devote himself to scientific studies,
especially botany. In 1540-1541 he visited the famous medical university
of Montpellier, took his degree of doctor of medicine (1541) at Basel,
and then settled down to practise at Zürich, where he obtained the post
of lecturer in physics at the Carolinum. There, apart from a few
journeys to foreign countries, and annual summer botanical journeys in
his native land, he passed the remainder of his life. He devoted himself
to preparing works on many subjects of different sorts. He died of the
plague on the 13th of December 1565. In the previous year he had been

To his contemporaries he was best known as a botanist, though his
botanical MSS. were not published till long after his death (at
Nuremberg, 1751-1771, 2 vols, folio), he himself issuing only the
_Enchiridion historiae plantarum_ (1541) and the _Catalogus plantarum_
(1542) in four tongues. In 1545 he published his remarkable _Bibliotheca
universalis_ (ed. by J. Simler, 1574), a catalogue (in Latin, Greek and
Hebrew) of all writers who had ever lived, with the titles of their
works, &c. A second part, under the title of _Pandeclarium sive
partitionum universalium Conradi Gesneri Ligurini libri xxi._, appeared
in 1548; only nineteen books being then concluded. The 21st book, a
theological encyclopaedia, was published in 1549, but the 20th, intended
to include his medical work, was never finished. His great zoological
work, _Historia animalium_, appeared in 4 vols. (quadrupeds, birds,
fishes) folio, 1551-1558, at Zürich, a fifth (snakes) being issued in
1587 (there is a German translation, entitled _Thierbuch_, of the first
4 vols., Zürich, 1563): this work is the starting-point of modern
zoology. Not content with such vast works, Gesner put forth in 1555 his
book entitled _Mithridates de differentiis linguis_, an account of about
130 known languages, with the Lord's Prayer in 22 tongues, while in 1556
appeared his edition of the works of Aelian. To non-scientific readers,
Gesner will be best known for his love of mountains (below the
snow-line) and for his many excursions among them, undertaken partly as
a botanist, but also for the sake of mere exercise and enjoyment of the
beauties of nature. In 1541 he prefixed to a singular little work of his
(_Libellus de lacte et operibus lactariis_) a letter addressed to his
friend, J. Vogel, of Glarus, as to the wonders to be found among the
mountains, declaring his love for them, and his firm resolve to climb at
least one mountain every year, not only to collect flowers, but in order
to exercise his body. In 1555 Gesner issued his narrative (_Descriptio
Montis Fracti sive Montis Pilati_) of his excursion to the Gnepfstein
(6299 ft.), the lowest point in the Pilatus chain, and therein explains
at length how each of the senses of man is refreshed in the course of a
mountain excursion.

  Lives by J. Hanhart (Winterthur, 1824) and J. Simler (Zürich, 1566);
  see also Lebert's _Gesner als Arzt_ (Zürich, 1854). A part of his
  unpublished writing, edited by Prof. Schmiedel, was published at
  Nuremberg in 1753.

GESSNER, SOLOMON (1730-1788), Swiss painter and poet, was born at Zürich
on the 1st of April 1730. With the exception of some time (1749-1750)
spent in Berlin and Hamburg, where he came under the influence of Ramler
and Hagedorn, he passed the whole of his life in his native town, where
he carried on the business of a bookseller. He died on the 2nd of March
1788. The first of his writings that attracted attention was his _Lied
eines Schweizers an sein bewaffnetes Mädchen_ (1751). Then followed
_Daphnis_ (1754), _Idyllen_ (1756 and 1772), _Inkel and Yariko_ (1756),
a version of a story borrowed from the _Spectator_ (No. 11, 13th of
March 1711) and already worked out by Gellert and Bodmer, and _Der Tod
Abels_ (1758), a sort of idyllic pastoral. It is somewhat difficult for
us now to understand the reason of Gessner's universal popularity,
unless it was the taste of the period for the conventional pastoral.
His writings are marked by sweetness and melody, qualities which were
warmly appreciated by Lessing, Herder and Goethe. As a painter Gessner
represented the conventional classical landscape.

  Collected editions of Gessner's works were repeatedly published (2
  vols. 1777-1778, finally 2 vols. 1841, both at Zürich). They were
  translated into French (3 vols., Paris, 1786-1793), and versions of
  the _Idyllen_ appeared in English, Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish
  and Bohemian. Gessner's life was written by Hottinger (Zürich, 1796),
  and by H. Wölfflin (Frauenfeld, 1889); see also his _Briefwechsel mit
  seinem Sohn_ (Bern and Zürich, 1801).

GESSO, an Italian word (Lat. _gypsum_), for "plaster of Paris"
especially when used as a ground for painting, or for modelling or

GESTA ROMANORUM, a Latin collection of anecdotes and tales, probably
compiled about the end of the 13th century or the beginning of the 14th.
It still possesses a twofold literary interest, first as one of the most
popular books of the time, and secondly as the source, directly or
indirectly, of later literature, in Chaucer, Gower, Shakespeare and
others. Of its authorship nothing certain is known; and there is little
but gratuitous conjecture to associate it either with the name of
Helinandus or with that of Petrus Berchorius (Pierre Bercheure). It is
even a matter of debate whether it took its rise in England, Germany or
France. The work was evidently intended as a manual for preachers, and
was probably written by one who himself belonged to the clerical
profession. The name, _Deeds of the Romans_, is only partially
appropriate to the collection in its present form, since, besides the
titles from Greek and Latin history and legend, it comprises fragments
of very various origin, oriental and European. The unifying element of
the book is its moral purpose. The style is barbarous, and the narrative
ability of the compiler seems to vary with his source; but he has
managed to bring together a considerable variety of excellent material.
He gives us, for example, the germ of the romance of "Guy of Warwick";
the story of "Darius and his Three Sons," versified by Occleve; part of
Chaucer's "Man of Lawes' Tale"; a tale of the emperor Theodosius, the
same in its main features as that of Shakespeare's _Lear_; the story of
the "Three Black Crows"; the "Hermit and the Angel," well known from
Parnell's version, and a story identical with the _Fridolin_ of
Schiller. Owing to the loose structure of the book, it was easy for a
transcriber to insert any additional story into his own copy, and
consequently the MSS. of the _Gesta Romanorum_ exhibit considerable
variety. Oesterley recognizes an English group of MSS. (written always
in Latin), a German group (sometimes in Latin and sometimes in German),
and a group which is represented by the vulgate or common printed text.
The earliest editions are supposed to be those of Ketelaer and de
Lecompt at Utrecht, of Arnold Ter Hoenen at Cologne, and of Ulrich Zell
at Cologne; but the exact date is in all three cases uncertain.

  An English translation, probably based directly on the MS. Harl. 5369,
  was published by Wynkyn de Worde about 1510-1515, the only copy of
  which now known to exist is preserved in the library of St John's
  College, Cambridge. In 1577 Richard Robinson published a revised
  edition of Wynkyn de Worde, and the book proved highly popular.
  Between 1648 and 1703 at least eight impressions were issued. In 1703
  appeared the first vol. of a translation by B. P., probably
  Bartholomew Pratt, "from the Latin edition of 1514." A translation by
  the Rev. C. Swan, first published in 2 vols. in 1824, forms part of
  Bonn's antiquarian library, and was re-edited by Wynnard Hooper in
  1877 (see also the latter's edition in 1894). The German translation
  was first printed at Augsburg, 1489. A French version, under the title
  of _Le Violier des histoires romaines moraliséz_, appeared in the
  early part of the 16th century, and went through a number of editions;
  it has been reprinted by G. Brunet (Paris, 1858). Critical editions of
  the Latin text have been produced by A. Keller (Stuttgart, 1842) and
  Oesterley (Berlin, 1872). See also Warton, "On the Gesta Romanorum,"
  dissertation iii., prefixed to the _History of English Poetry_; Douce,
  _Illustrations of Shakespeare_, vol. ii.; Frederick Madden,
  Introduction to the Roxburghe Club edition of _The Old English
  Versions of the Gesta Romanorum_ (1838).

GETA, PUBLIUS SEPTIMIUS (189-212), younger son of the Roman emperor
Septimius Severus, was born at Mediolanum (Milan). In 198 he received
the title of Caesar, and in 209 those of Imperator and Augustus. Between
him and his brother Caracalla there existed from their early years a
keen rivalry and antipathy. On the death of their father in 211 they
were proclaimed joint emperors; and after the failure of a proposed
arrangement for the division of the empire, Caracalla pretended a desire
for reconciliation. He arranged a meeting with his brother in his
mother's apartments, and had him murdered in her arms by some

  Dio Cassius lxxvii. 2; Spartianus, _Caracalla_, 2; Herodian iv. 1.

GETAE, an ancient people of Thracian origin, closely akin to the Daci
(see DACIA). Their original home seems to have been the district on the
right bank of the Danube between the rivers Oescus (Iskr) and Iatrus
(Yantra). The view that the Getae were identical with the Goths has
found distinguished supporters, but it is not generally accepted. Their
name first occurs in connexion with the expedition of Darius Hystaspis
(515 B.C.) against the Scythians, in the course of which they were
brought under his sway, but they regained their freedom on his return to
the East. During the 5th century, they appear as furnishing a contingent
of cavalry to Sitalces, king of the Odrysae, in his attack on Perdiccas
II., king of Macedon, but the decay of the Odrysian kingdom again left
them independent. When Philip II. of Macedon in 342 reduced the Odrysae
to the condition of tributaries, the Getae, fearing that their turn
would come next, made overtures to the conqueror. Their king Cothelas
undertook to supply Philip with soldiers, and his daughter became the
wife of the Macedonian. About this time, perhaps being hard pressed by
the Triballi and other tribes, the Getae crossed the Danube. Alexander
the Great, before transporting his forces into Asia, decided to make his
power felt by the Macedonian dependencies. His operations against the
Triballi not having met with complete success, he resolved to cross the
Danube and attack the Getae. The latter, unable to withstand the
phalanx, abandoned their chief town, and fled to the steppes ([Greek:
Getia hê erêmos], north of the Danube delta), whither Alexander was
unwilling to follow them. About 326, an expedition conducted by
Zopyrion, a Macedonian governor of Thrace, against the Getae, failed
disastrously. In 292, Lysimachus declared war against them, alleging as
an excuse that they had rendered assistance to certain barbarous
Macedonian tribes. He penetrated to the plains of Bessarabia, where his
retreat was cut off and he was forced to surrender. Although the people
clamoured for his execution, Dromichaetes, king of the Getae, allowed
him to depart unharmed, probably on payment of a large ransom, great
numbers of gold coins having been found near Thorda, some of them
bearing the name of Lysimachus. When the Gauls made their way into
eastern Europe, they came into collision with the Getae, whom they
defeated and sold in large numbers to the Athenians as slaves. From this
time the Getae seem to have been usually called Daci; for their further
history see DACIA.

The Getae are described by Herodotus as the most valiant and upright of
the Thracian tribes; but what chiefly struck Greek inquirers was their
belief in the immortality of the soul (hence they were called [Greek:
athanatizontes]) and their worship of Zalmoxis (or Zamolxis), whom the
euhemerists of the colonies on the Euxine made a pupil of Pythagoras.
They were very fond of music, and it was the custom for their
ambassadors the priests to present themselves clad in white, playing the
lyre and singing songs. They were experts in the use of the bow and
arrows while on horseback.

  See E. R. Rösler, "Die Geten und ihre Nachbarn," in _Sitzungsberichte
  der k. Akad. der Wissenschaften, philosophisch-historische Classe_,
  xliv. (1863), and _Romänische Studien_ (Leipzig, 1871); W. Tomaschek,
  "Die alten Thraker," in above _Sitzungsberichte_, cxxviii. (Vienna,
  1893); W. Bessel, _De rebus Geticis_ (Göttingen, 1854); C. Müllenhoff
  in Ersch and Gruber's _Allgemeine Encyclopädie_; T. Mommsen, _Hist. of
  Rome_ (Eng. trans.), bk. v. ch. 7.

GETHSEMANE (Hebr. for "oil-press"), the place to which Jesus and His
disciples withdrew on the eve of the Crucifixion. It was evidently an
enclosed piece of ground, a plantation rather than a garden in our sense
of the word. It lay east of the Kidron and on the lower slope of the
mount of Olives, at the foot of which is the traditional site dating
from the 4th century and now possessed by the Franciscans. The Grotto of
the Agony, a few hundred yards farther north, is an ancient
cave-cistern, now a Latin sanctuary. (See further JERUSALEM.)

GETTYSBURG, a borough and the county-seat of Adams county, Pennsylvania,
U.S.A., about 35 m. S.W. of Harrisburg. Pop. (1900) 3495; (1910) 4030.
It is served by the Western Maryland and the Gettysburg & Harrisburg
railways. The site of the borough is a valley about 1½ m. wide; the
neighbouring country abounds in attractive scenery. Katalysine Spring in
the vicinity was once a well-known summer resort; its waters contain
lithia in solution. Gettysburg has several small manufacturing
establishments and is the seat of Pennsylvania College (opened in 1832,
and the oldest Lutheran college in America), which had 312 students (68
in the preparatory department) in 1907-1908, and of a Lutheran
theological seminary, opened in 1826 on Seminary Ridge; but the borough
is best known as the scene of one of the most important battles of the
Civil War. Very soon after the battle a soldiers' national cemetery was
laid out here, in which the bodies of about 3600 Union soldiers have
been buried; and at the dedication of this cemetery, in November 1863,
President Lincoln delivered his celebrated "Gettysburg Address." In 1864
the Gettysburg Battle-Field Memorial Association was incorporated, and
the work of this association resulted in the conversion of the
battle-field into a National Park, an act for the purpose being passed
by Congress in 1895. Within the park the lines of battle have been
carefully marked, and about 600 monuments, 1000 markers, and 500 iron
tablets have been erected by states and regimental associations.
Hundreds of cannon have been mounted, and five observation towers have
been built. From 1816 to 1840 Gettysburg was the home of Thaddeus
Stevens. Gettysburg was settled about 1740, was laid out in 1787, was
made the county-seat in 1800, and was incorporated as a borough in 1806.

_Battle of Gettysburg._--The battle of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd of July 1863
is often regarded as the turning-point of the American Civil War (q.v.)
although it arose from a chance encounter. Lee, the commander of the
Confederate Army of Northern Virginia, had merely ordered his scattered
forces to concentrate there, while Meade, the Federal commander, held
the town with a cavalry division, supported by two weak army corps, to
screen the concentration of his Army of the Potomac in a selected
position on Pipe Creek to the south-eastward. On the 1st of July the
leading troops of General A. P. Hill's Confederate corps approached
Gettysburg from the west to meet Ewell's corps, which was to the N. of
the town, whilst Longstreet's corps followed Hill. Lee's intention was
to close up Hill, Longstreet and Ewell before fighting a battle. But
Hill's leading brigades met a strenuous resistance from the Federal
cavalry division of General John Buford, which was promptly supported by
the infantry of the I. corps under General J. F. Reynolds. The Federals
so far held their own that Hill had to deploy two-thirds of his corps
for action, and the western approaches of Gettysburg were still held
when Ewell appeared to the northward. Reynolds had already fallen, and
the command of the Federals, after being held for a time by Gen. Abner
Doubleday, was taken over by Gen. O. O. Howard, the commander of the XI.
corps, which took post to bar the way to Ewell on the north side. But
Ewell's attack, led by the fiery Jubal Early, swiftly drove back the XI.
corps to Gettysburg; the I. corps, with its flank thus laid open, fell
back also, and the remnants of both Federal corps retreated through
Gettysburg to the Cemetery Hill position. They had lost severely in the
struggle against superior numbers, and there had been some disorder in
the retreat. Still a formidable line of defence was taken up on Cemetery
Hill and both Ewell and Lee refrained from further attacks, for the
Confederates had also lost heavily during the day and their
concentration was not complete. In the meanwhile Meade had sent forward
General W. S. Hancock, the commander of the Federal II. corps, to
examine the state of affairs, and on Hancock's report he decided to
fight on the Cemetery Hill position. Two corps of his army were still
distant, but the XII. arrived before night, the III. was near, and
Hancock moved the II. corps on his own initiative. Headquarters and the
artillery reserve started for Gettysburg on the night of the 1st. On
the other side, the last divisions of Hill's and Ewell's corps formed up
opposite the new Federal position, and Longstreet's corps prepared to
attack its left.

[Illustration: Gettysburg.]

Owing, however, to misunderstandings between Lee and Longstreet (q.v.),
the Confederates did not attack early on the morning of the 2nd, so that
Meade's army had plenty of time to make its dispositions. The Federal
line at this time occupied the horse-shoe ridge, the right of which was
formed by Culp's Hill, and the centre by the Cemetery hill, whence the
left wing stretched southward, the III. corps on the left, however,
being thrown forward considerably. The XII. held Culp's, the remnant of
the I. and XI. the Cemetery hills. On the left was the II., and in its
advanced position--the famous "Salient"--the III., soon to be supported
by the V.; the VI., with the reserve artillery, formed the general
reserve. It was late in the day when the Confederate attack was made,
and valuable time had been lost, but Longstreet's troops advanced with
great spirit. The III. corps Salient was the scene of desperate
fighting; and the "Peach Orchard" and the "Devil's Den" became as famous
as the "Bloody Angle" of Spottsylvania or the "Hornets' Nest" of Shiloh.
While the Confederate attack was developing, the important positions of
Round Top and Little Round Top were unoccupied by the defenders--an
omission which was repaired only in the nick of time by the commanding
engineer of the army, General G. K. Warren, who hastily called up troops
of the V. corps. The attack of a Confederate division was, after a hard
struggle, repulsed, and the Federals retained possession of the Round
Tops. The III. corps in the meantime, furiously attacked by troops of
Hill's and Longstreet's corps, was steadily pressed back, and the
Confederates actually penetrated the main line of the defenders, though
for want of support the brigades which achieved this were quickly driven
out. Ewell, on the Confederate left, waited for the sound of
Longstreet's guns, and thus no attack was made by him until late in the
day. Here Culp's Hill was carried with ease by one of Ewell's divisions,
most of the Federal XII. corps having been withdrawn to aid in the fight
on the other wing; but Early's division was repulsed in its efforts to
storm Cemetery Hill, and the two divisions of the centre (one of Hill's,
one of Ewell's corps) remained inactive.

That no decisive success had been obtained by Lee was clear to all, but
Ewell's men on Culp's Hill, and Longstreet's corps below Round Top,
threatened to turn both flanks of the Federal position, which was no
longer a compact horseshoe but had been considerably prolonged to the
left; and many of the units in the Federal army had been severely
handled in the two days' fighting. Meade, however, after discussing the
eventuality of a retreat with his corps commanders, made up his mind to
hold his ground. Lee now decided to alter his tactics. The broken ground
near Round Top offered so many obstacles that he decided not to press
Longstreet's attack further. Ewell was to resume his attack on Meade's
extreme right, while the decisive blow was to be given in the centre
(between Cemetery Hill and Trostle's) by an assault delivered in the
Napoleonic manner by the fresh troops of Pickett's division
(Longstreet's corps). Meade, however, was not disposed to resign Culp's
Hill, and with it the command of the Federal line of retreat, to Ewell,
and at early dawn on the 3rd a division of the XII. corps, well
supported by artillery, opened the Federal counter-attack; the
Confederates made a strenuous resistance, but after four hours' hard
fighting the other division of the XII. corps, and a brigade of the VI.,
intervened with decisive effect, and the Confederates were driven off
the hill. The defeat of Ewell did not, however, cause Lee to alter his
plans. Pickett's division was to lead in the great assault, supported by
part of Hill's corps (the latter, however, had already been engaged).
Colonel E. P. Alexander, Longstreet's chief of artillery, formed up one
long line of seventy-five guns, and sixty-five guns of Hill's corps came
into action on his left. To the converging fire of these 140 guns the
Federals, cramped for space, could only oppose seventy-seven. The
attacking troops formed up before 9 A.M., yet it was long before
Longstreet could bring himself to order the advance, upon which so much
depended, and it was not till about 1 P.M. that the guns at last opened
fire to prepare the grand attack. The Federal artillery promptly
replied, but after thirty minutes' cannonade its commander, Gen. H. J.
Hunt, ordered his batteries to cease fire in order to reserve their
ammunition to meet the infantry attack. Ten minutes later Pickett asked
and received permission to advance, and the infantry moved forward to
cross the 1800 yds. which separated them from the Federal line. Their
own artillery was short of ammunition, the projectiles of that day were
not sufficiently effective to cover the advance at long ranges, and thus
the Confederates, as they came closer to the enemy, met a tremendous
fire of unshaken infantry and artillery.

The charge of Pickett's division is one of the most famous episodes of
military history. In the teeth of an appalling fire from the rifles of
the defending infantry, who were well sheltered, and from the guns which
Hunt had reserved for the crisis, the Virginian regiments pressed on,
and with a final effort broke Meade's first line. But the strain was too
great for the supporting brigades, and Pickett was left without
assistance. Hancock made a fierce counterstroke, and the remnant of the
Confederates retreated. Of Pickett's own division over three-quarters,
3393 officers and men out of 4500, were left on the field, two of his
three brigadiers were killed and the third wounded, and of fifteen
regimental commanders ten were killed and five wounded. One regiment
lost 90% of its numbers. The failure of this assault practically ended
the battle; but Lee's line was so formidable that Meade did not in his
turn send forward the Army of the Potomac. By the morning of the 5th of
July Lee's army was in full retreat for Virginia. He had lost about
30,000 men in killed, wounded and missing out of a total force of
perhaps 75,000. Meade's losses were over 23,000 out of about 82,000 on
the field. The main body of the cavalry on both sides was absent from
the field, but a determined cavalry action was fought on the 3rd of July
between the Confederate cavalry under J. E. B. Stuart and that of the
Federals under D. McM. Gregg some miles E. of the battlefield, and other
Federal cavalry made a dashing charge in the broken ground south-west of
Round Top on the third day, inflicting thereby, though at great loss to
themselves, a temporary check on the right wing of Longstreet's

GEULINCX, ARNOLD (1624-1669), Belgian philosopher, was born at Antwerp
on the 31st of January 1624. He studied philosophy and medicine at the
university of Louvain, where he remained as a lecturer for several
years. Having given offence by his unorthodox views, he left Louvain,
and took refuge in Leiden, where he appears to have been in the utmost
distress. He entered the Protestant Church, and in 1663, through the
influence of his friend Abraham Heidanus, who had assisted him in his
greatest need, he obtained a poorly paid lectureship at the university.
He died at Leiden in November 1669. His most important works were
published posthumously. The _Metaphysica vera_ (1691), and the [Greek:
Gnôthi seauton], _sive Ethica_ (under the pseudonym "Philaretus," 1675),
are the works by which he is chiefly known. Mention may also be made of
_Physica vera_ (1688), _Logica restituta_ (1662) and _Annotata in
Principia philosophiae R. Cartesii_ (1691).

Geulincx principally deals with the question, left in an obscure and
unsatisfactory state by Descartes, of the relation between soul and
body. Whereas Descartes made the union between them a violent
collocation, Geulincx practically called it a miracle. Extension and
thought, the essences of corporeal and spiritual natures, are absolutely
distinct, and cannot act upon one another. External facts are not the
causes of mental states, nor are mental states the causes of physical
facts. So far as the physical universe is concerned, we are merely
spectators; the only action that remains for us is contemplation. The
influence we seem to exercise over bodies by will is only apparent;
volition and action only accompany one another. Since true activity
consists in knowing what one does and how one does it, I cannot be the
author of any state of which I am unconscious; I am not conscious of the
mechanism by which bodily motion is produced, hence I am not the author
of bodily motion ("Quod nescis quomodo fiat, id non facis"). Body and
mind are like two clocks which act together, because both have been set
together by God. A physical occurrence is but the occasion (opportunity,
occasional cause) on which God excites in me a corresponding mental
state; the exercise of my will is the occasion on which God moves my
body. Every operation in which mind and matter are both concerned is an
effect of neither, but the direct act of God. Geulincx was thus the
first definitely to systematize the theory called Occasionalism, which
had already been propounded by Gérauld de Cordemoy (d. 1684), a Parisian
lawyer, and Louis de la Forge, a physician of Saumur. But the principles
on which the theory was founded compelled a further advance. God, who is
the cause of the concomitance of bodily and mental facts, is in truth
the sole cause in the universe. No fact contains in itself the ground of
any other; the existence of the facts is due to God, their sequence and
coexistence are also due to him. He is the ground of all that is. My
desires, volitions and thoughts are thus the desires, volitions and
thoughts of God. Apart from God, the finite being has no reality, and we
only have the idea of it from God. Descartes had left untouched, or
nearly so, the difficult problem of the relation between the universal
element or thought and the particular desires or inclinations. All these
are regarded by Geulincx as modes of the divine thought and action, and
accordingly the end of human endeavour is the end of the divine will or
the realization of reason. The love of right reason is the supreme
virtue, whence flow the cardinal virtues, diligence, obedience, justice
and humility. Since it is impossible for us to make any alteration in
the world of matter, all we can do is to submit. Chief of the cardinal
virtues is humility, a confession of our own helplessness and submission
to God. Geulincx's idea of life is "a resigned optimism."

Geulincx carried out to their extreme consequences the irreconcilable
elements in the Cartesian metaphysics, and his works have the peculiar
value attaching to the vigorous development of a one-sided principle.
The abrupt contradictions to which such development leads of necessity
compels revision of the principle itself. He was thus important as the
precursor of Malebranche and Spinoza.

  Edition of his philosophical works by J. P. N. Land (1891-1893, for
  which a recently discovered MS. was consulted); see also the same
  editor's _Arnold Geulincx und seine Philosophie_ (1895), and article
  (translated) in _Mind_, xvi. 223 seq.; V. van der Haeghen, _Geulincx.
  Étude sur sa vie, sa philosophie, et ses ouvrages_ (Ghent, 1886); E.
  Grimm, _A. Geulincx' Erkenntnisstheorie und Occasionalismus_ (1875);
  E. Pfleiderer, _A. G. als Hauptvertreter der okkasionalistischen
  Metaphysik und Ethik_ (1882); G. Samtleben, _Geulincx, ein Vorgänger
  Spinozas_ (1885); also Falckenberg, _Hist. of Mod. Philos._ (Eng.
  trans., 1895), ch. iii.; G. Monchamp, _Hist. du Cartésianisme en
  Belgique_ (Brussels, 1886); H. Höffding, _Hist. of Mod. Philos._ (Eng.
  trans., 1900), i. 245.

GEUM, in botany, a genus of hardy perennial herbs (natural order
Rosaceae) containing about thirty species, widely distributed in
temperate and arctic regions. The erect flowering shoots spring from a
cluster of radical leaves, which are deeply cut or lobed, the largest
division being at the top of the leaf. The flowers are borne singly on
long stalks at the end of the stem or its branches. They are white,
yellow or red in colour, and shallowly cup-shaped. The fruit consists of
a number of dry achenes, each of which bears a hook formed from the
persistent lower portion of the style, and admirably adapted for
ensuring distribution. Two species occur in Britain under the popular
name "avens." _G. urbanum_ is a very common hedge-bank plant with small
yellow flowers; _G. rivale_ (water avens) is a rarer plant found by
streams, and has larger yellow flowers an inch or more across. The
species are easy to cultivate and well adapted for borders or the
rock-garden. They are propagated by seeds or by division. The most
popular garden species are _G. chiloense_ and its varieties, _G.
coccineum_ and _G. montanum_.

GEVELSBERG, a town of Germany, in the Prussian Rhine Province, 6 m. S.W.
from Hagen, on the railway to Düsseldorf. It has two churches, schools
and a hospital, and considerable manufactures of cutlery. Pop. (1905)

GEX, a town of eastern France, chief town of an arrondissement in the
department of Ain, 10 m. N.W. of Geneva and 3 m. from the Swiss
frontier. Pop. (1906) town, 1385; commune, 2727. The town is beautifully
situated 2000 ft. above sea-level at the base of the most easterly and
highest chain of the Jura. It is the seat of a subprefect and has a
tribunal of first instance, and carries on considerable trade in wine,
cheese and other provisions, chiefly with Geneva. It gives its name to
the old Pays de Gex, situated between the Alps and the Jura, which was
at various times under the protection of the Swiss, the Genevese and the
counts of Savoy, until in 1601 it came into the possession of France,
retaining, however, until the Revolution its old independent
jurisdiction, with Gex as its chief town. The Pays de Gex is isolated by
the Jura from the rest of French territory, and comes within the
circumscription of the Swiss customs, certain restrictions being imposed
on its products by the French customs.

GEYSER, GEISER, or GEISIR, a natural spring or fountain which discharges
into the air, at more or less regular intervals of time, a column of
heated water and steam; it may consequently be regarded as an
intermittent hot spring. The word is the Icelandic _geysir_, gusher or
rager, from the verb _geysa_, a derivative of _gjosa_, to gush. In
native usage it is the proper name of the Great Geyser, and not an
appellative--the general term _hver_, a hot spring, making the nearest
approach to the European sense of the word (see Cleasby and Vigfusson,
_Icelandic English Dictionary_, s.v.).

Any hot spring capable of depositing siliceous material by the
evaporation of its water may in course of time transform itself into a
geyser, a tube being gradually built up as the level of the basin is
raised, much in the same manner as a volcanic cone is produced. Every
geyser continuing to deposit siliceous material is preparing its own
destruction; for as soon as the tube becomes deep enough to contain a
column of water sufficiently heavy to prevent the lower strata attaining
their boiling points, the whole mechanism is deranged. The deposition of
the sinter is due in part to the cooling and evaporation of the
siliceous waters, and in part to the presence of living algae. In geyser
districts it is easy to find thermal springs busy with the construction
of the tube; warm pools, or _laugs_, as the Icelanders call them, on the
top of siliceous mounds, with the mouth of the shaft still open in the
middle; and dry basins from which the water has receded with their
shafts now choked with rubbish.

Geysers exist at the present time in many volcanic regions, as in the
Malay Archipelago, Japan and South America; but the three localities
where they attain their highest development are Iceland, New Zealand and
the Yellowstone Park, U.S.A. The very name by which we call them
indicates the historical priority of the Iceland group.

The Iceland geysers, mentioned by Saxo Grammaticus, are situated about
30 m. N.W. of Hecla, in a broad valley at the foot of a range of hills
from 300 to 400 ft. in height. Within a circuit of about 2 m., upwards
of one hundred hot springs may be counted, varying greatly both in
character and dimensions. The Great Geyser in its calm periods appears
as a circular pool about 60 ft. in diameter and 4 ft. in depth,
occupying a basin on the summit of a mound of siliceous concretion; and
in the centre of the basin is a shaft, about 10 ft. in diameter and 70
ft. in depth, lined with the same siliceous material. The clear
sea-green water flows over the eastern rim of the basin in little
runnels. On the surface it has a temperature of from 76° to 89° C., or
from 168° to 188° F. Within the shaft there is of course a continual
shifting both of the average temperature of the column and of the
relative temperatures of the several strata. The results of the
observations of Bunsen and A. L. O. Descloizeaux in 1847 were as follows
(cf. _Pogg. Ann._, vol. 72 and _Comptes rendus_, vol. 19): About three
hours after a great eruption on July 6, the temperature 6 metres from
the bottom of the shaft was 121.6° C; at 9.50 metres, 121.1°; at 16.50
metres, 109° (?); and at 19.70 metres, 95° (?). About nine hours after a
great eruption on July 6, at about 0.3 metres from the bottom, it was
123°; at 4.8 metres it was 122.7°; at 9.6 metres, 113°; at 14.4 metres,
85.8°; at 19.2 metres, 82.6°. On the 7th, there having been no eruption
since the previous forenoon, the temperature at the bottom was 127.5°;
at 5 metres from the bottom, 123°; at 9 metres, 120.4°; at 14.75 metres,
106.4°; and at 19 metres, 55°. About three hours after a small eruption,
which took place at forty minutes past three o'clock in the afternoon of
the 7th, the temperature at the bottom was 126.5°; at 6.85 metres up it
was 121.8°; at 14.75 metres, 110°; and at 19 metres, 55°. Thus,
continues Bunsen, it is evident that the temperature of the column
diminishes from the bottom upwards; that, leaving out of view small
irregularities, the temperature in all parts of the column is found to
be steadily on the increase in proportion to the time that has elapsed
since the previous eruption; that even a few minutes before the great
eruption the temperature at no point of the water column reached the
boiling point corresponding to the atmospheric pressure at that part;
and finally, that the temperature about half-way up the shaft made the
nearest approach to the appropriate boiling point, and that this
approach was closer in proportion as an eruption was at hand. The Great
Geyser has varied very much in the nature and frequency of its eruptions
since it began to be observed. In 1809 and 1810, according to Sir W. J.
Hooker and Sir George S. Mackenzie, its columns were 100 or 90 ft. high,
and rose at intervals of 30 hours, while, according to Henderson, in
1815 the intervals were of 6 hours and the altitude from 80 to 150 ft.

About 100 paces from the Great Geyser is the _Strokkr_ or churn, which
was first described by Stanlay in 1789. The shaft in this case is about
44 ft. deep, and, instead of being cylindrical, is funnel-shaped, having
a width of about 8 ft. at the mouth, but contracting to about 10 in.
near the centre. By casting stones or turf into the shaft so as to
stopper the narrow neck, eruptions can be accelerated, and they often
exceed in magnitude those of the Great Geyser itself. During quiescence
the column of water fills only the lower part of the shaft, its surface
usually lying from 9 to 12 ft. below the level of the soil. Unlike that
of the Great Geyser, it is always in ebullition, and its temperature is
subject to comparatively slight differences. On the 8th of July 1847
Bunsen found the temperature at the bottom 112.9° C; at 3 metres from
the bottom, 111.4°; and at 6 metres, 108°; the whole depth of water was
on that occasion 10.15 metres. On the 6th, at 2.90 metres from the
bottom it was 114.2°; and at 6.20 metres, 109.3°. On the 10th, at 0.35
metres from the bottom, the reading gave 113.9°; at 4.65 metres, 113.7°;
and at 8.85 metres, 99.9°.

[Illustration: FIG. 1.]

The great geyser-district of New Zealand is situated in the south of the
province of Auckland in or near the upper basin of the Waikato river, to
the N.E. of Lake Taupo. The scene presented in various parts of the
districts is far more striking and beautiful than anything of the same
kind to be found in Iceland, but this is due not so much to the grandeur
of the geysers proper as to the bewildering profusion of boiling
springs, steam-jets and mud-volcanoes, and to the fantastic effects
produced on the rocks by the siliceous deposits and by the action of the
boiling water. In about 1880 the geysers were no longer active, and this
condition prevailed until the Tarawera eruption of 1886, when seven
gigantic geysers came into existence; water, steam, mud and stones were
discharged to a height of 600 to 800 ft. for a period of about four
hours, when quieter conditions set in. Waikite near Lake Rotorua throws
the column to a height of 30 or 35 ft.

[Illustration: FIG. 2.]

In the Yellowstone National Park, in the north-west corner of Wyoming,
the various phenomena of the geysers can be observed on the most
portentous scale. The geysers proper are about one hundred in number;
the non-eruptive hot springs are much more numerous, there being more
than 3000. The dimensions and activity of several of the geysers render
those of Iceland and New Zealand almost insignificant in comparison. The
principal groups are situated along the course of that tributary of the
Upper Madison which bears the name of Fire Hole River. Many of the
individual geysers have very distinctive characteristics in the form and
colour of the mound, in the style of the eruption and in the shape of
the column. The "Giantess" lifts the main column to a height of only 50
or 60 ft., but shoots a thin spire to no less than 250 ft. The "Castle"
varies in height from 10 or 15 to 250 ft.; and on the occasions of
greatest effort the noise is appalling, and shakes the ground like an
earthquake. "Old Faithful" owes its name to the regularity of its
action. Its eruptions, which raise the water to a height of 100 or 150
ft., last for about five minutes, and recur every hour or thereabouts.
The "Beehive" sometimes attains a height of 219 it.; and the water,
instead of falling back into the basin, is dissipated in spray and
vapour. Very various accounts are given of the "Giant." F. V. Hayden saw
it playing for an hour and twenty minutes, and reaching a height of 140
ft., and Doane says it continued in action for three hours and a half,
and had a maximum of 200 ft.; but at the earl of Dunraven's visit the
eruption lasted only a few minutes.

  _Theory of Geysers._--No satisfactory explanation of the phenomena of
  geysers was advanced till near the middle of the 19th century, when
  Bunsen elucidated their nature. Sir George Mackenzie, in his _Travels
  in Iceland_ (2nd ed., 1812), submitted a theory which partially
  explained the phenomena met with. "Let us suppose a cavity C (fig. 1),
  communicating with the pipe PQ, filled with boiling water to the
  height AB, and that the steam above this line is confined so that it
  sustains the water to the height P. If we suppose a sudden addition of
  heat to be applied under the cavity C, a quantity of steam will be
  produced which, owing to the great pressure, will be evolved in
  starts, causing the noises like discharges of artillery and the
  shaking of the ground." He admitted that this could be only a partial
  explanation of the facts of the case, and that he was unable to
  account for the frequent and periodical production of the necessary
  heat; but he has the credit of hitting on what is certainly the
  proximate cause--the sudden evolution of steam. By Bunsen's theory the
  whole difficulty is solved, as is beautifully demonstrated by the
  artificial geyser designed by J. H. J. Müller of Freiburg (fig. 2). If
  the tube ab be filled with water and heated at two points, first at a
  and then at b, the following succession of changes is produced. The
  water at a beginning to boil, the superincumbent column is
  consequently raised, and the stratum of water which was on the point
  of boiling at b being raised to d is there subjected to a diminished
  pressure; a sudden evolution of steam accordingly takes place at d,
  and the superincumbent water is violently ejected. Received in the
  basin c, the air-cooled water sinks back into the tube, and the
  temperature of the whole column is consequently lowered; but the under
  strata of water are naturally those which are least affected by the
  cooling process; the boiling begins again at a, and the same
  succession of events is the result (see R. Bunsen, "Physikalische
  Beobachtungen über die hauptsächlichsten Geisire Islands," _Pogg.
  Ann._, 1847, vol. 72; and Müller, "Über Bunsen's Geysertheorie,"
  ibid., 1850, vol. 79).


  The principal difference between the artificial and the natural
  geyser-tube is that in the latter the effect is not necessarily
  produced by two distinct sources of heat like the two fires of the
  experimental apparatus, but by the continual influx of heat from the
  bottom of the shaft, and the differences between the boiling-points of
  the different parts of the column owing to the different pressures of
  the superincumbent mass. This may be thus illustrated: AB is the
  column of water; on the right side the figures represent approximately
  the boiling-points (Fahr.) calculated according to the ordinary laws,
  and the figures on the left the actual temperature of the same places.
  Both gradually increase as we descend, but the relation between the
  two is very different at different heights. At the top the water is
  still 39° from its boiling-point, and even at the bottom it is 19°;
  but at D the deficiency is only 4°. If, then, the stratum at D be
  suddenly lifted as high as C, it will be 2° above the boiling-point
  there, and will consequently expend those 2° in the formation of

GEZER (the Kazir of Tethmosis [Thothmes] III.'s list of Palestinian
cities and the Gazri of the Amarna tablets), a royal Canaanite city on
the boundary of Ephraim, in the maritime plain (Josh. xvi. 3-10), and
near the Philistine border (2 Sam. v. 25). It was allotted to the
Levites, but its original inhabitants were not driven out until the time
of Solomon, when "Pharaoh, king of Egypt" took the city and gave it as a
dowry to his daughter, Solomon's wife (1 Kings ix. 16). Under the form
Gazera it is mentioned (1 Macc. iv. 15) as being in the neighbourhood of
Emmaus-Nicopolis ('Amwas) and Jamnia (Yebnah). Throughout the history of
the Maccabean wars Gezer or Gazara plays the part of an important
frontier post. It was first taken from the Syrians by Simon the Asmonean
(1 Macc. xiv. 7). Josephus also mentions that the city was "naturally
strong" (_Antiq._ viii. 6. 1). The position of Gezer is defined by
Jerome (_Onomasticon_, s.v.) as four Roman miles north (_contra
septentrionem_) of Nicopolis ('Amwas). This points to the mound of
debris called _Tell-el-Jezari_ near the village of Abu Shusheh. The site
is naturally very strong, the town standing on an isolated hill,
commanding the western road to Jerusalem just where it begins to enter
the mountains of Judea. This identification has been confirmed by the
discovery of a series of boundary inscriptions, apparently marking the
limit of the city's lands, which have been found cut in rock--outcrops
partly surrounding the site. They read in every case in [Hebrew: nur]
[Hebrew: taham][1], "the boundary of Gezer," with the name _Alkios_ in
Greek, probably that of the governor under whom the inscriptions were
cut. The site has been partially excavated by the Palestine Exploration
Fund, and an enormous mass of material for the history of Palestine
recovered from it, including remains of a pre-Semitic aboriginal race, a
remarkably perfect High Place, the castle built by Simon, and other
remains of the first importance.

  See R. A. S. Macalister's reports in _Palestine Exploration Fund
  Quarterly Statement_ (October 1902 onwards). Also _Bible Sidelights
  from the Mound of Gezer_, by the same writer.     (R. A. S. M.)


  [1] So written, with a medial _mem_ ([Hebrew: mem]) instead of the
    final ([Hebrew: mem]).

GFRÖRER, AUGUST FRIEDRICH (1803-1861), German historian, was born at
Calw, Württemberg, on the 5th of March 1803, and at the close of his
preliminary studies at the seminary of Blaubeuren entered the university
of Tübingen in 1821 as a student of evangelical theology. After passing
his final examinations in 1825, he spent a year in Switzerland, during
part of the time acting as companion and secretary to C. von Bonstetten
(1745-1832); the year 1827 was spent chiefly in Rome. Returning to
Württemberg in 1828, he first undertook the duties of repetent or
theological tutor in Tübingen, and afterwards accepted a curacy in
Stuttgart; but having in 1830 received an appointment in the royal
public library at Stuttgart, he thenceforth gave himself exclusively to
literature and historical science. His first work on Philo (_Philo u.
die jüdisch-alexandrinische Theosophie_, Stuttgart, 1831) was rapidly
followed by an elaborate biography, in two volumes, of Gustavus Adolphus
(_Gustav Adolf, König von Schweden, und seine Zeit_, Stuttgart,
1835-1837), and by a critical history of primitive Christianity
(_Kritische Geschichte des Urchristenthums_, 3 vols., Stuttgart, 1838).
Here Gfrörer had manifested opinions unfavourable to Protestantism,
which, however, were not openly avowed until fully developed in his
church history (_Allgemeine Kirchengeschichte bis Beginn des 14ten
Jahrhunderts_, Stuttgart, 1841-1846). In the autumn of 1846 he was
appointed to the chair of history in the university of Freiburg, where
he continued to teach until his death at Carlsbad on the 6th of July
1861. In 1848 he sat as a representative in the Frankfort parliament,
where he supported the "High German" party, and in 1853 he publicly went
over to the Church of Rome. He was a bitter opponent of Prussia and an
ardent controversialist.

  Among his later historical works the most important is the _Geschichte
  der ost- u. westfränkischen Karolinger_ (Freiburg, 1848); but those on
  the pseudo-Isidorian Decretals (_Untersuchung über Alter, Ursprung, u.
  Werth der Decretalen des falschen Isidorus_, 1848), on the primitive
  history of mankind (_Urgeschichte des menschlichen Geschlechts_,
  1855), on Hildebrand (_Papst Gregorius VII. u. sein Zeitalter_, 7
  vols., 1859-1861), on the history of the 18th century (_Geschichte des
  18ten Jahrhunderts_, 1862-1873), on German popular rights (_Zur
  Geschichte deutscher Volksrechte im Mittelalter_, Basel, 1865-1866)
  and on Byzantine history (_Byzantinische Geschichten_, 1872-1874), are
  also of real value.

GHADAMES, GADAMES or RHADAMES, a town in an oasis of the same name, in
that part of the Sahara which forms part of the Turkish vilayet of
Tripoli. It is about 300 m. S.W. of the city of Tripoli and some 10 m.
E. of the Algerian frontier. According to Gerhard Rohlfs, the last form
given to the word most correctly represents the Arabic pronunciation,
but the other forms are more often used in Europe. The streets of the
town are narrow and vaulted and have been likened to the bewildering
galleries of a coalpit. The roofs are laid out as gardens and preserved
for the exclusive use of the women. The Ghadamsi merchants have been
known for centuries as keen and adventurous traders, and their agents
are to be found in the more important places of the western and central
Sudan, such as Kano, Katsena, Kanem, Bornu, Timbuktu, as well as at Ghat
and Tripoli. Ghadames itself is the centre of a large number of caravan
routes, and in the early part of the 19th century about 30,000 laden
camels entered its markets every year. The caravan trade was created by
the Ghadamsi merchants who, aided by their superior intelligence,
capacity and honesty, long enjoyed a monopoly. In 1873 Tripolitan
merchants began to compete with them. In 1893 came the invasion of Bornu
by Rabah, and the total stoppage of this caravan route for nearly ten
years to the great detriment of the merchants of Ghadames. The caravans
from Kano were also frequently pillaged by the Tuareg, so that the
prosperity of the town declined. Later on, the opening of rapid means of
transport from Kano and other cities to the Gulf of Guinea also affected
Ghadames, which, however, maintains a considerable trade. The chief
articles brought by the caravans are ostrich feathers, skins and ivory
and one of the principal imports is tea. In 1845 the population was
estimated at 3000, of whom about 500 were slaves and strangers, and
upwards of 1200 children; in 1905 it amounted in round numbers to 7000.
The inhabitants are chiefly Berbers and Arabs. A Turkish garrison is
maintained in the town.

Before the Christian era Ghadames was a stronghold of the Garamantes
whose power was overthrown in the days of Augustus by L. Cornelius
Balbus Minor, who captured Ghadames (Cydamus). It is not unlikely that
Roman settlers may have been attracted to the spot by the presence of
the warm springs which still rise in the heart of the town, and spread
fertility in the surrounding gardens. In the 7th century Ghadames was
conquered by the Arabs. It appears afterwards to have fallen under the
power of the rulers of Tunisia, then to a native dynasty which reigned
at Tripoli, and in the 16th century it became part of the Turkish
vilayet of Tripoli. It has since then shared the political fortunes of
that country. In the first half of the 19th century it was visited by
several British explorers and later by German and French travellers.

  See J. Richardson, _Travels in the Great Desert of Sahara in 1845-1846
  ... including a Description of ... Ghadames_ (London, 1848); G.
  Rohlfs, _Reise durch Marokko ... und Reise durch die Grosse Wüste über
  Rhadames nach Tripoli_ (Bremen, 1868).

GHAT, or RHAT, an oasis and town, forming part of the Turkish vilayet of
Tripoli. Ghat is an important centre of the caravan trade between the
Nigerian states and the seaports of the Mediterranean (see TRIPOLI).

GHATS, or GHAUTS (literally "the Landing Stairs" from the sea, or
"Passes"), two ranges of mountains extending along the eastern and
western shores of the Indian peninsula. The word properly applies to the
passes through the mountains, but from an early date was transferred by
Europeans to the mountains themselves.

The Eastern Ghats run in fragmentary spurs and ranges down the Madras
coast. They begin in the Orissa district of Balasore, pass southwards
through Cuttack and Puri, enter the Madras presidency in Ganjam, and
sweep southwards through the districts of Vizagapatam, Godavari,
Nellore, Chingleput, South Arcot, Trichinopoly and Tinnevelly. They run
at a distance of 50 to 150 m. from the coast, except in Ganjam and
Vizagapatam, where in places they almost abut on the Bay of Bengal.
Their geological formation is granite, with gneiss and mica slate, with
clay slate, hornblende and primitive limestone overlying. The average
elevation is about 1500 ft., but several hills in Ganjam are between
4000 and 5000 ft. high. For the most part there is a broad expanse of
low land between their base and the sea, and their line is pierced by
the Godavari, Kistna and Cauvery rivers.

The Western Ghats (Sahyadri in Sanskrit) start from the south of the
Tapti valley, and run south through the districts of Khandesh, Nasik,
Thana, Satara, Ratnagiri, Kanara and Malabar, and the states of Cochin
and Travancore, meeting the Eastern Ghats at an angle near Cape Comorin.
The range of the Western Ghats extends uninterruptedly, with the
exception of a gap or valley 25 m. across, known as the Palghat gap,
through which runs the principal railway of the south of India. The
length of the range is 800 m. from the Tapti to the Palghat gap, and
south of this about 200 m. to the extreme south of the peninsula. In
many parts there is only a narrow strip of coast between the hills and
the sea; at one point they rise in magnificent precipices and headlands
out of the ocean. The average elevation is 3000 ft., precipitous on the
western side facing the sea, but with a more gradual slope on the east
to the plains below. The highest peaks in the northern section are
Kalsubai, 5427 ft.; Harischandragarh, 4691 ft.; and Mahabaleshwar, where
is the summer capital of the government of Bombay, 4700 ft. South of
Mahabaleshwar the elevation diminishes, but again increases, and attains
its maximum towards Coorg, where the highest peaks vary from 5500 to
7000 ft., and where the main range joins the interior Nilgiri hills.
South of the Palghat gap, the peaks of the Western Ghats rise as high as
8000 ft. The geological formation is trap in the northern and gneiss in
the southern section.

GHAZALI [Muhammad ibn Muhammad Abu Hamid al-Ghazali] (1058-1111),
Arabian philosopher and theologian, was born at Tus, and belonged to a
family of Ghazala (near Tus) distinguished for its knowledge of canon
law. Educated at first in Tus, then in Jorjan, and again in Tus, he went
to college at Nishapur, where he studied under Juwaini (known as the
Imam ul-Haramain) until 1085, when he visited the celebrated vizier
Nizam ul-Mulk, who appointed him to a professorship in his college at
Bagdad in 1091. Here he was engaged in writing against the Isma'ilites
(Assassins). After four years of this work he suddenly gave up his
chair, left home and family and gave himself to an ascetic life. This
was due to a growing scepticism, which caused him much mental unrest and
which gradually gave way to mysticism. Having secured his chair for his
brother he went to Damascus, Jerusalem, Hebron, Mecca, Medina and
Alexandria, studying, meditating and writing in these cities. In 1106 he
was tempted to go to the West, where the Moravid (Almoravid) reformation
was being led by Yusuf ibn Tashfin, with whom he had been in
correspondence earlier. Yusuf, however, died in this year, and Ghazali
abandoned his idea. At the wish of the sultan Malik Shah he again
undertook professorial work, this time in the college of Nizam ul-Mulk
at Nishapur, but returned soon after to Tus, where he died in December

  Sixty-nine works are ascribed to Ghazali (cf. C. Brockelmann's _Gesch.
  d. arabischen Litteratur_, i. 421-426, Weimar, 1898). The most
  important of those which have been published are: a treatise on
  eschatology called _Ad-durra ul-fakhira_ ("The precious pearl"), ed.
  L. Gautier (Geneva, 1878); the great work, _Ihya ul-`Ulum_ ("Revival
  of the sciences") (Bulaq, 1872; Cairo, 1889); see a commentary by
  al-Murtada called the Ithaf, published in 13 vols. at Fez, 1885-1887,
  and in 10 vols. at Cairo, 1893; the _Bidayat ul-Hidaya_ (Bulaq, 1870,
  and often at Cairo); a compendium of ethics, _Mizan ul-`Amal_,
  translated into Hebrew, ed. J. Goldenthal (Paris, 1839); a more
  popular treatise on ethics, the _Kimiya us-Sa`ada_, published at
  Lucknow, Bombay and Constantinople, ed. H. A. Homes as _The Alchemy of
  Happiness_ (Albany, N.Y., 1873); the ethical work _O Child_, ed. by
  Hammer-Purgstall in Arabic and German (Vienna, 1838); the _Destruction
  of Philosophers_ (_Tahafut ul-Falasifa_) (Cairo, 1885, and Bombay,
  1887). Of this work a French translation was begun by Carra de Vaux in
  _Muséon_, vol. xviii. (1899); the _Maqasid ul-Falasifa_, of which the
  first part on logic was translated into Latin by Dom. Gundisalvi
  (Venice, 1506), ed. with notes by G. Beer (Leiden, 1888); the _Kitab
  ul-Munqid_, giving an account of the changes in his philosophical
  ideas, ed. by F. A. Schmölders in his _Essai sur les écoles
  philosophiques chez les Arabes_ (Paris, 1842), also printed at
  Constantinople, 1876, and translated into French by Barbier de Meynard
  in the _Journal asiatique_ (1877, i. 1-93); answers to questions asked
  of him ed. in Arabic and Hebrew, with German translation and notes by
  H. Malter (Frankfort, 1896); Eng. trans., _Confessions of
  al-Ghazzali_, by Claud Field (1909).

  For Ghazali's life see McG. de Slane's translation of Ibn Khallikan,
  ii. 621 ff.; R. Gösche's _Über Ghazzali's Leben und Werke_ (Berlin,
  1859); D. B. Macdonald's "Life of al-Ghazzali," in _Journal of
  American Oriental Society_, vol. xx. (1899), and Carra de Vaux's
  _Gazali_ (Paris, 1902); see ARABIAN PHILOSOPHY.     (G. W. T.)

GHAZI (an Arabic word, from _ghaza_, to fight), the name given to
Mahommedans who have vowed to exterminate unbelievers by the sword. It
is also used as a title of honour, generally translated "the
Victorious," in the Ottoman empire for military officers of high rank,
who have distinguished themselves in the field against non-Moslem
enemies; thus it was conferred on Osman Pasha after his famous defence
of Plevna.

GHAZIABAD, a town of British India in Meerut district of the United
Provinces, 12 m. from Delhi and 28 m. from Meerut. Pop. (1901) 11,275.
The town was founded in 1740 by Ghazi-ud-din, son of Azaf Jah, first
nizam of the Deccan, and takes its name from its founder. It has
considerably risen in importance as the point of junction of the East
Indian, the North-Western and the Oudh & Rohilkhand railway systems. The
town has a trade in grain and hides.

GHAZIPUR, a town and district of British India, in the Benares division
of the United Provinces. The town stands on the left bank of the Ganges,
44 m. E. of Benares. It is the headquarters of the government opium
department, where all the opium from the United Provinces is collected
and manufactured under a monopoly. There are also scent distilleries,
using the produce of the rose-gardens in the vicinity. Lord Cornwallis,
governor-general of India, died at Ghazipur in 1805, and a domed
monument and marble statue (by Flaxman) are erected over his grave. Pop.
(1901) 39,429.

The district of Ghazipur has an area of 1389 sq. m. It forms part of the
great alluvial plain of the Ganges, which divides it into two unequal
portions. The northern subdivision lies between the Gumti and the
Gogra, whose confluences with the main stream mark its eastern and
western limits respectively. The southern tract is a much smaller strip
of country, enclosed between the Karamnasa and the great river itself.
There are no hills in the district. A few lakes are scattered here and
there, formed where the rivers have deserted their ancient channels. The
largest is that of Suraha, once a northern bend of the Ganges, but now
an almost isolated sheet of water, 5 m. long by about 4 broad. Ghazipur
is said to be one of the hottest and dampest districts in the United
Provinces. In 1901 the population was 913,818, showing a decrease of 11%
in the decade. Sugar refining is the chief industry, and provides the
principal article of export. The main line of the East Indian railway
traverses the southern portion of the district, with a branch to the
Ganges bank opposite Ghazipur town; the northern portion is served by
the Bengal & North-Western system.

GHAZNI, a famous city in Afghanistan, the seat of an extensive empire
under two medieval dynasties, and again of prominent interest in the
modern history of British India. Ghazni stands on the high tableland of
central Afghanistan, in 68° 18' E. long., 33° 44' N. lat., at a height
of 7280 ft. above the sea, and on the direct road between Kandahar and
Kabul, 221 m. by road N.E. from the former, and 92 m. S.W. from the
latter. A very considerable trade in fruit, wool, skins, &c., is carried
on between Ghazni and India by the Povindah kafilas, which yearly enter
India in the late autumn and pass back again to the Afghan highlands in
the early spring. The Povindah merchants invariably make use of the
Gomal pass which leads to the British frontier at Dera Ismail Khan. The
opening up of this pass and the British occupation of Wana, by offering
protection to the merchants from Waziri blackmailing, largely increased
the traffic.

Ghazni, as it now exists, is a place in decay, and probably does not
contain more than 4000 inhabitants. It stands at the base of the
terminal spur of a ridge of hills, an offshoot from the Gul-Koh, which
forms the watershed between the Arghandáb and Tarnak rivers. The castle
stands at the northern angle of the town next the hills, and is about
150 ft. above the plain. The town walls stand on an elevation, partly
artificial, and form an irregular square, close on a mile in circuit
(including the castle), the walls being partly of stone or brick laid in
mud, and partly of clay built in courses. They are flanked by numerous
towers. There are three gates. The town consists of dirty and very
irregular streets of houses several stories high, but with two
straighter streets of more pretension, crossing near the middle of the
town. Of the strategical importance of Ghazni there can hardly be a
question. The view to the south is extensive, and the plain in the
direction of Kandahar stretches to the horizon. It is bare except in the
vicinity of the river, where villages and gardens are tolerably
numerous. Abundant crops of wheat and barley are grown, as well as of
madder, besides minor products. The climate is notoriously cold,--snow
lying 2 or 3 ft. deep for about three months, and tradition speaks of
the city as having been more than once overwhelmed by snowdrift. Fuel is
scarce, consisting chiefly of prickly shrubs. In summer the heat is not
like that of Kandahar or Kabul, but the radiation from the bare heights
renders the nights oppressive, and constant dust-storms occur. It is
evident that the present restricted walls cannot have contained the
vaunted city of Mahmud. Probably the existing site formed the citadel
only of his city. The remarks of Ibn Batuta (c. 1332) already suggest
the present state of things, viz. a small town occupied, a large space
of ruin; for a considerable area to the N.E. is covered with ruins, or
rather with a vast extent of shapeless mounds, which are pointed out as
Old Ghazni. The only remains retaining architectural character are two
remarkable towers rising to the height of about 140 ft., and some 400
yds. apart from each other. They are similar, but whether identical, in
design, is not clearly recorded. They belong, on a smaller and far less
elaborate scale, to the same class as the Kutb Minar at Delhi (q.v.).
Arabic inscriptions in Cufic characters show the most northerly to have
been the work of Mahmud himself, the other that of his son Masa'ud. On
the Kabul road, a mile beyond the Minaret of Mahmud, is a village called
Rauzah ("the Garden," a term often applied to garden-mausoleums). Here,
in a poor garden, stands the tomb of the famous conqueror. It is a prism
of white marble standing on a plinth of the same, and bearing a Cufic
inscription praying the mercy of God on the most noble Amir, the great
king, the lord of church and state, Abul Kasim Mahmud, son of
Sabuktagin. The tomb stands in a rude chamber, covered with a dome of
clay, and hung with old shawls, ostrich eggs, tiger-skins and so forth.
The village stands among luxuriant gardens and orchards, watered by a
copious aqueduct. Sultan Baber celebrates the excellence of the grapes
of Rauzah.

There are many holy shrines about Ghazni surrounded by orchards and
vineyards. Baber speaks of them, and tells how he detected and put a
stop to the imposture of a pretended miracle at one of them. These
sanctuaries make Ghazni a place of Moslem pilgrimage, and it is said
that at Constantinople much respect is paid to those who have worshipped
at the tomb of the great Ghazi. To test the genuineness of the boast,
professed pilgrims are called on to describe the chief _notabilia_ of
the place, and are expected to name all those detailed in certain
current Persian verses.

_History._--The city is not mentioned by any narrator of Alexander's
expedition, nor by any ancient author so as to admit of positive
recognition. But it is very possibly the _Gazaca_ which Ptolemy places
among the _Paropamisadae_, and this may not be inconsistent with Sir H.
Rawlinson's identification of it with _Gazos_, an Indian city spoken of
by two obscure Greek poets as an impregnable place of war. The name is
probably connected with the Persian and Sanskrit _ganj_ and _ganja_, a
treasury (whence the Greek and Latin _Gaza_). We seem to have positive
evidence of the existence of the city before the Mahommedan times (644)
in the travels of the Chinese pilgrim, Hsuan Tsang, who speaks of
_Ho-si-na_ (i.e. probably _Ghazni_) as one of the capitals of _Tsaukuta_
or Arachosia, a place of great strength. In early Mahommedan times the
country adjoining Ghazni was called _Zabul_. When the Mahommedans first
invaded that region Ghazni was a wealthy entrepot of the Indian trade.
Of the extent of this trade some idea is given by Ibn Haukal, who states
that at Kabul, then a mart of the same trade, there was sold yearly
indigo to the value of two million dinars (£1,000,000). The enterprise
of Islam underwent several ebbs and flows over this region. The
provinces on the Helmund and about Ghazni were invaded as early as the
caliphate of Moaiya (662-680). The arms of Yaqub b. Laith swept over
Kabul and Arachosia (Al-Rukhaj) about 871, and the people of the latter
country were forcibly converted. Though the Hindu dynasty of Kabul held
a part of the valley of Kabul river till the time of Mahmud, it is
probably to the period just mentioned that we must refer the permanent
Mahommedan occupation of Ghazni. Indeed, the building of the fort and
city is ascribed by a Mahommedan historian to Amr b. Laith, the brother
and successor of Ya`kub (d. 901), though the facts already stated
discredit this. In the latter part of the 9th century the family of the
Samanid, sprung from Samarkand, reigned in splendour at Bokhara.
Alptagin, originally a Turkish slave, and high in the service of the
dynasty, about the middle of the 10th century, losing the favour of the
court, wrested Ghazni from its chief (who is styled Abu Bakr Lawik, wali
of Ghazni), and established himself there. His government was recognized
from Bokhara, and held till his death. In 977 another Turk slave,
Sabuktagin, who had married the daughter of his master Alptagin,
obtained rule in Ghazni. He made himself lord of nearly all the present
territory of Afghanistan and of the Punjab. In 997 Mahmud, son of
Sabuktagin, succeeded to the government, and with his name Ghazni and
the Ghaznevid dynasty have become perpetually associated. Issuing forth
year after year from that capital, Mahmud (q.v.) carried fully seventeen
expeditions of devastation through northern India and Gujarat, as well
as others to the north and west. From the borders of Kurdistan to
Samarkand, from the Caspian to the Ganges, his authority was
acknowledged. The wealth brought back to Ghazni was enormous, and
contemporary historians give glowing descriptions of the magnificence of
the capital, as well as of the conqueror's munificent support of
literature. Mahmud died in 1030, and some fourteen kings of his house
came after him; but though there was some revival of importance under
Ibrahim (1059-1099), the empire never reached anything like the same
splendour and power. It was overshadowed by the Seljuks of Persia, and
by the rising rivalry of Ghor (q.v.), the hostility of which it had
repeatedly provoked. Bahram Shah (1118-1152) put to death Kutbuddin, one
of the princes of Ghor, called king of the Jibal or Hill country, who
had withdrawn to Ghazni. This prince's brother, Saifuddin Suri, came to
take vengeance, and drove out Bahram. But the latter recapturing the
place (1149) paraded Saifuddin and his vizier ignominiously about the
city, and then hanged them on the bridge. Ala-uddin of Ghor, younger
brother of the two slain princes, then gathered a great host, and came
against Bahram, who met him on the Helmund. The Ghori prince, after
repeated victories, stormed Ghazni, and gave it over to fire and sword.
The dead kings of the house of Mahmud, except the conqueror himself and
two others, were torn from their graves and burnt, whilst the bodies of
the princes of Ghor were solemnly disinterred and carried to the distant
tombs of their ancestors. It seems certain that Ghazni never recovered
the splendour that perished then (1152). Ala-uddin, who from this deed
became known in history as _Jah[=an]-soz_ (_Brûlemonde_), returned to
Ghor, and Bahram reoccupied Ghazni; he died in 1157. In the time of his
son Khusru Shah, Ghazni was taken by the Turkish tribes called Ghuzz
(generally believed to have been what are now called Turkomans). The
king fled to Lahore, and the dynasty ended with his son. In 1173 the
Ghuzz were expelled by Ghiyasuddin sultan of Ghor (nephew of Ala-uddin
Jahansoz), who made Ghazni over to his brother Muizuddin. This famous
prince, whom the later historians call Mahommed Ghori, shortly
afterwards (1174-1175) invaded India, taking Multan and Uchh. This was
the first of many successive inroads on western and northern India, in
one of which Lahore was wrested from Khusru Malik, the last of Mahmud's
house, who died a captive in the hills of Ghor. In 1192 Prithvi Rai or
Pithora (as the Moslem writers call him), the Chauhan king of Ajmere,
being defeated and slain near Thanewar, the whole country from the
Himalaya to Ajmere became subject to the Ghori king of Ghazni. On the
death of his brother Ghiyasuddin, with whose power he had been
constantly associated, and of whose conquests he had been the chief
instrument, Muizuddin became sole sovereign over Ghor and Ghazni, and
the latter place was then again for a brief period the seat of an empire
nearly as extensive as that of Mahmud the son of Sabuktagin. Muizuddin
crossed the Indus once more to put down a rebellion of the Khokhars in
the Punjab, and on his way back was murdered by a band of them, or, as
some say, by one of the _Mulahidah_ or Assassins. The slave lieutenants
of Muizuddin carried on the conquest of India, and as the rapidly
succeeding events broke their dependence on any master, they established
at Delhi that monarchy of which, after it had endured through many
dynasties, and had culminated with the Mogul house of Baber, the shadow
perished in 1857. The death of Muizuddin was followed by struggle and
anarchy, ending for a time in the annexation of Ghazni to the empire of
Khwarizm by Mahommed Shah, who conferred it on his famous son,
Jelaluddin, and Ghazni became the headquarters of the latter. After
Jenghiz Khan had extinguished the power of his family in Turkestan,
Jelaluddin defeated the army sent against him by the Mongol at Parwan,
north of Kabul. Jenghiz then advanced and drove Jelaluddin across the
Indus, after which he sent Ogdai his son to besiege Ghazni. Henceforward
Ghazni is much less prominent in Asiatic history. It continued subject
to the Mongols, sometimes to the house of Hulagu in Persia, and
sometimes to that of Jagatai in Turkestan. In 1326, after a battle
between Amir Hosain, the viceroy of the former house in Khorasan, and
Tarmashirin, the reigning khan of Jagatai, the former entered Ghazni and
once more subjected it to devastation, and this time the tomb of Mahmud
to desecration.

Ibn Batuta (c. 1332) says the greater part of the city was in ruins, and
only a small part continued to be a town. Timur seems never to have
visited Ghazni, but we find him in 1401 bestowing the government of
Kabul, Kandahar, and Ghazni on Pir Mahommed, the son of his son
Jahangir. In the end of the century it was still in the hands of a
descendant of Timur, Ulugh Beg Mirza, who was king of Kabul and Ghazni.
The illustrious nephew of this prince, Baber, got peaceful possession of
both cities in 1504, and has left notes on both in his own inimitable
Memoirs. His account of Ghazni indicates how far it had now fallen. "It
is," he says, "but a poor mean place, and I have always wondered how its
princes, who possessed also Hindustan and Khorasan, could have chosen
such a wretched country for the seat of their government, in preference
to Khorasan." He commends the fruit of its gardens, which still
contribute largely to the markets of Kabul. Ghazni remained in the hands
of Baber's descendants, reigning at Delhi and Agra, till the invasion of
Nadir Shah (1738), and became after Nadir's death a part of the new
kingdom of the Afghans under Ahmad Shah Durani. We know of but two
modern travellers who have recorded visits to the place previous to the
war of 1839. George Forster passed as a disguised traveller with a
qafila in 1783. "Its slender existence," he says, "is now maintained by
some Hindu families, who support a small traffic, and supply the wants
of the few Mahommedan residents." Vigne visited it in 1836, having
reached it from Multan with a caravan of Lohani merchants, travelling by
the Gomal pass. The historical name of Ghazni was brought back from the
dead, as it were, by the news of its capture by the British army under
Sir John Keane, 23rd July 1839. The siege artillery had been left behind
at Kandahar; escalade was judged impracticable; but the project of the
commanding engineer, Captain George Thomson, for blowing in the Kabul
gate with powder in bags, was adopted, and carried out successfully, at
the cost of 182 killed and wounded. Two years and a half later the
Afghan outbreak against the British occupation found Ghazni garrisoned
by a Bengal regiment of sepoys, but neither repaired nor provisioned.
They held out under great hardships from the 16th of December 1841 to
the 6th of March 1842, when they surrendered. In the autumn of the same
year General Nott, advancing from Kandahar upon Kabul, reoccupied
Ghazni, destroyed the defences of the castle and part of the town, and
carried away the famous gates of Somnath (q.v.).

GHEE (Hindustani _ghi_), a kind of clarified butter made in the East.
The best is prepared from butter of the milk of cows, the less esteemed
from that of buffaloes. The butter is melted over a slow fire, and set
aside to cool; the thick, opaque, whitish, and more fluid portion, or
ghee, representing the greater bulk of the butter, is then removed. The
less liquid residue, mixed with ground-nut oil, is sold as an inferior
kind of ghee. It may be obtained also by boiling butter over a clear
fire, skimming it the while, and, when all the water has evaporated,
straining it through a cloth. Ghee which is rancid or tainted, as is
often that of the Indian bazaars, is said to be rendered sweet by
boiling with leaves of the _Moringa pterygosperma_ or horse-radish tree.
In India ghee is one of the commonest articles of diet, and indeed
enters into the composition of everything eaten by the Brahmans. It is
also extensively used in Indian religious ceremonies, being offered as a
sacrifice to idols, which are at times bathed in it. Sanskrit treatises
on therapeutics describe ghee as cooling, emollient and stomachic, as
capable of increasing the mental powers, and of improving the voice and
personal appearance, and as useful in eye-diseases, tympanitis, painful
dyspepsia, wounds, ulcers and other affections. Old ghee is in special
repute among the Hindus as a medicinal agent, and its efficacy as an
external application is believed by them to increase with its age. Ghee
more than ten years old, the _purana ghrita_ of Sanskrit materia
medicas, has a strong odour and the colour of lac. Some specimens which
have been much longer preserved--and "clarified butter a hundred years
old is often heard of"--have an earthy look, and are quite dry and hard,
and nearly inodorous. Medicated ghee is made by warming ordinary ghee
to remove contained water, melting, after the addition of a little
turmeric juice, in a metal pan at a gentle heat, and then boiling with
the prepared drugs till all moisture is expelled, and straining through
a cloth.

GHEEL, or GEEL, a town of Belgium, about 30 m. E. of Antwerp and in the
same province. Pop. (1904) 14,087. It is remarkable on account of the
colony of insane persons which has existed there for many centuries. The
legend reads that in the year 600 Dymphna, an Irish princess, was
executed here by her father, and in consequence of certain miracles she
had effected she was canonized and made the patron saint of the insane.
The old Gothic church is dedicated to her, and in the choir is a shrine,
enclosing her relics, with fine panel paintings representing incidents
in her life by, probably, a contemporary of Memling. The colony of the
insane is established in the farms and houses round the little place
within a circumference of 30 m. and is said to have existed since the
13th century. This area is divided into four sections, each having a
doctor and a superintendent attached to it. The Gheel system is regarded
as the most humane method of dealing with the insane who have no
homicidal tendencies, as it keeps up as long as possible their interest
in life.

GHENT (Flem. _Gent_, Fr. _Gand_), the capital of East Flanders, Belgium,
at the junction of the Scheldt and the Lys (Ley). Pop. (1880) 131,431,
(1904) 162,482. The city is divided by the rivers (including the small
streams Lieve and Moere) and by canals, some navigable, into numerous
islands connected by over 200 bridges of various sorts. Within the
limits of the town, which is 6 m. in circumference, are many gardens,
meadows and promenades; and, though its characteristic lanes are gloomy
and narrow, there are also broad new streets and fine quays and docks.
The most conspicuous building in the city is the cathedral of St
Bavon[1] (Sint Baafs), the rich interior of which contrasts strongly
with its somewhat heavy exterior. Its crypt dates from 941, the choir
from 1274-1300, the Late Gothic choir chapels from the 15th century, and
the nave and transept from 1533-1554. Among the treasures of the church
is the famous "Worship of the Lamb" by Hubert and Jan van Eyck. Of the
original 12 panels, taken to France during the Revolutionary Wars, only
4 are now here, 6 being in the Berlin museum and two in that of
Brussels. Among the other 55 churches may be mentioned that of St
Nicholas, an Early Gothic building, the oldest church in date of
foundation in Ghent, and that of St Michael, completed in 1480, with an
unfinished tower. In the centre of the city stands the unfinished Belfry
(_Beffroi_), a square tower some 300 ft. high, built 1183-1339. If has a
cast-iron steeple (restored in 1854), on the top of which is a gold
dragon which, according to tradition, was brought from Constantinople
either by the Varangians or by the emperor Baldwin after the Latin
conquest. Close to it is the former Cloth-hall, a Gothic building of
1325. The hôtel-de-ville consists of two distinct parts. The northern
façade, a magnificent example of Flamboyant Gothic, was erected between
1518 and 1533, restored in 1829 and again some fifty years later. The
eastern façade overlooking the market-place was built in 1595-1628, in
the Renaissance style, with three tiers of columns. It contains a
valuable collection of archives, from the 13th century onwards. On the
left bank of the Lys is the Oudeburg (s'Gravenstein, Château des
Contes), the former castle of the first counts of Flanders, dating from
1180 and now restored. The château of the later counts, in which the
emperor Charles V. was born, is commemorated only in the name of a
street, the Cours des Princes.

To the north of the Oudeburg, on the other side of the Lys, is the
Marché du Vendredi, the principal square of the city. This was the
centre of the life of the medieval city, the scene of all great public
functions, such as the homage of the burghers to the counts, and of the
auto-da-fés under the Spanish regime. In it stands a bronze statue of
Jacob van Artevelde, by Devigne-Quyo, erected in 1863. At a corner of
the square is a remarkable cannon, known as _Dulle Griete_ (Mad Meg), 19
ft. long and 11 ft. in circumference. It is ornamented with the arms of
Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, and must have been cast between 1419
and 1467. On the Scheldt, near the Place Laurent, is the
Geerard-duivelsteen (château of Gerard the Devil), a 13th-century tower
formerly belonging to one of the patrician families, now restored and
used as the office of the provincial records. Of modern buildings may be
mentioned the University (1826), the Palais de Justice (1844), and the
new theatre (1848), all designed by Roelandt, and the Institut des
Sciences (1890) by A. Pauli. In the park on the site of the citadel
erected by Charles V. are some ruins of the ancient abbey of St Bavon
and of a 12th-century octagonal chapel dedicated to St Macharius. In the
park is also situated the Museum of Fine Arts, completed in 1902.

One of the most interesting institutions of Ghent is the great Béguinage
(Begynhof) which, originally established in 1234 by the Bruges gate, was
transferred in 1874 to the suburb of St Amandsberg. It constitutes a
little town of itself, surrounded by walls and a moat, and contains
numerous small houses, 18 convents and a church. It is occupied by some
700 Beguines, women devoted to good works (see BEGUINES). Near the
station is a second Béguinage with 400 inmates. In addition to these
there were in Ghent in 1901 fifty religious houses of various orders.

As a manufacturing centre Ghent, though not so conspicuous as it was in
the middle ages, is of considerable importance. The main industries are
cotton-spinning, flax-spinning, cotton-printing, tanning and sugar
refining; in addition to which there are iron and copper foundries,
machine-building works, breweries and factories of soap, paper, tobacco,
&c. As a trading centre the city is even more important. It has direct
communication with the sea by a ship-canal, greatly enlarged and
deepened since 1895, which connects the Grand Basin, stretching along
the north side of the city, with a spacious harbour excavated at
Terneuzen on the Scheldt, 21½ m. to the north, thus making Ghent
practically a sea-port; while a second canal, from the Lys, connects the
city via Bruges with Ostende.

Among the educational establishments is the State University, founded by
King William I. of the Netherlands in 1816. With it are connected a
school of engineering, a school of arts and industries and the famous
library (about 300,000 printed volumes and 2000 MSS.) formerly belonging
to the city. In addition there are training schools for teachers, an
episcopal seminary, a conservatoire and an art academy with a fine
collection of pictures mainly taken from the religious houses of the
city on their suppression in 1795. The oldest Belgian newspaper, the
_Gazet van Gent_, was founded here in 1667.

_History._--The history of the city is closely associated with that of
the countship of Flanders (q.v.), of which it was the seat. It is
mentioned so early as the 7th century and in 868 Baldwin of the Iron
Arm, first count of Flanders, who had been entrusted by Charles the Bald
with the defence of the northern marches, built a castle here against
the Normans raiding up the Scheldt. This was captured in 949 by the
emperor Otto I. and was occupied by an imperial burgrave for some fifty
years, after which it was retaken by the counts of Flanders. Under their
protection, and favoured by its site, the city rapidly grew in wealth
and population, the zenith of its power and prosperity being reached
between the 13th and 15th centuries, when it was the emporium of the
trade of Germany and the Low Countries, the centre of a great cloth
industry, and could put some 20,000 armed citizens into the field. The
wealth of the burghers during this period was equalled by their
turbulent spirit of independence; feuds were frequent,--against the
rival city of Bruges, against the counts, or, within the city itself,
between the plebeian crafts and the patrician governing class. Of these
risings the most notable was that, in the earlier half of the 14th
century, against Louis de Crécy, count of Flanders, under the leadership
of Jacob van Artevelde (q.v.).

The earliest charter to the citizens of Ghent was that granted by Count
Philip of Flanders between 1169 and 1191. It did little more than
arrange for the administration of justice by nominated jurats
(_scabini_) under the count's _bailli_. Far more comprehensive was the
second charter, granted by Philip's widow Mathilda, after his death on
crusade in 1191, as the price paid for the faithfulness of the city to
her cause. The magistrates of the city were still nominated _scabini_
(fixed at thirteen), but their duties and rights were strictly defined
and the liberties of the citizens safe-guarded; the city, moreover,
received the right to fortify itself and even individuals within it to
fortify their houses. This charter was confirmed and extended by Count
Baldwin VIII. when he took over the city from Mathilda, an important new
provision being that general rules for the government of the city were
only to be made by arrangement between the count or his officials and
the common council of the citizens. The burghers thus attained to a very
considerable measure of self-government. A charter of 1212 of Count
Ferdinand (of Portugal) and his wife Johanna introduced a modified
system of election for the _scabini_; a further charter (1228) fixed the
executive at 39 members, including _scabini_ and members of the commune,
and ordained that the _bailli_ of the count and his _servientes_, like
the _podestàs_ of Italian cities, were not to be natives of Ghent.

Thus far the constitution of the city had been wholly aristocratic; in
the 13th century the patricians seem to have been united into a gild
(_Commans-gulde_) from whose members the magistrates were chosen. By the
14th century, however, the democratic craft gilds, notably that of the
weavers, had asserted themselves; the citizens were divided for civic
and military purposes into three classes; the rich (i.e. those living on
capital), the weavers and the members of the 52 other gilds. In the
civic executive, as it existed to the time of Charles V., the deans of
the two lower classes sat with the _scabini_ and councillors.

The constitution and liberties of the city, which survived its
incorporation in Burgundy, were lost for a time as a result of the
unsuccessful rising against Duke Philip the Good (1450). The citizens,
however, retained their turbulent spirit. After the death of Mary of
Burgundy, who had resided in the city, they forced her husband, the
archduke Maximilian, to conclude the treaty of Arras (1482). They were
less fortunate in their opposition to Maximilian's son, the emperor
Charles V. In 1539 they refused, on the plea of their privileges, to
contribute to a general tax laid on Flanders, and when Charles's sister
Mary, the governess of the Netherlands, seized some merchants as bail
for the payment, they retaliated by driving out the nobles and the
adherents of Charles's government. The appearance of Charles himself,
however, with an overwhelming force quelled the disturbance; the
ringleaders were executed, and all the property and privileges of the
city were confiscated. In addition, a fine of 150,000 golden gulden was
levied on the city, and used to build the "Spanish Citadel" on the site
of what is now the public park.

In the long struggle of the Netherlands against Spain, Ghent took a
conspicuous part, and it was here that, on the 8th of November 1576, was
signed the instrument, known as the Pacification of Ghent, which
established the league against Spanish tyranny. In 1584, however, the
city had to surrender on onerous terms to the prince of Parma.

The horrors of war and of religious persecution, and the consequent
emigration or expulsion of its inhabitants, had wrecked the prosperity
of Ghent, the recovery of which was made impossible by the closing of
the Scheldt. The city was captured by the French in 1698, 1708 and 1745.
After 1714 it formed part of the Austrian Netherlands, and in 1794
became the capital of the French department of the Scheldt. In 1814 it
was incorporated in the kingdom of the United Netherlands, and it was
here that Louis XVIII. of France took refuge during the Hundred Days.
Here too was signed (December 24, 1814) the treaty of peace between
Great Britain and the United States of America. After 1815 Ghent was for
a time the centre of Catholic opposition to Dutch rule, as it is now
that of the Flemish movement in Belgium. During the 19th century its
prosperity rapidly increased. In 1866-1867, however, a serious outbreak
of cholera again threatened it with ruin; but improved sanitation, the
provision of a supply of pure water and the demolition of a mass of
houses unfit for habitation soon effected a radical cure.

  See L. A. Warnkönig, _Flandrische Staats- und Rechtsgeschichte bis
  1305_ (3 vols., Tübingen, 1835-1842), and Gueldorf, _Hist. de Gand_,
  translated from Warnkönig, with corrections and additions (Brussels,
  1846); F. de Potter, _Gent van den oudsten tijd tot heden_ (6 vols.,
  Ghent, 1883-1891); Van Duyse, _Gand monumental et pittoresque_
  (Brussels, 1886); de Vlaminck, _Les Origines de la ville de Gand_
  (Brussels, 1891); _Annales Gandenses_, ed. G. Funck-Brentano (Paris,
  1895); Vuylsteke, _Oorkondenboek der stad Gent_ (Ghent, 1900, &c.);
  Karl Hegel, _Städte und Gilden_ (Leipzig, 1891), vol. ii. p. 175,
  where further authorities are cited. For a comprehensive bibliography,
  including monographs and published documents, see Ulysse Chevalier,
  _Répertoire des sources hist. Topo-bibliogr._, s.v. "Gand."


  [1] Bavo, or Allowin (c. 589-c. 653), patron saint of Ghent, was a
    nobleman converted by St Amandus, the apostle of Flanders. He lived
    first as an anchorite in the forest of Mendonk, and afterwards in the
    monastery founded with his assistance by Amandus at Ghent.

GHETTO, formerly the street or quarter of a city in which Jews were
compelled to live, enclosed by walls and gates which were locked each
night. The term is now used loosely of any locality in a city or country
where Jews congregate. The derivation of the word is doubtful. In
documents of the 11th century the Jew-quarters in Venice and Salerno are
styled "Judaca" or "Judacaria." At Capua in 1375 there was a place
called San Nicolo ad Judaicam, and later elsewhere a quarter San Martino
ad Judaicam. Hence it has been suggested Judaicam became Italian
Giudeica and thence became corrupted into ghetto. Another theory traces
it to "gietto," the common foundry at Venice near which was the first
Jews' quarters of that city. More probably the word is an abbreviation
of Italian _borghetto_ diminutive of _borgo_ a "borough."

The earliest regular ghettos were established in Italy in the 11th
century, though Prague is said to have had one in the previous century.
The ghetto at Rome was instituted by Paul IV. in 1556. It lay between
the Via del Pianto and Ponte del Quattro Capi, and comprised a few
narrow and filthy streets. It lay so low that it was yearly flooded by
the Tiber. The Jews had to sue annually for permission to live there,
and paid a yearly tax for the privilege. This formality and tax survived
till 1850. During three centuries there were constant changes in the
oppressive regulations imposed upon the Jews by the popes. In 1814 Pius
VII. allowed a few Jews to live outside the ghetto, and in 1847 Pius IX.
decided to destroy the gates and walls, but public opinion hindered him
from carrying out his plans. In 1870 the Jews petitioned Pius IX. to
abolish the ghetto; but it was to Victor Emmanuel that this reform was
finally due. The walls remained until 1885.

During the middle ages the Jews were forbidden to leave the ghetto after
sunset when the gates were locked, and they were also imprisoned on
Sundays and all Christian holy days. Where the ghetto was too small for
the carrying on of their trades, a site beyond its wall was granted them
as a market, e.g. the Jewish _Tandelmarkt_ at Prague. Within their
ghettos the Jews were left much to their own devices, and the more
important ghettos, such as that at Prague, formed cities within cities,
having their own town halls and civic officials, hospitals, schools and
rabbinical courts. Fires were common in ghettos and, owing to the
narrowness of the streets, generally very destructive, especially as
from fear of plunder the Jews themselves closed their gates on such
occasions and refused assistance. On the 14th of June 1711 a fire, the
largest ever known in Germany, destroyed within twenty-four hours the
ghetto at Frankfort-on-Main. Other notable ghetto fires are that of Bari
in 1030 and Nikolsburg in 1719. The Jews were frequently expelled from
their ghettos, the most notable expulsions being those of Vienna (1670)
and Prague (1744-1745). This latter exile was during the war of the
Austrian Succession, when Maria Theresa, on the ground that "they were
fallen into disgrace," ordered Jews to leave Bohemia. The empress was,
however, induced by the protests of the powers, especially of England
and Holland, to revoke the decree. Meantime the Jews, ignorant of the
revocation, petitioned to be allowed to return in payment of a yearly
tax. This tax the Bohemian Jews paid until 1846. The most important
ghettos were those at Venice, Frankfort, Prague and Trieste. By the
middle of the 19th century the ghetto system was moribund, and with the
disappearance of the ghetto at Rome in 1870 it became obsolete.

  See D. Philipson, _Old European Jewries_ (Philadelphia, 1894); Israel
  Abrahams, _Jewish Life in the Middle Ages_ (1896); S. Kahn, article
  "Ghetto" in _Jewish Encyclopedia_, v. 652.

GHIBERTI, LORENZO (1378-1455), Italian sculptor, was born at Florence in
1378. He learned the trade of a goldsmith under his father Ugoccione,
commonly called Cione, and his stepfather Bartoluccio; but the
goldsmith's art at that time included all varieties of plastic arts, and
required from those who devoted themselves to its higher branches a
general and profound knowledge of design and colouring. In the early
stage of his artistic career Ghiberti was best known as a painter in
fresco, and when Florence was visited by the plague he repaired to
Rimini, where he executed a highly prized fresco in the palace of the
sovereign Pandolfo Malatesta. He was recalled from Rimini to his native
city by the urgent entreaties of his stepfather Bartoluccio, who
informed him that a competition was to be opened for designs of a second
bronze gate in the baptistery, and that he would do wisely to return to
Florence and take part in this great artistic contest. The subject for
the artists was the sacrifice of Isaac; and the competitors were
required to observe in their work a certain conformity to the first
bronze gate of the baptistery, executed by Andrea Pisano about 100 years
previously. Of the six designs presented by different Italian artists,
those of Donatello, Brunelleschi and Ghiberti were pronounced the best,
and of the three Brunelleschi's and Ghiberti's superior to the third,
and of such equal merit that the thirty-four judges with whom the
decision was left entrusted the execution of the work to the joint
labour of the two friends. Brunelleschi, however, withdrew from the
contest. The first of his two bronze gates for the baptistery occupied
Ghiberti twenty years.

Ghiberti brought to his task a deep religious feeling and the striving
after a high poetical ideal which are not to be found in the works of
Donatello, though in power of characterization the second sculptor often
stands above the first. Like Donatello, he seized every opportunity of
studying the remains of ancient art; but he sought and found purer
models for imitation than Donatello, through his excavations and studies
in Rome, had been able to secure. The council of Florence, which met
during the most active period of Ghiberti's artistic career, not only
secured him the patronage of the pontiff, who took part in the council,
but enabled him, through the important connexions which he then formed
with the Greek prelates and magnates assembled in Florence, to obtain
from many quarters of the Byzantine empire the precious memorials of old
Greek art, which he studied with untiring zeal. The unbounded admiration
called forth by Ghiberti's first bronze gate led to his receiving from
the chiefs of the Florentine gilds the order for the second, of which
the subjects were likewise taken from the Old Testament. The Florentines
gazed with especial pride on these magnificent creations, which must
still have shone with all the brightness of their original gilding when,
a century later, Michelangelo pronounced them worthy to be the gates of
paradise. Next to the gates of the baptistery Ghiberti's chief works
still in existence are his three statues of St John the Baptist, St
Matthew and St Stephen, executed for the church of Or San Michele. In
the bas-relief of the coffin of St Zenobius, in the Florence cathedral,
Ghiberti put forth much of his peculiar talent, and though he did not,
as is commonly stated, execute entirely the painted glass windows in
that edifice, he furnished several of the designs, and did the same
service for a painted glass window in the church of Or San Michele. He
died at the age of 77.

We are better acquainted with Ghiberti's theories of art than with those
of most of his contemporaries, for he left behind him a commentary, in
which, besides his notices of art, he gives much insight into his own
personal character and views. Every page attests the religious spirit in
which he lived and worked. Not only does he aim at faithfully reflecting
Christian truths in his creations, he regards the old Greek statues with
a kindred feeling, as setting forth the highest intellectual and moral
attributes of human nature. He appears to have cared as little as
Donatello for money.

Benvenuto Cellini's criticism on Ghiberti that in his creations of
plastic art he was more successful in small than in large figures, and
that he always exhibited in his works the peculiar excellences of the
goldsmith's quite as much as those of the sculptor's art, is after all
no valid censure, for it merely affirms that Ghiberti faithfully
complied with the peculiar conditions of the task imposed upon him. More
frequent have been the discussions as to the part played by perspective
in his representations of natural scenery. These acquired a fresh
importance since the discovery of the data, from which it appeared that
Paolo Uccello, who had commonly been regarded as the first great master
of perspective, worked for several years in the studio or workshop of
Ghiberti, so that it became difficult to determine to what extent
Uccello's successful innovations in perspective were due to Ghiberti's

  Cicognara's criticism on Ghiberti, in his _History of Sculpture_, has
  supplied the chief materials for the illustrative text of Lasinio's
  series of engravings of the three bronze gates of the baptistery. They
  consist of 42 plates in folio, and were published at Florence by Bardi
  in 1821. Still more vivid representations are the reproductions on a
  very large scale by the photographic establishment of Alinari. Both C.
  C. Perkins, in his _History of Tuscan Sculpture_ (1864), and A. F.
  Rio, in his _Art chrétien_ (1861-1867), have treated Ghiberti's works
  with much fulness, and in a spirit of sound appreciation. See also the
  chapter expressly devoted to the history of the competition for the
  baptistery gates in Hans Semper, _Donatello_ (1887); the articles by
  Adolf Rosemberg in Dohme's _Kunst und Künstler des Mittelalters_
  (Leipzig, 1877); Leader Scott, _Ghiberti and Donatello_ (1882). In the
  _Sammlung ausgewählter Biographien Vasari_, ed. Carl Frey, vol. iii.
  (1886), is given Ghiberti's commentary on art.

GHICA, GHIKA or GHYKA, a family which played a great part in the modern
development of Rumania, many of its members being princes of Moldavia
and Walachia. According to Rumanian historians the Ghicas were of very
humble origin, and came from Kiupru in Albania.

1. George or Gheorghe (c. 1600-1664), the founder of the family, is said
to have been a playmate of another Albanian known in history as Küpruli
Aga, the famous vizier, who recognized George while he was selling
melons in the streets of Constantinople, and helped him on to high
positions. George became prince of Moldavia in 1658 and prince of
Walachia in 1659-1660. He moved the capital from Tîrgovishtea to
Bucharest. From him are derived the numerous branches of the family
which became so conspicuous in the history of Moldavia and Walachia.

2. The Walachian branch starts afresh from the great ban Demetrius or
Dumitru Ghica (1718-1803), who was twice married and had fourteen
children (see RUMANIA: _History_). One of these, Gregory (Grigorie),
prince of Walachia 1822-1828, starts a new era of civilization, by
breaking with the traditions of the Phanariot (Greek) period and
assisting in the development of a truly national Rumanian literature.
His brother, Prince Alexander Ghica, appointed jointly by Turkey and
Russia (1834-1842) as hospodar of Walachia, died in 1862. Under him the
so-called _règlement organique_ had been promulgated; an attempt was
made to codify the laws in conformity with the institutions of the
country and to secure better administration of justice. Prince Demetrius
Ghica, who died as president of the Rumanian senate in 1897, was the son
of the Walachian prince Gregory.

3. Another Gregory Ghica, prince of Moldavia from 1775 to 1777, paid
with his life for the opposition he offered when the Turks ceded the
province of Bukovina to Austria.

4. Michael (Michail) (1794-1850) was the father of Elena (1827-1888), a
well-known novelist, who wrote under the name of Dora d'Istria. Brought
up, as was customary at the time, under Greek influences, she showed
premature intelligence and literary power. She continued her education
in Germany and married a Russian prince, Koltsov Mazalskiy, in 1849, but
the marriage was an unhappy one, and in 1855 she left St Petersburg for
Florence, where she died in 1888. In that city she developed her
literary talent and published a number of works characterized by
lightness of touch and brilliance of description, such as _Pèlerinage
au tombeau de Dante, La Vie monastique dans les églises orientales_
(1844), _La Suisse allemande_, &c. One of her last works was devoted to
the history of her own family, _Gli Albanesi in Roumenia: Storia dei
Principi Ghika nei secoli XVII-XIX_ (Florence, 1873). Her sister was
Sophia, Countess O'Rourke.

5. Scarlat Ghica (1750-1802) was twice prince of Walachia. His grandson
John (Ioan) Ghica (1817-1897), a lifelong friend of Turkey, was educated
in Bucharest and in the West, and studied engineering and mathematics in
Paris from 1837 to 1840; returning to Moldavia he was involved in the
conspiracy of 1841, which was intended to bring about the union of
Walachia and Moldavia under one native prince (Michael Sturdza). The
conspiracy failed and John Ghica became a lecturer on mathematics at the
university which was founded by Prince Sturdza in Jassy. In 1848 he
joined the party of revolution and in the name of a provisional
government then established in Bucharest went to Constantinople to
approach the Turkish government. Whilst there he was appointed Bey of
Samos (1853-1859), where he extirpated piracy, rampant in that island.
In 1859 after the union of Moldavia and Walachia had been effected
Prince Cuza induced John Ghica to return. He was the first prime
minister under Prince (afterwards King) Charles of Hohenzollern. His
restless nature made him join the anti-dynastic movement of 1870-1871.
In 1881 he was appointed Rumanian minister in London and retained this
office until 1889. He died on the 7th of May 1897 in Gherghani. Besides
his political distinction John Ghica earned a literary reputation by his
"Letters to Alexandri" (2nd edition, 1887), his lifelong friend, written
from London and describing the ancient state of Rumanian society, fast
fading away. He was also the author of _Amintiri din pribegie_,
"Recollections of Exile in 1848" (Bucharest, 1890) and of _Convorbiri
Economice_, discussions on economic questions (Bucharest, 1866-1873). He
was the first to advocate the establishment of national industry and
commerce, and also, to a certain extent, principles of "exclusive
dealing."     (M. G.)

GHILZAI, a large and widespread Afghan tribe, who extend from
Kalat-i-Ghilzai on the S. to the Kabul river on the N., and from the Gul
Koh range on the W. to the Indian border on the E., in many places
overflowing these boundaries. The popular theory of the origin of the
Ghilzais traces them to the Turkish tribe of Kilji, once occupying
districts bordering the upper course of the Syr Darya (Jaxartes), and
affirms that they were brought into Afghanistan by the Turk Sabuktagin
in the 10th century. However that may be, the Ghilzai clans now rank
collectively as second to none in strength of military and commercial
enterprise. They are a fine, manly race of people, and it is from some
of their most influential clans (Suliman Khel, Nasir Khel, Kharotis,
&c.) that the main body of povindah merchants is derived.

GHIRLANDAJO, DOMENICO (1449-1494), Florentine painter. His full name is
given as Domenico di Tommaso Curradi di Doffo Bigordi; it appears
therefore that his father's surname was Curradi, and his grandfather's
Bigordi. The painter is generally termed Domenico Bigordi, but some
authors give him, and apparently with reason, the paternal surname
Curradi. Ghirlandajo (garland-maker) was only a nickname, coming to
Domenico from the employment of his father (or else of his earliest
instructor), who was renowned for fashioning the metallic garlands worn
by Florentine damsels; he was not, however, as some have said, the
inventor of them. Tommaso was by vocation a jeweller on the Ponte
Vecchio, or perhaps a broker. Domenico, the eldest of eight children,
was at first apprenticed to a jeweller or goldsmith, probably enough his
own father; in his shop he was continually making portraits of the
passers-by, and it was thought expedient to place him with Alessio
Baldovinetti to study painting and mosaic. His youthful years were,
however, entirely undistinguished, and at the age of thirty-one he had
not a fixed abode of his own. This is remarkable, as immediately
afterwards, from 1480 onwards to his death at a comparatively early age
in 1494, he became the most proficient painter of his time, incessantly
employed, and condensing into that brief period of fourteen years fully
as large an amount of excellent work as any other artist that could be
named; indeed, we should properly say eleven years, for nothing of his
is known of a later date than 1491.

In 1480 Ghirlandajo painted a "St Jerome" and other frescoes in the
church of Ognissanti, Florence, and a life-sized "Last Supper" in its
refectory, noticeable for individual action and expression. From 1481 to
1485 he was employed upon frescoes in the Sala dell' Orologio in the
Palazzo Vecchio; he painted the apotheosis of St Zenobius, a work beyond
the size of life, with much architectural framework, figures of Roman
heroes and other detail, striking in perspective and structural
propriety. While still occupied here, he was summoned to Rome by Pope
Sixtus IV. to paint in the Sixtine chapel; he went thither in 1483. In
the Sixtine he executed, probably before 1484, a fresco which has few
rivals in that series, "Christ calling Peter and Andrew to their
Apostleship,"--a work which, though somewhat deficient in colour, has
greatness of method and much excellence of finish. The landscape
background, in especial, is very superior to anything to be found in the
works, which had no doubt been zealously studied by Ghirlandajo, of
Masaccio and others in the Brancacci chapel. He also did some other
works in Rome, now perished. Before 1485 he had likewise produced his
frescoes in the chapel of S. Fina, in the Tuscan town of S. Gimignano,
remarkable for grandeur and grace,--two pictures of Fina, dying and
dead, with some accessory work. Sebastian Mainardi assisted him in these
productions in Rome and in S. Gimignano; and Ghirlandajo was so well
pleased with his co-operation that he gave him his sister in marriage.

He now returned to Florence, and undertook in the church of the Trinita,
and afterwards in S. Maria Novella, the works which have set the seal on
his celebrity. The frescoes in the Sassetti chapel of S. Trinita are six
subjects from the life of St Francis, along with some classical
accessories, dated 1485. Three of the principal incidents are "St
Francis obtaining from Pope Honorius the approval of the Rules of his
Order"; his "Death and Obsequies," and the Resuscitation, by the
interposition of the beatified saint, of a child of the Spini family,
who had been killed by falling out of a window. In the first work is a
portrait of Lorenzo de' Medici; and in the third the painter's own
likeness, which he introduced also into one of the pictures in S. Maria
Novella, and in the "Adoration of the Magi" in the hospital of the
Innocenti. The altar-piece of the Sassetti chapel, the "Adoration of the
Shepherds," is now in the Florentine Academy. Immediately after
disposing of this commission, Ghirlandajo was asked to renew the
frescoes in the choir of S. Maria Novella. This choir formed the chapel
of the Ricci family, but the Tornabuoni and Tornaquinci families, then
much more opulent than the Ricci, undertook the cost of the restoration,
under conditions, as to preserving the arms of the Ricci, which gave
rise in the end to some amusing incidents of litigation. The frescoes,
in the execution of which Domenico had many assistants, are in four
courses along the three walls,--the leading subjects being the lives of
the Madonna and of the Baptist. Besides their general richness and
dignity of art, these works are particularly interesting as containing
many historical portraits--a method of treatment in which Ghirlandajo
was pre-eminently skilled.

There are no less than twenty-one portraits of the Tornabuoni and
Tornaquinci families; in the subject of the "Angel appearing to
Zacharias," those of Politian, Marsilio Ficino and others; in the
"Salutation of Anna and Elizabeth," the beautiful Ginevra de' Benci; in
the "Expulsion of Joachim from the Temple," Mainardi and Baldovinetti
(or the latter figure may perhaps be Ghirlandajo's father). The Ricci
chapel was reopened and completed in 1490; the altar-piece, now removed
from the chapel, was probably executed with the assistance of Domenico's
brothers, David and Benedetto, painters of ordinary calibre; the painted
window was from Domenico's own design. Other distinguished works from
his hand are an altar-piece in tempera of the "Virgin adored by Sts
Zenobius, Justus and others," painted for the church of St Justus, but
now in the Uffizi gallery, a remarkable masterpiece; "Christ in glory
with Romuald and other Saints," in the Badia of Volterra; the
"Adoration of the Magi," in the church of the Innocenti (already
mentioned), perhaps his finest panel-picture (1488); and the
"Visitation," in the Louvre, bearing the latest ascertained date (1491)
of all his works. Ghirlandajo did not often attempt the nude; one of his
pictures of this character, "Vulcan and his Assistants forging
Thunderbolts," was painted for Lo Spedaletto, but (like several others
specified by Vasari) it exists no longer. Two portraits by him are in
the National Gallery, London. The mosaics which he produced date before
1491; one, of especial celebrity, is the "Annunciation," on a portal of
the cathedral of Florence.

In general artistic attainment Ghirlandajo may fairly be regarded as
exceeding all his precursors or competitors; though the names of a few,
particularly Giotto, Masaccio, Lippo Lippi and Botticelli, stand higher
for originating power. His scheme of composition is grand and decorous;
his chiaroscuro excellent, and especially his perspectives, which he
would design on a very elaborate scale by the eye alone; his colour is
more open to criticism, but this remark applies much less to the
frescoes than the tempera-pictures, which are sometimes too broadly and
crudely bright. He worked in these two methods alone--never in oils; and
his frescoes are what the Italians term "buon fresco," without any
finishing in tempera. A certain hardness of outline, not unlike the
character of bronze sculpture, may attest his early training in metal
work. He first introduced into Florentine art that mixture of the sacred
and the profane which had already been practised in Siena. His types in
figures of Christ, the Virgin and angels are not of the highest order;
and a defect of drawing, which has been often pointed out, is the
meagreness of his hands and feet. It was one of his maxims that
"painting is designing." Ghirlandajo was an insatiate worker, and
expressed a wish that he had the entire circuit of the walls of Florence
to paint upon. He told his shop-assistants not to refuse any commission
that might offer, were it even for a lady's petticoat-panniers: if they
would not execute such work, he would. Not that he was in any way
grasping or sordid in money-matters, as is proved by the anecdote of the
readiness with which he gave up a bonus upon the stipulated price of the
Ricci chapel frescoes, offered by the wealthy Tornabuoni in the first
instance, but afterwards begrudged. Vasari says that Ghirlandajo was the
first to abandon in great part the use of gilding in his pictures,
representing by genuine painting any objects supposed to be gilded; yet
this does not hold good without some considerable exceptions--the high
lights of the landscape, for instance, in the "Adoration of the
Shepherds," now in the Florence Academy, being put in in gold. Many
drawings and sketches by this painter are in the Uffizi gallery,
remarkable for vigour of outline. One of the great glories of
Ghirlandajo is that he gave some early art-education to Michelangelo,
who cannot, however, have remained with him long. F. Granacci was
another of his pupils.

This renowned artist died of pestilential fever on the 11th of January
1494, and was buried in S. Maria Novella. He had been twice married, and
left six children, three of them being sons. He had a long and
honourable line of descendants, which came to a close in the 17th
century, when the last members of the race entered monasteries. It is
probable that Domenico died poor; he appears to have been gentle,
honourable and conscientious, as well as energetically diligent.

  The biography of Ghirlandajo is carefully worked out in Crowe and
  Cavalcaselle's book. A recent German work on the subject is that of
  Ernst Steinmann (1897). See also _Codex Escurialensis, ein Skizzenbuch
  aus der Werkstatt Domenico Ghirlandaios_ (texts and plates), by Chr.
  Hülsen, Adolf Michaelis and Hermann Egger in the _Sonderschriften des
  österr. archäol. Instituts in Wien_ (2 vols., 1906), and cf. T. Ashby
  in _Classical Quarterly_ (April 1909).     (W. M. R.)

GHIRLANDAJO, RIDOLFO (1483-1560), son of Domenico Ghirlandajo,
Florentine painter, was born on the 14th of February 1483, and, being
less than eleven years old when his father died, was brought up by his
uncle David. To this second-rate artist he owed less in the way of
professional training than to Granacci, Piero di Cosimo and perhaps
Cosimo Rosselli. It has been said that Ridolfo studied also under Fra
Bartolommeo, but this is not clearly ascertained. He was certainly one
of the earliest students of the famous cartoons of Leonardo da Vinci and
Michelangelo. His works between the dates 1504 and 1508 show a marked
influence from Fra Bartolommeo and Raphael, with the latter of whom he
was on terms of familiar friendship; hence he progressed in selection of
form and in the modelling and relief of his figures. Raphael, on
reaching Rome in 1508, wished Ridolfo to join him; but the Florentine
painter was of a particularly home-keeping humour, and he neglected the
opportunity. He soon rose to the head of the Florentine oil-painters of
his time; and, like his father, accepted all sorts of commissions, of
whatever kind. He was prominent in the execution of vast scenic canvases
for various public occasions, such as the wedding of Giuliano de'
Medici, and the entry of Leo X. into Florence in 1515. In his prime he
was honest and conscientious as an artist; but from about 1527 he
declined, having already accumulated a handsome property, more than
sufficient for maintaining in affluence his large family of fifteen
children, and his works became comparatively mannered and
self-repeating. His sons traded in France and in Ferrara; he himself
took a part in commercial affairs, and began paying some attention to
mosaic work, but it seems that, after completing one mosaic, the
"Annunciation" over the door of the Annunziata, patience failed him for
continuing such minute labours. In his old age Ridolfo was greatly
disabled by gout. He appears to have been of a kindly, easy-going
character, much regarded by his friends and patrons.

The following are some of his leading works, the great majority of them
being oil-pictures:--

  "Christ and the Maries on the road to Calvary," now in the Palazzo
  Antinori, Florence, an early example, with figures of half life-size.
  An "Annunciation" in the Abbey of Montoliveto near Florence,
  Leonardesque in style. In 1504, the "Coronation of the Virgin," now in
  the Louvre. A "Nativity," very carefully executed, now in the
  Hermitage, St Petersburg, and ascribed in the catalogue to Granacci. A
  "Predella," in the oratory of the Bigallo, Florence, five panels,
  representing the Nativity and other subjects, charmingly finished. In
  1514, on the ceiling of the chapel of St Bernard in the Palazzo
  Pubblico, Florence, a fresco of the "Trinity," with heads of the
  twelve apostles and other accessories, and the "Annunciation"; also
  the "Assumption of the Virgin, who bestows her girdle on St Thomas,"
  in the choir loft of Prato cathedral. Towards the same date, a picture
  showing his highest skill, replete with expression, vigorous life, and
  firm accomplished pictorial method, now in the gallery of the Uffizi,
  "St Zenobius resuscitating a child"; also the translation of the
  remains of the same Saint. The "Virgin and various saints," at S. Pier
  Maggiore, Pistoja. In 1521, the "Pietà," at S. Agostino, Colle di
  Valdelsa, life-sized. Towards 1526, the "Assumption," now in the
  Berlin Museum, containing the painter's own portrait. An excellent
  portrait of "Cosimo de' Medici" (the Great) in youth. In 1543, a
  series of frescoes in the monastery of the Angeli. In the National
  Gallery, London, is "The Procession to Calvary." A great number of
  altar-pieces were executed by Ghirlandajo, with the assistance of his
  favourite pupil, currently named Michele di Ridolfo. Another of his
  pupils was Mariano da Pescia.     (W. M. R.)

GHOR, or GHUR, an ancient kingdom of Afghanistan. The name of Ghor was
in the middle ages, and indeed locally still is, applied to the
highlands east of Herat, extending eastward to the upper Helmund valley,
or nearly so. Ghor is the southern portion of that great peninsula of
strong mountain country which forms the western part of modern
Afghanistan. The northern portion of the peninsula was in the middle
ages comprehended under the names of _Gharjistan_ (on the west), and
_Juzjana_ (on the east), whilst the basin of the Herat river, and all
south of it, constituted Ghor. The name as now used does not include the
valley of the Herat river; on the south the limit seems to be the
declivity of the higher mountains dominating the descent to the lower
Helmund, and the road from Farah to Kandahar. It is in Ghor that rise
all those affluents of the closed basin of Seistan, the Hari-rud, the
Farah-rud, the Khash-rud, besides other considerable streams joining the
Helmund above Girishk.

Ghor is mentioned in the Shahnama of Firdousi (A.D. 1010), and in the
Arab geographers of that time, though these latter fail in details
almost as much as we moderns, thus indicating how little accessible the
country has been through all ages. Ibn Hau[k.]al's map of Khorasan (c.
976) shows _Jibal-al-Ghur_, "the hill-country of Ghor," as a circle
ring-fenced with mountains. His brief description speaks of it as a land
fruitful in crops, cattle and flocks, inhabited by infidels, except a
few who passed for Mahommedans, and indicates that, like other pagan
countries surrounded by Moslem populations, it was regarded as a store
of slaves for the faithful. The boundary of Ghor in ascending the valley
of the Hari-rud was six and a half easy marches from Herat, at Chist,
two marches above Obeh.

The chief part of the present population of Ghor are Taimanis, belonging
to the class of nomad or semi-nomad clans called Aimak, intermingled
with Zuris and Tajiks.

The people and princes of Ghor first become known to us in connexion
with the Ghaznevid dynasty, and the early medieval histories of Ghor and
Ghazni are so intertwined that little need be added on that subject to
what will be found under GHAZNI (q.v.). What we read of Ghor shows it as
a country of lofty mountains and fruitful valleys, and of numerous
strongholds held by a variety of hill-chieftains ruling warlike clans
whose habits were rife with feuds and turbulence,--indeed, in character
strongly resembling the tribes of modern Afghanistan, though there seems
no good reason to believe that they were of Afghan race. It is probable
that they were of old Persian blood, like the older of those tribes
which still occupy the country. It is possibly a corroboration of this
that, in the 14th century, when one of the Ghori kings, of the Kurt
dynasty reigning in Herat, had taken to himself some of the insignia of
independent sovereignty, an incensed Mongol prince is said to have
reviled him as "an insolent _Tajik_." Sabuktagin of Ghazni, and his
famous son Mahmud, repeatedly invaded the mountain country which so
nearly adjoined their capital, subduing its chiefs for the moment, and
exacting tribute; but when the immediate pressure was withdrawn, the
yoke was thrown off and the tribute withheld. In 1020 Masa'ud, the son
of Mahmud, being then governor of Khorasan, made a systematic invasion
of Ghor from the side of Herat, laying siege to its strongholds one
after the other, and subduing the country more effectually than ever
before. About a century later one of the princely families of Ghor,
deriving the appellation of Shansabi, or Shansabaniah, from a certain
ancestor Shansab, of local fame, and of alleged descent from Zohak,
acquired predominance in all the country, and at the time mentioned
Malik 'Izzuddin al Hosain of this family came to be recognized as lord
of Ghor. He was known afterwards as "the Father of Kings," from the
further honour to which several of his seven sons rose. Three of these
were--(1) Amir Kutbuddin Mahommed, called the lord of the Jibal or
mountains; (2) Sultan Saifuddin Suri, for a brief period master of
Ghazni,--both of whom were put to death by Bahram the Ghaznevid; and (3)
Sultan Alauddin Jahansoz, who wreaked such terrible vengeance upon
Ghazni. Alauddin began the conquests which were afterwards immensely
extended both in India and in the west by his nephews Ghiyasuddin
Mahommed b. Sam and Mahommed Ghori (Muizuddin b. Sam or Shahabuddin b.
Sam), and for a brief period during their rule it was boasted, with no
great exaggeration, that the public prayer was read in the name of the
Ghori from the extremity of India to the borders of Babylonia, and from
the Oxus to the Straits of Ormus. After the death of Mahommed Ghori,
Mahmud the son of Ghiyasuddin was proclaimed sovereign (1200) throughout
the territories of Ghor, Ghazni and Hindustan. But the Indian dominion,
from his uncle's death, became entirely independent, and his actual
authority was confined to Ghor, Seistan and Herat. The whole kingdom
fell to pieces before the power of Mahommed Shah of Khwarizm and his son
Jelaluddin (c. 1214-1215), a power in its turn to be speedily shattered
by the Mongol flood.

Besides the thrones of Ghor and Ghazni, the Shansabaniah family, in the
person of Fakhruddin, the eldest of the seven sons of Malik 'Izzuddin,
founded a kingdom in the Oxus basin, having its seat at BAMIAN (q.v.),
which endured for two or three generations, till extinguished by the
power of Khwarizm (1214). And the great Mussulman empire of Delhi was
based on the conquests of Muizuddin the Ghorian, carried out and
consolidated by his Turki freedmen, Kutbuddin Aibak and his successors.
The princes of Ghor experienced, about the middle of the 13th century,
a revival of power, which endured for 140 years. This later dynasty bore
the name of Kurt or K[)a]rt. The first of historical prominence was
Malik Shamsuddin Kurt, descended by his mother from the great king
Ghiyasuddin Ghori, whilst his other grandfather was that prince's
favourite minister. In 1245 Shamsuddin held the lordship of Ghor in some
kind of alliance with, or subordination to, the Mongols, who had not yet
definitively established themselves in Persia; and in 1248 he received
from the Great Khan Mangu an investiture of all the provinces from Merv
to the Indus, including by name Sijistan (or Seistan), Kabul, Tirah
(adjoining the Khyber pass), and Afghanistan (a very early occurrence of
this name), which he ruled from Herat. He stood well with Hulagu, and
for a long time with his son Abaka, but at last incurred the latter's
jealousy, and was poisoned when on a visit to the court at Tabriz
(1276). His son Ruknuddin Kurt was, however, invested with the
government of Khorasan (1278), but after some years, mistrusting his
Tatar suzerains, he withdrew into Ghor, and abode in his strong fortress
of Kaissar till his death there in 1305. The family held on through a
succession of eight kings in all, sometimes submissive to the Mongol,
sometimes aiming at independence, sometimes for a series of prosperous
years adding to the strength and splendour of Herat, and sometimes
sorely buffeted by the hosts of masterless Tatar brigands that tore
Khorasan and Persia in the decline of the dynasties of Hulagu and
Jagatai. It is possible that the Kurts might have established a lasting
Tajik kingdom at Herat, but in the time of the last of the dynasty,
Ghiyasuddin Pir-'Ali, Tatardom, reorganized and re-embodied in the
person of Timur, came against Herat, and carried away the king and the
treasures of his dynasty (1380). A revolt and massacre of his garrison
provoked Timur's vengeance; he put the captive king to death, came
against the city a second time, and showed it no mercy (1383). Ghor has
since been obscure in history.

The capital of the kingdom of Ghor, when its princes were rising to
dominion in the 12th century, was Firoz Koh, where a city and fortress
were founded by Saifuddin Suri. The exact position of Firoz Koh is
difficult to determine, unless it be represented by the ruins of one or
other of the ancient cities in the upper Murghab valley, the habitat of
the Firoz Kohi section of the Chahar Aimak, which were visited by the
surveyors of the Russo-Afghan boundary delimitation of 1884-1885.
Extensive ruins were also found at Taiwara on one of the main affluents
of the Farah Rud, where walls and terraces still existing supported the
local tradition that this place was the ancient capital of Ghor. The
valleys of the Taimani tribes though narrow are fertile and well
cultivated, and there are many walled villages and forts about Parjuman
and Zarni in the south-eastern districts. The peak of "Chalap Dalan"
(described by Ferrier as "one of the highest in the world") is the
Koh-i-Kaisar, which is a trifle over 13,000 ft. in height. All the
country now known as Ghor was mapped during the progress of the
Russo-Afghan boundary delimitation.

  See the "Tabakát-i-Násiri," in the _Bibl. Indica_, transl. by Raverty;
  _Journal asiatique_, ser. v. tom. xvii.; "Ibn Haukal," in _J. As. Soc.
  Beng._ vol. xxii.; Ferrier's _Caravan Journeys_; Hammer's _Ilkhans_,

GHOST (a word common to the W. Teutonic languages; O.E. _gæst_, Dutch,
_geest_, Ger. _Geist_), in the sense now prevailing, the spirit of a
dead person considered as appearing in some visible or sensible form to
the living (see APPARITIONS; PSYCHICAL RESEARCH, "Phantasms of the
Dead"; SPIRITUALISM). In the earlier and wider sense of spirit in
general, or of the principle of life, the word is practically obsolete.
The language of the Authorized Version of the Bible, however, has
preserved the phrase "to give up the ghost," still sometimes used of
dying. The Spirit of God, too, the third person of the Trinity, is still
called, not in the technical language of theology only, the Holy Ghost.
The adjective "ghostly" is still occasionally used for "spiritual" (cf.
the Ger. _geistlich_) as contrasted with "bodily," especially in such
combinations as "ghostly counsel," "ghostly comfort." We may even speak
of a "ghostly adviser," though not without a touch of affectation; on
the other hand, the phrase "ghostly man" for a clergyman (cf. the Ger.
_Geistlicher_) is an archaism the use of which could only be justified
by poetic licence, as in Tennyson's _Elaine_ (1842). The word "ghost,"
from the shadowy and unsubstantial quality attributed to the apparitions
of the dead, has come also to be commonly used to emphasize the want of
force or substance generally, in such phrases as "not the ghost of a
chance," "not the ghost of an idea." It is also applied to those
literary and artistic "hacks" who are paid to do work for which others
get the credit.

GHOST DANCE, an American-Indian ritual dance, sometimes called the
Spirit Dance, the dancers wearing a white cloak. It is connected with
the doctrine of a Messiah, which arose in Nevada among the Paiute
Indians in 1888 and spread to other tribes. A young Paiute Indian
medicine-man, known as Wovoka, and called Jack Wilson by the whites,
proclaimed that he had had a revelation, and that, if this ghost dance
and other ceremonies were duly performed, the Indians would be rid of
the white men. The movement led to a sort of craze among the Indian
tribes, and in 1890 it was one of the causes of the Sioux outbreak.

  See J. Mooney, _14th Report (1896) of Bureau of American Ethnology_.

GIACOMETTI, PAOLO (1816-1882), Italian dramatist, born at Novi Ligure,
was educated in law at Genoa, but at the age of twenty had some success
with his play _Rosilda_ and then devoted himself to the stage. Depressed
circumstances made him attach himself as author to various touring
Italian companies, and his output was considerable; moreover, such
actors as Ristori, Rossi and Salvini made many of these plays great
successes. Among the best of them were _La Donna_ (1850), _La Donna in
seconde nozze_ (1851), _Giuditta_ (1857), _Sofocle_ (1860), _La Morte
civile_ (1880). A collection of his works was published at Milan in
eight volumes (1859 et seq.).

GIAMBELLI (or GIANIBELLI), FEDERIGO, Italian military engineer, was born
at Mantua about the middle of the 16th century. Having had some
experience as a military engineer in Italy, he went to Spain to offer
his services to Philip II. His proposals were, however, lukewarmly
received, and as he could obtain from the king no immediate employment,
he took up his residence at Antwerp, where he soon gained considerable
reputation for his knowledge in various departments of science. He is
said to have vowed to be revenged for his rebuff at the Spanish court;
and when Antwerp was besieged by the duke of Parma in 1584, he put
himself in communication with Queen Elizabeth, who, having satisfied
herself of his abilities, engaged him to aid by his counsels in its
defence. His plans for provisioning the town were rejected by the
senate, but they agreed to a modification of his scheme for destroying
the famous bridge which closed the entrance to the town from the side of
the sea, by the conversion of two ships of 60 and 70 tons into infernal
machines. One of these exploded, and, besides destroying more than 1000
soldiers, effected a breach in the structure of more than 200 ft. in
width, by which, but for the hesitation of Admiral Jacobzoon, the town
might at once have been relieved. After the surrender of Antwerp
Giambelli went to England, where he was engaged for some time in
fortifying the river Thames; and when the Spanish Armada was attacked by
fireships in the Calais roads, the panic which ensued was very largely
due to the conviction among the Spaniards that the fireships were
infernal machines constructed by Giambelli. He is said to have died in
London, but the year of his death is unknown.

  See Motley's _History of the United Netherlands_, vols. i. and ii.

GIANNONE, PIETRO (1676-1748), was born at Ischitella, in the province of
Capitanata, on the 7th of May 1676. Arriving in Naples at the age of
eighteen, he devoted himself to the study of law, but his legal pursuits
were much surpassed in importance by his literary labours. He devoted
twenty years to the composition of his great work, the _Storia civile
del regno di Napoli_, which was ultimately published in 1723. Here in
his account of the rise and progress of the Neapolitan laws and
government, he warmly espoused the side of the civil power in its
conflicts with the Roman Catholic hierarchy. His merit lies in the fact
that he was the first to deal systematically with the question of Church
and State, and the position thus taken up by him, and the manner in
which that position was assumed, gave rise to a lifelong conflict
between Giannone and the Church; and in spite of his retractation in
prison at Turin, he deserves the palm--as he certainly endured the
sufferings--of a confessor and martyr in the cause of what he deemed
historical truth. Hooted by the mob of Naples, and excommunicated by the
archbishop's court, he was forced to leave Naples and repair to Vienna.
Meanwhile the Inquisition had attested after its own fashion the value
of his history by putting it on the _Index_. At Vienna the favour of the
emperor Charles VI. and of many leading personages at the Austrian court
obtained for him a pension and other facilities for the prosecution of
his historical studies. Of these the most important result was _Il
Triregno, ossia del regno del cielo, della terra, e del papa_. On the
transfer of the Neapolitan crown to Charles of Bourbon, Giannone lost
his Austrian pension and was compelled to remove to Venice. There he was
at first most favourably received. The post of consulting lawyer to the
republic, in which he might have continued the special work of Fra Paolo
Sarpi, was offered to him, as well as that of professor of public law in
Padua; but he declined both offers. Unhappily there arose a suspicion
that his views on maritime law were not favourable to the pretensions of
Venice, and this suspicion, notwithstanding all his efforts to dissipate
it, together with clerical intrigues, led to his expulsion from the
state. On the 23rd of September 1735 he was seized and conveyed to
Ferrara. After wandering under an assumed name for three months through
Modena, Milan and Turin, he at last reached Geneva, where he enjoyed the
friendship of the most distinguished citizens, and was on excellent
terms with the great publishing firms. But in an evil hour he was
induced to visit a Catholic village within Sardinian territory in order
to hear mass on Easter day, where he was kidnapped by the agents of the
Sardinian government, conveyed to the castle of Miolans and thence
successively transferred to Ceva and Turin. In the fortress of Turin he
remained immured during the last twelve years of his life, although part
of his time was spent in composing a defence of the Sardinian interests
as opposed to those of the papal court, and he was led to sign a
retractation of the statements in his history most obnoxious to the
Vatican (1738). But after his recantation his detention was made less
severe and he was allowed many alleviations. He died on the 7th of March
1748, in his seventy-second year.

Giannone's style as an Italian writer has been pronounced to be below a
severe classical model; he is often inaccurate as to the facts, for he
did not always work from original authorities (see A. Manzoni, _Storia
della colonna infame_), and he was sometimes guilty of unblushing
plagiarism. But his very ease and freedom have helped to make his
volumes more popular than many works of greater classical renown. In
England the just appreciation of his labours by Gibbon, and the ample
use made of them in the later volumes of _The Decline and Fall_, early
secured him his rightful place in the estimation of English scholars.

  The story of his life has been recorded in the _Vita_ by L. Panzini,
  which is based on Giannone's unpublished _Autobiografia_ and printed
  in the Milan edition of the historian's works (1823); whilst a more
  complete estimate of his literary and political importance may be
  formed by the perusal of the collected edition of the works written by
  him in his Turin prison, published in Turin in 1859--under the care of
  the distinguished statesman Pasquale Stanislao Mancini, universally
  recognized as one of the first authorities in Italy on questions
  relating to the history of his native Naples, and especially of the
  conflicts between the civil power and the Church. See also R. Mariano,
  "Giannone e Vico," in the _Rivista contemporanea_ (1869); G. Ferrari,
  _La Mente di Pietro Giannone_ (1868). G. Bonacci's _Saggio sulla
  Storia civile del Giannone_ (Florence, 1903) is a bitter attack on
  Giannone, and although the writer's remarks on the plagiarisms in the
  _Storia civile_ are justified, the charge of servility is greatly

GIANNUTRI (Gr. [Greek: Artemision], Lat. _Dianium_), an island of Italy,
about 1 sq. m. in total area, 10 m. S.E. of Giglio and about 10 m. S. of
the promontory of Monte Argentario (see ORBETELLO). The highest point is
305 ft. above sea-level. It contains the ruins of a large Roman villa,
near the Cala Maestra on the E. coast of the island. The buildings may
be divided into five groups: (1) a large cistern in five compartments,
each measuring 39 by 17 ft.; (2) habitations both for the owners and for
slaves, and store-rooms; (3) baths; (4) habitations for slaves; (5)
belvedere. The brick-stamps found begin in the Flavian and end with the
Hadrianic period. The villa may have belonged to the Domitii Ahenobarbi,
who certainly under the republic had property in the island of Igilium
(Giglio) and near Cosa.

  See G. Pellegrini in _Notizie degli scavi_ (1900), 609 seq.

GIANT (O. E. _geant_, through Fr. _géant_, O. Fr. _gaiant_, _jaiant_,
_jéant_, med. pop. Lat. _gagante_--cf. Ital. _gigante_--by assimilation
from _gigantem_, acc. of Lat. _gigas_, Gr. [Greek: gigas]). The idea
conveyed by the word in classic mythology is that of beings more or less
manlike, but monstrous in size and strength. Figures like the Titans and
the Giants whose birth from Heaven and Earth is sung by Hesiod in the
_Theogony_, such as can heap up mountains to scale the sky and war
beside or against the gods, must be treated, with other like monstrous
figures of the wonder-tales of the world, as belonging altogether to the
realms of mythology. But there also appear in the legends of giants some
with historic significance. The ancient and commonly repeated
explanation of the Greek word [Greek: gigas], as connected with or
derived from [Greek: gêgenês], or "earth-born," is etymologically
doubtful, but at any rate the idea conveyed by it was familiar to the
ancient Greeks, that the giants were earth-born or indigenous races (see
Welcker, _Griechische Götterlehre_, i. 787). The Bible (the English
reader must be cautioned that the word giant has been there used
ambiguously, from the Septuagint downwards) touches the present matter
in so far as it records the traditions of the Israelites of fighting in
Palestine with tall races of the land such as the Anakim (Numb. xiii.
33; Deut. ii. 10, iii. 11; 1 Sam. xvii. 4). When reading in Homer of
"the Cyclopes and the wild tribes of the Giants," or of the adventures
of Odysseus in the cave of Polyphemus (Homer, _Odyss._ vii. 206; ix.),
we seem to come into view of dim traditions, exaggerated through the
mist of ages, of pre-Hellenic barbarians, godless, cannibal,
skin-clothed, hurling huge stones in their rude warfare. Giant-legends
of this class are common in Europe and Asia, where the big and stupid
giants would seem to have been barbaric tribes exaggerated into monsters
in the legends of those who dispossessed and slew them. In early times
it was usual for cities to have their legends of giants. Thus London had
Gog and Magog, whose effigies (14 ft. high) still stand in the Guildhall
(see GOG); Antwerp had her Antigonus, 40 ft. high; Douai had Gayant, 22
ft. high, and so on.

Besides the conception of giants, as special races distinct from
mankind, it was a common opinion of the ancients that the human race had
itself degenerated, the men of primeval ages having been of so far
greater stature and strength as to be in fact gigantic. This, for
example, is received by Pliny (_Hist. Nat._ vii. 16), and it becomes a
common doctrine of theologians such as Augustine (_De civitate Dei_, xv.
9), lasting on into times so modern that it may be found in Cruden's
_Concordance_. Yet so far as can be judged from actual remains, it does
not appear that giants, in the sense of tribes of altogether superhuman
stature, ever existed, or that the men of ancient time were on the whole
taller than those now living. It is now usual to apply the word giant
not to superhuman beings but merely to unusually tall men and women. In
every race of mankind the great mass of individuals do not depart far
from a certain mean or average height, while the very tall or very short
men become less and less numerous as they depart from the mean standard,
till the utmost divergence is reached in a very few giants on the one
hand, and a very few dwarfs on the other. At both ends of the scale, the
body is usually markedly out of the ordinary proportions; thus a giant's
head is smaller and a dwarf's head larger than it would be if an average
man had been magnified or diminished. The principle of the distribution
of individuals of different sizes in a race or nation has been ably set
forth by Quetelet (_Physique sociale_, vol. ii.; _Anthropométrie_, books
iii. and iv.). Had this principle been understood formerly, we might
have been spared the pains of criticizing assertions as to giants 20 ft.
high, or even more, appearing among mankind. The appearance of an
individual man 20 ft. high involves the existence of the race he is an
extreme member of, whose mean stature would be at least 12 to 14 ft.,
which is a height no human being has been proved on sufficient evidence
to have approached (_Anthropom._ p. 302). Modern statisticians cannot
accept the loose conclusion in Buffon (_Hist. nat._, ed. Sonnini, iv.
134) that there is no doubt of giants having been 10, 12, and perhaps 15
ft. high. Confidence is not even to be placed in ancient asserted
measurements, as where Pliny gives to one Gabbaras, an Arabian, the
stature of 9 ft. 9 in. (about 9 ft. 5½ in. English), capping this with
the mention of Posio and Secundilla, who were half a foot higher. That
two persons should be described as both having this same extraordinary
measure suggests to the modern critic the notion of a note jotted down
on the philosopher's tablets, and never tested afterwards.

Under these circumstances it is worth while to ask how it is that legend
and history so abound in mentions of giants outside all probable
dimensions of the human frame. One cause is that, when the story-teller
is asked the actual stature of the huge men who figure in his tales, he
is not sparing of his inches and feet. What exaggeration can do in this
way may be judged from the fact that the Patagonians, whose average
height (5 ft. 11 in.) is really about that of the Chirnside men in
Berwickshire, are described in Pigafetta's _Voyage round the World_ as
so monstrous that the Spaniards' heads hardly reached their waists. It
is reasonable to suppose, with Professor Nilsson (_Primitive Inhabitants
of Scandinavia_, chap. vi.), that in the traditions of early Europe
tribes of savages may have thus, if really tall, expanded into giants,
or, if short, dwindled into dwarfs. Another cause which is clearly
proved to have given rise to giant-myths of yet more monstrous type has
been the discovery of great fossil bones, as of mammoth or mastodon,
which were formerly supposed to be bones of giants (see Tylor, _Early
History of Mankind_, chap. xi.; _Primitive Culture_, chap. x.). A tooth
weighing 4¾ [lb] and a thigh-bone 17 ft. long having been found in New
England in 1712 (they were probably mastodon), Dr Increase Mather
thereupon communicated to the Royal Society of London his theory of the
existence of men of prodigious stature in the antediluvian world (see
the _Philosophical Transactions_, xxiv. 85; D. Wilson, _Prehistoric
Man_, i. 54). The giants in the streets of Basel and supporting the arms
of Lucerne appear to have originated from certain fossil bones found in
1577, examined by the physician Felix Plater, and pronounced to have
belonged to a giant some 16 or 19 ft. high. These bones have since been
referred to a very different geological genus, but Plater's giant
skeleton was accepted early in the 19th century as a genuine relic of
the giants who once inhabited the earth. Of giants in real life whose
stature has been authentically recorded Quetelet gives the palm to
Frederick the Great's Scotch giant, who measured about 8 ft. 3 in. But
since his time there have been several giants who have equalled or
surpassed this figure. Patrick Cotler, an Irishman, who died at Clifton,
Bristol, in 1802, was 8 ft. 7 in. high. The famous "Irish giant" O'Brien
(Charles Byrne), whose skeleton is preserved in the museum of the Royal
College of Surgeons, London, was 8 ft. 4 in. Chang (Chang-woo-goo), who
appeared in London in 1865-1866 and again in 1880, was 8 ft. 2 in. Josef
Winkelmaier, an Austrian, exhibited in London on the 10th of January
1887, was 8 ft. 9 in.; while Elizabeth Lyska, a Russian child of twelve,
when shown in London in 1889, had already reached 6 ft. 8 in. Machnow, a
Russian, born at Charkow, was exhibited in London in his twenty-third
year in 1905; he then stood 9 ft. 3 in., and weighed 360 [lb] (25 st. 10
[lb]). From his wrist to the top of his second finger he measured 2 ft.
(see _The Times_, 10th February 1905).

  The whole subject of giant myths and the now entirely exploded theory
  that mankind has, as far as stature is concerned, degenerated since
  prehistoric times, has been ably dealt with in a volume published by
  MM. P. E. Launois and P. Roy, entitled _Études biologiques sur les
  géans_ (Paris, 1904). See also E. J. Wood, _Giants and Dwarfs_ (1860).

GIANT'S CAUSEWAY, a promontory of columnar basalt, situated on the north
coast of county Antrim, Ireland. It is divided by whin-dykes into the
Little Causeway, the Middle Causeway or "Honeycomb," as it is locally
termed, and the Larger or Grand Causeway. The pillars composing it are
close-fitting and for the most part somewhat irregular hexagons, made
up of articulated portions varying from a few inches to some feet in
depth, and concave or convex at the upper and lower surfaces. In
diameter the pillars vary from 15 to 20 in., and in height some are as
much as 20 ft. The Great Causeway is chiefly from 20 to 30, and for a
few yards in some places nearly 40 ft. in breadth, exclusive of outlying
broken pieces of rock. It is highest at its narrowest part. At about
half a dozen yards from the cliff, widening and becoming lower, it
extends outwards into a platform, which has a slight seaward
inclination, but is easy to walk upon, and for nearly 100 yds. is always
above water. At the distance of about 150 yds. from the cliff it turns a
little to the eastward for 20 or 30 yds., and then sinks into the sea.
The neighbouring cliffs exhibit in many places columns similar to those
of the Giant's Causeway, a considerable exposure of them being visible
at a distance of 500 to 600 yds. in the bay to the east. A group of
these columns, from their arrangement, have been fancifully named the
"Giant's Organ." The most remarkable of the cliffs is the Pleaskin, the
upper pillars of which have the appearance of a colonnade, and are 60
ft. in height; beneath these is a mass of coarse black amygdaloid, of
the same thickness, underlain by a second range of basaltic pillars,
from 40 to 50 ft. in height. The view eastward over Bengore and towards
Fair Head is magnificent. Near the Giant's Causeway are the ruins of the
castles of Dunseverick and Dunluce, situated high above the sea on
isolated crags, and the swinging bridge of Carrick-a-Rede, spanning a
chasm 80 ft. deep, and connecting a rock, which is used as a
salmon-fishing station, with the mainland. In 1883 an electric railway,
the first in the United Kingdom, was opened for traffic, connecting the
Causeway with Portrush and Bushmills. After a protracted lawsuit
(1897-1898) the Causeway, and certain land in the vicinity, were
declared to be private property, and a charge is made for admission.

GIANT'S KETTLE, GIANT'S CAULDRON or POT-HOLE, in physical geography, the
name applied to cavities or holes which appear to have been drilled in
the surrounding rocks by eddying currents of water bearing stones,
gravel and other detrital matter. The size varies from a few inches to
several feet in depth and diameter. The commonest occurrence is in
regions where glaciers exist or have existed; a famous locality is the
Gletscher Garten of Lucerne, where there are 32 giant's kettles, the
largest being 26 ft. wide and 30 ft. deep; they are also common in
Germany, Norway and in the United States. It appears that water,
produced by the thawing of the ice and snow, forms streams on the
surface of the glacier, which, having gathered into their courses a
certain amount of morainic débris, are finally cast down a crevasse as a
swirling cascade or _moulin_. The sides of the crevasse are abraded, and
a vertical shaft is formed in the ice. The erosion may be continued into
the bed of the glacier, and, the ice having left the district, the
giant's kettle so formed is seen as an empty shaft, or as a pipe filled
with gravel, sand or boulders. Such cavities and pipes afford valuable
evidence as to the former extent of glaciers (see J. Geikie, _The Great
Ice Age_). Similar holes are met with in river beds at the foot of
cascades, and under some other circumstances. The term "pot-hole" is
also sometimes used synonymously with "swallow-hole" (q.v.).

GIAOUR (a Turkish adaptation of the Pers. _gâwr_ or _gor_, an infidel),
a word used by the Turks to describe all who are not Mahommedans, with
especial reference to Christians. The word, first employed as a term of
contempt and reproach, has become so general that in most cases no
insult is intended in its use; similarly, in parts of China, the term
"foreign devil" has become void of offence. A strict analogy to _giaour_
is found in the Arabic _kaffir_, or unbeliever, which is so commonly in
use as to have become the proper name of peoples and countries.

GIB, ADAM (1714-1788), Scottish divine and leader of the Antiburgher
section of the Scottish Secession Church, was born on the 14th of April
1714 in the parish of Muckhart, Perthshire, and, on the completion of
his literary and theological studies at Edinburgh and Perth, was
licensed as a preacher in 1740. His eldest brother being a prodigal he
succeeded to the paternal estate, but threw the will into the fire on
his brother's promising to reform. In 1741 he was ordained minister of
the large Secession congregation of Bristo Street, Edinburgh. In 1745 he
was almost the only minister of Edinburgh who continued to preach
against rebellion while the troops of Charles Edward were in occupation
of the town. When in 1747 "the Associate Synod," by a narrow majority,
decided not to give full immediate effect to a judgment which had been
passed in the previous year against the lawfulness of the "Burgess
Oath," Gib led the protesting minority, who separated from their
brethren and formed the Antiburgher Synod (April 10th) in his own house
in Edinburgh. It was chiefly under his influence that it was agreed by
this ecclesiastical body at subsequent meetings to summon to the bar
their "Burgher" brethren, and finally to depose and excommunicate them
for contumacy. Gib's action in forming the Antiburgher Synod led, after
prolonged litigation, to his exclusion from the building in Bristo
Street where his congregation had met. In 1765 he made a vigorous and
able reply to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, which had
stigmatized the Secession as "threatening the peace of the country."
From 1753 till within a short period of his death, which took place on
the 18th of June 1788, he preached regularly in Nicolson Street church,
which was constantly filled with an audience of two thousand persons.
His dogmatic and fearless attitude in controversy earned for him the
nickname "Pope Gib."

  Principal publications: _Tables for the Four Evangelists_ (1770, and
  with author's name, 1800); _The Present Truth, a Display of the
  Secession Testimony_ (2 vols., 1774); _Vindiciae dominicae_ (Edin.,
  1780). See Chambers's _Eminent Scotsmen_; also article UNITED

GIBARA, or JIBARA (once "Punta del Yarey" and "Yarey de Gibara"), a
north-coast city of Oriente Province, Cuba, 80 m. N.W. of Santiago de
Cuba. Pop. (1907) 6170. It is served by railway to the S.S.W., to
Holguín and Cacocum (where it connects with the main line between
Santiago and Havana), and is a port of call for the American Munson
Line. It lies on a circular harbour, about 1 m. in diameter, which,
though open to the N., affords fair shelter. At the entrance to the
harbour is San Fernando, an old fort (1817), and the city is very quaint
in appearance. At the back of the city are three stone-topped hills,
Silla, Pan and Tabla, reputed to be those referred to by Columbus in his
journal of his first voyage. Enclosing the town is a stone wall, built
by the Spaniards as a defence against attack during the rebellion of
1868-1878. Gibara is the port of Holguín. It exports cedar, mahogany,
tobacco, sugar, tortoise-shell, Indian corn, cattle products, coco-nuts
and bananas; and is the centre of the banana trade with the United
States. Gibara is an old settlement, but it did not rise above the
status of a petty village until after 1817; its importance dates from
the opening of the port to commerce in 1827.

GIBBON, EDWARD (1737-1794), English historian, was descended, he tells
us in his autobiography, from a Kentish family of considerable
antiquity; among his remoter ancestors he reckons the lord high
treasurer Fiennes, Lord Say and Sele, whom Shakespeare has immortalized
in his _Henry VI._ His grandfather was a man of ability, an enterprising
merchant of London, one of the commissioners of customs under the Tory
ministry during the last four years of Queen Anne, and, in the judgment
of Lord Bolingbroke, as deeply versed in the "commerce and finances of
England" as any man of his time. He was not always wise, however, either
for himself or his country; for he became deeply involved in the South
Sea Scheme, in the disastrous collapse of which (1720) he lost the ample
wealth he had amassed. As a director of the company, moreover, he was
suspected of fraudulent complicity, taken into custody and heavily
fined; but £10,000 was allowed him out of the wreck of his estate, and
with this his skill and enterprise soon constructed a second fortune. He
died at Putney in 1736, leaving the bulk of his property to his two
daughters--nearly disinheriting his only son, the father of the
historian, for having married against his wishes. This son (by name
Edward) was educated at Westminster[1] and Cambridge, but never took a
degree, travelled, became member of parliament, first for Petersfield
(1734), then for Southampton (1741), joined the party against Sir Robert
Walpole, and (as his son confesses, not much to his father's honour) was
animated in so doing by "private revenge" against the supposed
"oppressor" of his family in the South Sea affair. If so, revenge, as
usual, was blind; for Walpole had sought rather to moderate than to
inflame public feeling against the projectors.

The historian was born at Putney, Surrey, April 27 (Old Style), 1737.
His mother, Judith Porten, was the daughter of a London merchant. He was
the eldest of a family of six sons and a daughter, and the only one who
survived childhood; his own life in youth hung by so mere a thread as to
be again and again despaired of. His mother, between domestic cares and
constant infirmities (which, however, did not prevent an occasional
plunge into fashionable dissipation in compliance with her husband's
wishes), did but little for him. The "true mother of his mind as well as
of his health" was a maiden aunt--Catherine Porten by name--with respect
to whom he expresses himself in language of the most grateful
remembrance. "Many anxious and solitary days," says Gibbon, "did she
consume with patient trial of every mode of relief and amusement. Many
wakeful nights did she sit by my bedside in trembling expectation that
each hour would be my last." As circumstances allowed, she appears to
have taught him reading, writing and arithmetic--acquisitions made with
so little of remembered pain that "were not the error corrected by
analogy," he says, "I should be tempted to conceive them as innate." At
seven he was committed for eighteen months to the care of a private
tutor, John Kirkby by name, and the author, among other things, of a
"philosophical fiction" entitled the _Life of Automathes_. Of Kirkby,
from whom he learned the rudiments of English and Latin grammar, he
speaks gratefully, and doubtless truly, so far as he could trust the
impressions of childhood. With reference to _Automathes_ he is much more
reserved in his praise, denying alike its originality, its depth and its
elegance; but, he adds, "the book is not devoid of entertainment or

In his ninth year (1746), during a "lucid interval of comparative
health," he was sent to a school at Kingston-upon-Thames; but his former
infirmities soon returned, and his progress, by his own confession, was
slow and unsatisfactory. "My timid reserve was astonished by the crowd
and tumult of the school; the want of strength and activity disqualified
me for the sports of the play-field.... By the common methods of
discipline, at the expense of many tears and some blood, I purchased the
knowledge of the Latin syntax," but manifestly, in his own opinion, the
_Arabian Nights_, Pope's _Homer_, and Dryden's _Virgil_, eagerly read,
had at this period exercised a much more powerful influence on his
intellectual development than Phaedrus and Cornelius Nepos, "painfully
construed and darkly understood."

In December 1747 his mother died, and he was taken home. After a short
time his father removed to the "rustic solitude" of Buriton (Hants), but
young Gibbon lived chiefly at the house of his maternal grandfather at
Putney, where, under the care of his devoted aunt, he developed, he
tells us, that passionate love of reading "which he would not exchange
for all the treasures of India," and where his mind received its most
decided stimulus. Of 1748 he says, "This year, the twelfth of my age, I
shall note as the most propitious to the growth of my intellectual
stature." After detailing the circumstances which unlocked for him the
door of his grandfather's "tolerable library," he says, "I turned over
many English pages of poetry and romance, of history and travels. Where
a title attracted my eye, without fear or awe I snatched the volume from
the shelf." In 1749, in his twelfth year, he was sent to Westminster,
still residing, however, with his aunt, who, rendered destitute by her
father's bankruptcy, but unwilling to live a life of dependence, had
opened a boarding-house for Westminster school. Here in the course of
two years (1749-1750), interrupted by danger and debility, he "painfully
climbed into the third form"; but it was left to his riper age to
"acquire the beauties of the Latin and the rudiments of the Greek
tongue." The continual attacks of sickness which had retarded his
progress induced his aunt, by medical advice, to take him to Bath; but
the mineral waters had no effect. He then resided for a time in the
house of a physician at Winchester; the physician did as little as the
mineral waters; and, after a further trial of Bath, he once more
returned to Putney, and made a last futile attempt to study at
Westminster. Finally, it was concluded that he would never be able to
encounter the discipline of a school; and casual instructors, at various
times and places, were provided for him. Meanwhile his indiscriminate
appetite for reading had begun to fix itself more and more decidedly
upon history; and the list of historical works devoured by him during
this period of chronic ill-health is simply astonishing. It included,
besides Hearne's _Ductor historicus_ and the successive volumes of the
_Universal History_, which was then in course of publication,
Littlebury's _Herodotus_, Spelman's _Xenophon_, Gordon's _Tacitus_, an
anonymous translation of Procopius; "many crude lumps of Speed, Rapin,
Mezeray, Davila, Machiavel, Father Paul, Bower, &c., were hastily
gulped. I devoured them like so many novels; and I swallowed with the
same voracious appetite the descriptions of India and China, of Mexico
and Peru." His first introduction to the historic scenes the study of
which afterwards formed the passion of his life took place in 1751,
when, while along with his father visiting a friend in Wiltshire, he
discovered in the library "a common book, the continuation of Echard's
_Roman History_." "To me the reigns of the successors of Constantine
were absolutely new; and I was immersed in the passage of the Goths over
the Danube, when the summons of the dinner bell reluctantly dragged me
from my intellectual feast." Soon afterwards his fancy kindled with the
first glimpses into Oriental history, the wild "barbaric" charm of which
he never ceased to feel. Ockley's book on the Saracens "first opened his
eyes" to the striking career of Mahomet and his hordes; and with his
characteristic ardour of literary research, after exhausting all that
could be learned in English of the Arabs and Persians, the Tatars and
Turks, he forthwith plunged into the French of D'Herbelot, and the Latin
of Pocock's version of Abulfaragius, sometimes understanding them, but
oftener only guessing their meaning. He soon learned to call to his aid
the subsidiary sciences of geography and chronology, and before he was
quite capable of reading them had already attempted to weigh in his
childish balance the competing systems of Scaliger and Petavius, of
Marsham and Newton. At this early period he seems already to have
adopted in some degree the plan of study he followed in after life and
recommended in his _Essai sur l'étude_--that is, of letting his subject
rather than his author determine his course, of suspending the perusal
of a book to reflect, and to compare the statements with those of other
authors--so that he often read portions of many volumes while mastering

Towards his sixteenth year he tell us "nature displayed in his favour
her mysterious energies," and all his infirmities suddenly vanished.
Thenceforward, while never possessing or abusing the insolence of
health, he could say "few persons have been more exempt from real or
imaginary ills." His unexpected recovery revived his father's hopes for
his education, hitherto so much neglected if judged by ordinary
standards; and accordingly in January 1752 he was placed at Esher,
Surrey, under the care of Dr Francis, the well-known translator of
Horace. But Gibbon's friends in a few weeks discovered that the new
tutor preferred the pleasures of London to the instruction of his
pupils, and in this perplexity decided to send him prematurely to
Oxford, where he was matriculated as a gentleman commoner of Magdalen
College, 3rd April 1752. According to his own testimony he arrived at
the university "with a stock of information which might have puzzled a
doctor, and a degree of ignorance of which a schoolboy might be
ashamed." And indeed his huge wallet of scraps stood him in little stead
at the trim banquets to which he was invited at Oxford, while the
wandering habits by which he had filled it absolutely unfitted him to be
a guest. He was not well grounded in any of the elementary branches,
which are essential to university studies and to all success in their
prosecution. It was natural, therefore, that he should dislike the
university, and as natural that the university should dislike him. Many
of his complaints of the system were certainly just; but it may be
doubted whether any university system would have been profitable to him,
considering his antecedents. He complains especially of his tutors, and
in one case with abundant reason; but, by his own confession, they might
have recriminated with justice, for he indulged in gay society, and kept
late hours. His observations, however, on the defects of the English
university system, some of which have only very recently been removed,
are acute and well worth pondering, however little relevant to his own
case. He remained at Magdalen about fourteen months. "To the university
of Oxford," he says, "I acknowledge no obligation; and she will as
cheerfully renounce me for a son as I am willing to disclaim her for a
mother. I spent fourteen months at Magdalen College; they proved the
fourteen months the most idle and unprofitable of my whole life."

But thus "idle" though he may have been as a "student," he already
meditated authorship. In the first long vacation--during which he,
doubtless with some sarcasm, says that "his taste for books began to
revive"--he contemplated a treatise on the age of Sesostris, in which
(and it was characteristic) his chief object was to investigate not so
much the events as the probable epoch of the reign of that semi-mythical
monarch, whom he was inclined to regard as having been contemporary with
Solomon. "Unprovided with original learning, unformed in the habits of
thinking, unskilled in the arts of composition, I resolved to write a
book"; but the discovery of his own weakness, he adds, was the first
symptom of taste. On his first return to Oxford the work was "wisely
relinquished," and never afterwards resumed. The most memorable
incident, however, in Gibbon's stay at Oxford was his temporary
conversion to the doctrines of the church of Rome. The bold criticism of
Middleton's recently (1749) published _Free Enquiry into the Miraculous
Powers which are supposed to have subsisted in the Christian Church_
appears to have given the first shock to his Protestantism, not indeed
by destroying his previous belief that the gift of miraculous powers had
continued to subsist in the church during the first four or five
centuries of Christianity, but by convincing him that within the same
period most of the leading doctrines of popery had been already
introduced both in theory and in practice. At this stage he was
introduced by a friend (Mr Molesworth) to Bossuet's _Variations of
Protestantism_ and _Exposition of Catholic Doctrine_ (see Gibbon,
_Decline and Fall_, c. xv., note 79). "These works," says he, "achieved
my conversion, and I surely fell by a noble hand." In bringing about
this "fall," however, Parsons the Jesuit appears to have had a
considerable share; at least Lord Sheffield has recorded that on the
only occasion on which Gibbon talked with him on the subject he imputed
the change in his religious views principally to that vigorous writer,
who, in his opinion, had urged all the best arguments in favour of Roman
Catholicism. But be this as it may, he had no sooner adopted his new
creed than he resolved to profess it; "a momentary glow of enthusiasm"
had raised him above all temporal considerations, and accordingly, on
June 8, 1753, he records that having "privately abjured the heresies" of
his childhood before a Catholic priest of the name of Baker, a Jesuit,
in London, he announced the same to his father in an elaborate
controversial epistle which his spiritual adviser much approved, and
which he himself afterwards described to Lord Sheffield as having been
"written with all the pomp, the dignity, and self-satisfaction of a

The elder Gibbon heard with indignant surprise of this act of juvenile
apostasy, and, indiscreetly giving vent to his wrath, precipitated the
expulsion of his son from Oxford, a punishment which the culprit, in
after years at least, found no cause to deplore. In his _Memoirs_ he
speaks of the results of his "childish revolt against the religion of
his country" with undisguised self-gratulation. It had delivered him
for ever from the "port and prejudice" of the university, and led him
into the bright paths of philosophic freedom. That his conversion was
sincere at the time, that it marked a real if but a transitory phase of
genuine religious conviction, we have no reason to doubt,
notwithstanding the scepticism he has himself expressed. "To my present
feelings it seems incredible that I should ever believe that I believed
in transubstantiation," he indeed declares; but his incredulous
astonishment is not unmixed with undoubting pride. "I could not blush
that my tender mind was entangled in the sophistry which had reduced the
acute and manly understandings of a Chillingworth or a Bayle." Nor is
the sincerity of the Catholicism he professed in these boyish days in
any way discredited by the fact of his subsequent lack of religion.
Indeed, as one of the acutest and most sympathetic of his critics has
remarked, the deep and settled grudge he has betrayed towards every form
of Christian belief, in all the writings of his maturity, may be taken
as evidence that he had at one time experienced in his own person at
least some of the painful workings of a positive faith.

But little time was lost by the elder Gibbon in the formation of a new
plan of education for his son, and in devising some method which if
possible might effect the cure of his "spiritual malady." The result of
deliberation, aided by the advice and experience of Lord Eliot, was that
it was almost immediately decided to fix Gibbon for some years abroad
under the roof of M. Pavilliard, a Calvinist minister at Lausanne. In as
far as regards the instructor and guide thus selected, a more fortunate
choice could scarcely have been made. From the testimony of his pupil,
and the still more conclusive evidence of his own correspondence with
the father, Pavilliard seems to have been a man of singular good sense,
temper and tact. At the outset, indeed, there was one considerable
obstacle to the free intercourse of tutor and pupil: M. Pavilliard
appears to have known little of English, and young Gibbon knew
practically nothing of French. But this difficulty was soon removed by
the pupil's diligence; the very exigencies of his situation were of
service to him in calling forth all his powers, and he studied the
language with such success that at the close of his five years' exile he
declares that he "spontaneously thought" in French rather than in
English, and that it had become more familiar to "ear, tongue and pen."
It is well known that in after years he had doubts whether he should not
compose his great work in French; and it is certain that his familiarity
with that language, in spite of considerable efforts to counteract its
effects, tinged his style to the last.

Under the judicious regulations of his new tutor a methodical course of
reading was marked out, and most ardently prosecuted; the pupil's
progress was proportionably rapid. With the systematic study of the
Latin, and to a slight extent also of the Greek classics, he conjoined
that of logic in the prolix system of Crousaz; and he further
invigorated his reasoning powers, as well as enlarged his knowledge of
metaphysics and jurisprudence, by the perusal of Locke, Grotius and
Montesquieu. He also read largely, though somewhat indiscriminately, in
French literature, and appears to have been particularly struck with
Pascal's _Provincial Letters_, which he tells us he reperused almost
every year of his subsequent life with new pleasure, and which he
particularly mentions as having been, along with Bleterie's _Life of
Julian_ and Giannone's _History of Naples_, a book which probably
contributed in a special sense to form the historian of the Roman
empire. The comprehensive scheme of study included mathematics also, in
which he advanced as far as the conic sections in the treatise of
L'Hôpital. He assures us that his tutor did not complain of any
inaptitude on the pupil's part, and that the pupil was as happily
unconscious of any on his own; but here he broke off. He adds, what is
not quite clear from one who so frankly acknowledges his limited
acquaintance with the science, that he had reason to congratulate
himself that he knew no more. "As soon," he says, "as I understood the
principles, I relinquished for ever the pursuit of the mathematics; nor
can I lament that I desisted before my mind was hardened by the habit of
rigid demonstration, so destructive of the finer feelings of moral
evidence, which must, however, determine the action and opinions of our

Under the new influences which were brought to bear on him, he in less
than two years resumed his Protestantism. "He is willing," he says, to
allow M. Pavilliard a "handsome share in his reconversion," though he
maintains, and no doubt rightly, that it was principally due "to his own
solitary reflections." He particularly congratulated himself on having
discovered the "philosophical argument" against transubstantiation,
"that the text of Scripture which seems to inculcate the real presence
is attested only by a single sense--our sight, while the real presence
itself is disproved by three of our senses--the sight, the touch, and
the taste." Before a similar mode of reasoning, all the other
distinctive articles of the Romish creed "disappeared like a dream"; and
"after a full conviction," on Christmas day, 1754, he received the
sacrament in the church of Lausanne. Although, however, he adds that at
this point he suspended his religious inquiries, "acquiescing with
implicit belief in the tenets and mysteries which are adopted by the
general consent of Catholics and Protestants," his readers will probably
do him no great injustice if they assume that even then it was rather to
the negations than to the affirmations of Protestantism that he most
heartily assented.

With all his devotion to study at Lausanne[2] (he read ten or twelve
hours a day), he still found some time for the acquisition of some of
the lighter accomplishments, such as riding, dancing, drawing, and also
for mingling in such society as the place had to offer. In September
1755 he writes to his aunt: "I find a great many agreeable people here,
see them sometimes, and can say upon the whole, without vanity, that,
though I am the Englishman here who spends the least money, I am he who
is most generally liked." Thus his "studious and sedentary life" passed
pleasantly enough, interrupted only at rare intervals by boyish
excursions of a day or a week in the neighbourhood, and by at least one
memorable tour of Switzerland, by Basel, Zürich, Lucerne and Bern, made
along with Pavilliard in the autumn of 1755. The last eighteen months of
this residence abroad saw the infusion of two new elements--one of them
at least of considerable importance--into his life. In 1757 Voltaire
came to reside at Lausanne; and although he took but little notice of
the young Englishman of twenty, who eagerly sought and easily obtained
an introduction, the establishment of the theatre at Monrepos, where the
brilliant versifier himself declaimed before select audiences his own
productions on the stage, had no small influence in fortifying Gibbon's
taste for the French theatre, and in at the same time abating that
"idolatry for the gigantic genius of Shakespeare which is inculcated
from our infancy as the first duty of an Englishman." In the same
year--apparently about June--he saw for the first time, and forthwith
loved, the beautiful, intelligent and accomplished Mademoiselle Susan
Curchod, daughter of the pasteur of Crassier. That the passion which she
inspired in him was tender, pure and fitted to raise to a higher level a
nature which in some respects was much in need of such elevation will
be doubted by none but the hopelessly cynical; and probably there are
few readers who can peruse the paragraph in which Gibbon "approaches the
delicate subject of his early love" without discerning in it a pathos
much deeper than that of which the writer was himself aware. During the
remainder of his residence at Lausanne he had good reason to "indulge
his dream of felicity"; but on his return to England, "I soon discovered
that my father would not hear of this strange alliance, and that without
his consent I was myself destitute and helpless. After a painful
struggle I yielded to my fate; I sighed as a lover, I obeyed as a son;
my wound was insensibly healed by time, absence, and the habits of a new

In 1758 he returned with mingled joy and regret to England, and was
kindly received at home. But he found a stepmother there; and this
apparition on his father's hearth at first rather appalled him. The
cordial and gentle manners of Mrs Gibbon, however, and her unremitting
care for his happiness, won him from his first prejudices, and gave her
a permanent place in his esteem and affection. He seems to have been
much indulged, and to have led a very pleasant life of it; he pleased
himself in moderate excursions, frequented the theatre, mingled, though
not very often, in society; was sometimes a little extravagant, and
sometimes a little dissipated, but never lost the benefits of his
Lausanne exile; and easily settled into a sober, discreet, calculating
Epicurean philosopher, who sought the _summum bonum_ of man in
temperate, regulated and elevated pleasure. The first two years after
his return to England he spent principally at his father's country seat
at Buriton, in Hampshire, only nine months being given to the
metropolis. He has left an amusing account of his employments in the
country, where his love of study was at once inflamed by a large and
unwonted command of books and checked by the necessary interruptions of
his otherwise happy domestic life. After breakfast "he was expected," he
says, to spend an hour with Mrs Gibbon; after tea his father claimed his
conversation; in the midst of an interesting work he was often called
down to entertain idle visitors; and, worst of all, he was periodically
compelled to return the well-meant compliments. He mentions that he
dreaded the "recurrence of the full moon," which was the period
generally selected for the more convenient accomplishment of such
formidable excursions.

His father's library, though large in comparison with that he commanded
at Lausanne, contained, he says, "much trash"; but a gradual process of
reconstruction transformed it at length into that "numerous and select"
library which was "the foundation of his works, and the best comfort of
his life both at home and abroad." No sooner had he returned home than
he began the work of accumulation, and records that, on the receipt of
his first quarter's allowance, a large share was appropriated to his
literary wants. "He could never forget," he declares, "the joy with
which he exchanged a bank note of twenty pounds for the twenty volumes
of the _Memoirs_ of the Academy of Inscriptions," an Academy which has
been well characterized (by Sainte-Beuve) as Gibbon's intellectual
fatherland. It may not be uninteresting here to note the principles
which guided him both now and afterwards in his literary purchases. "I
am not conscious," says he, "of having ever bought a book from a motive
of ostentation; every volume, before it was deposited on the shelf, was
either read or sufficiently examined"; he also mentions that he soon
adopted the tolerating maxim of the elder Pliny, that no book is ever so
bad as to be absolutely good for nothing.

In London he seems to have seen but little select society--partly from
his father's taste, "which had always preferred the highest and lowest
company," and partly from his own reserve and timidity, increased by his
foreign education, which had made English habits unfamiliar, and the
very language in some degree strange. And thus he was led to draw that
interesting picture of the literary recluse among the crowds of London:
"While coaches were rattling through Bond Street, I have passed many a
solitary evening in my lodging with my books. My studies were sometimes
interrupted with a sigh, which I breathed towards Lausanne; and on the
approach of spring I withdrew without reluctance from the noisy and
extensive scene of crowds without company, and dissipation without
pleasure." He renewed former acquaintance, however, with the "poet"
Mallet, and through him gained access to Lady Hervey's circle, where a
congenial admiration, not to say affectation, of French manners and
literature made him a welcome guest. It ought to be added that in each
of the twenty-five years of his subsequent acquaintance with London "the
prospect gradually brightened," and his social as well as his
intellectual qualities secured him a wide circle of friends. In one
respect Mallet gave him good counsel in those early days. He advised him
to addict himself to an assiduous study of the more idiomatic English
writers, such as Swift and Addison--with a view to unlearn his foreign
idiom and recover his half-forgotten vernacular--a task, however, which
he never perfectly accomplished. Much as he admired these writers, Hume
and Robertson were still greater favourites, as well from their subject
as for their style. Of his admiration of Hume's style, of its nameless
grace of simple elegance, he has left us a strong expression, when he
tells us that it often compelled him to close the historian's volumes
with a mixed sensation of delight and despair.

In 1761 Gibbon, at the age of twenty-four, after many delays, and with
many flutterings of hope and fear, gave to the world, in French, his
maiden publication, an _Essai sur l'étude de la littérature_, which he
had composed two years before. It was published partly in compliance
with his father's wishes, who thought that the proof of some literary
talent might introduce him favourably to public notice, and secure the
recommendation of his friends for some appointment in connexion with the
mission of the English plenipotentiaries to the congress at Augsburg
which was at that time in contemplation. But in yielding to paternal
authority, Gibbon frankly owns that he "complied, like a pious son, with
the wish of his own heart."

The subject of this youthful effort was suggested, its author says, by a
refinement of vanity--"the desire of justifying and praising the object
of a favourite pursuit," namely, the study of ancient literature. Partly
owing to its being written in French, partly to its character, the
_Essai_ excited more attention abroad than at home. Gibbon has
criticized it with the utmost frankness, not to say severity; but, after
every abatement, it is unquestionably a surprising effort for a mind so
young, and contains many thoughts which would not have disgraced a
thinker or a scholar of much maturer age. His account of its first
reception and subsequent fortunes in England deserves to be cited as a
curious piece of literary history. "In England," he says, "it was
received with cold indifference, little read, and speedily forgotten. A
small impression was slowly dispersed; the bookseller murmured, and the
author (had his feelings been more exquisite) might have wept over the
blunders and baldness of the English translation. The publication of my
history fifteen years afterwards revived the memory of my first
performance, and the essay was eagerly sought in the shops. But I
refused the permission which Becket solicited of reprinting it; the
public curiosity was imperfectly satisfied by a pirated copy of the
booksellers of Dublin; and when a copy of the original edition has been
discovered in a sale, the primitive value of half-a-crown has risen to
the fanciful price of a guinea or thirty shillings."[4]

Some time before the publication of the essay, Gibbon had entered a new
and, one might suppose, a very uncongenial scene of life. In an hour of
patriotic ardour he became (June 12, 1759) a captain in the Hampshire
militia, and for more than two years (May 10, 1760, to December 23,
1762) led a wandering life of "military servitude." Hampshire, Kent,
Wiltshire and Dorsetshire formed the successive theatres of what he
calls his "bloodless and inglorious campaigns." He complains of the busy
idleness in which his time was spent; but, considering the
circumstances, so adverse to study, one is rather surprised that the
military student should have done so much, than that he did so little;
and never probably before were so many hours of literary study spent in
a tent. In estimating the comparative advantages and disadvantages of
this wearisome period of his life, he has summed up with the
impartiality of a philosopher and the sagacity of a man of the world.
Irksome as were his employments, grievous as was the waste of time,
uncongenial as were his companions, solid benefits were to be set off
against these things; his health became robust, his knowledge of the
world was enlarged, he wore off some of his foreign idiom, got rid of
much of his reserve; he adds--and perhaps in his estimate it was the
benefit to be most prized of all--"the discipline and evolutions of a
modern battalion gave me a clearer notion of the phalanx and the legion,
and the captain of the Hampshire grenadiers (the reader may smile) has
not been useless to the historian of the Roman empire."

It was during this period that he read Homer and Longinus, having for
the first time acquired some real mastery of Greek; and after the
publication of the _Essai_, his mind was full of projects for a new
literary effort. The Italian expedition of Charles VIII. of France, the
crusade of Richard I., the wars of the barons, the lives and comparisons
of Henry V. and the emperor Titus, the history of the Black Prince, the
life of Sir Philip Sidney, that of Montrose, and finally that of Sir W.
Raleigh, were all of them seriously contemplated and successively
rejected. By their number they show how strong was the impulse to
literature, and by their character, how determined the bent of his mind
in the direction of history; while their variety makes it manifest also
that he had then at least no special purpose to serve, no preconceived
theory to support, no particular prejudice or belief to overthrow.

The militia was disbanded in 1762, and Gibbon joyfully shook off his
bonds; but his literary projects were still to be postponed. Following
his own wishes, though with his father's consent, he had early in 1760
projected a Continental tour as the completion "of an English
gentleman's education." This had been interrupted by the episode of the
militia; now, however, he resumed his purpose, and left England in
January 1763. Two years were "loosely defined as the term of his
absence," which he exceeded by half a year--returning June 1765. He
first visited Paris, where he saw a good deal of d'Alembert, Diderot,
Barthélemy, Raynal, Helvétius, Baron d'Holbach and others of that
circle, and was often a welcome guest in the saloons of Madame Geoffrin
and Madame du Deffand.[5] Voltaire was at Geneva, Rousseau at
Montmorency, and Buffon he neglected to visit; but so congenial did he
find the society for which his education had so well prepared him, and
into which some literary reputation had already preceded him, that he
declared, "Had I been rich and independent, I should have prolonged and
perhaps have fixed my residence at Paris."

From France he proceeded to Switzerland, and spent nearly a year at
Lausanne, where many old friendships and studies were resumed, and new
ones begun. His reading was largely designed to enable him fully to
profit by the long-contemplated Italian tour which began in April 1764
and lasted somewhat more than a year. He has recorded one or two
interesting notes on Turin, Genoa, Florence and other towns at which
halt was made on his route; but Rome was the great object of his
pilgrimage, and the words in which he has alluded to the feelings with
which he approached it are such as cannot be omitted from any sketch of
Gibbon, however brief. "My temper is not very susceptible of enthusiasm,
and the enthusiasm which I do not feel I have ever scorned to affect.
But at the distance of twenty-five years I can neither forget nor
express the strong emotions which agitated my mind as I first approached
and entered the Eternal City. After a sleepless night, I trod with a
lofty step the ruins of the forum; each memorable spot, where Romulus
stood, or Tully spoke, or Caesar fell, was at once present to my eye;
and several days of intoxication were lost or enjoyed before I could
descend to a cool and minute investigation." Here at last his long
yearning for some great theme worthy of his historic genius was
gratified. The first conception of the _Decline and Fall_ arose as he
lingered one evening amidst the vestiges of ancient glory. "It was at
Rome, on the 15th of October 1764, as I sat musing amidst the ruins of
the Capitol, while the barefooted friars were singing vespers in the
temple of Jupiter, that the idea of writing the decline and fall of the
city first started to my mind."

The five years and a half which intervened between his return from this
tour, in June 1765, and the death of his father, in November 1770, seem
to have formed the portion of his life which "he passed with the least
enjoyment and remembered with the least satisfaction." He attended every
spring the meetings of the militia at Southampton, and rose successively
to the rank of major and lieutenant-colonel commandant; but was each
year "more disgusted with the inn, the wine, the company, and the
tiresome repetition of annual attendance and daily exercise." From his
own account, however, it appears that other and deeper causes produced
this discontent. Sincerely attached to his home, he yet felt the anomaly
of his position. At thirty, still a dependant, without a settled
occupation, without a definite social status, he often regretted that he
had not "embraced the lucrative pursuits of the law or of trade, the
chances of civil office or India adventure, or even the fat slumbers of
the church." From the emoluments of a profession he "might have derived
an ample fortune, or a competent income instead of being stinted to the
same narrow allowance, to be increased only by an event which he
sincerely deprecated." Doubtless the secret fire of a consuming, but as
yet ungratified, literary ambition also troubled his repose. He was
still contemplating "at an awful distance" _The Decline and Fall_, and
meantime revolved some other subjects, that seemed more immediately
practicable. Hesitating for some time between the revolutions of
Florence and those of Switzerland, he consulted M. Deyverdun, a young
Swiss with whom he had formed a close and intimate friendship during his
first residence at Lausanne, and finally decided in favour of the land
which was his "friend's by birth" and "his own by adoption." He executed
the first book in French; it was read (in 1767), as an anonymous
production, before a literary society of foreigners in London, and
condemned. Gibbon sat and listened unobserved to their strictures. It
never got beyond that rehearsal; Hume, indeed, approved of the
performance, only deprecating as unwise the author's preference for
French; but Gibbon sided with the majority.

In 1767 also he joined with M. Deyverdun in starting a literary journal
under the title of _Mémoires littéraires de la Grande-Bretagne_. But its
circulation was limited, and only the second volume had appeared (1768)
when Deyverdun went abroad. The materials already collected for a third
volume were suppressed. It is interesting, however, to know, that in the
first volume is a review by Gibbon of Lord Lyttelton's _History of Henry
II._, and that the second volume contains a contribution by Hume on
Walpole's _Historic Doubts_.

The next appearance of the historian made a deeper impression. It was
the first distinct print of the lion's foot. "Ex ungue leonem" might
have been justly said, for he attacked, and attacked successfully, the
redoubtable Warburton. Of the many paradoxes in the _Divine Legation_,
few are more extravagant than the theory that Virgil, in the sixth book
of his _Aeneid_, intended to allegorize, in the visit of his hero and
the Sibyl to the shades, the initiation of Aeneas, as a lawgiver, into
the Eleusinian mysteries. This theory Gibbon completely exploded in his
_Critical Observations_ (1770)--no very difficult task, indeed, but
achieved in a style, and with a profusion of learning, which called
forth the warmest commendations both at home and abroad. Warburton never
replied; and few will believe that he would not, if he had not thought
silence more discreet. Gibbon, however, regrets that the style of his
pamphlet was too acrimonious; and this regret, considering his
antagonist's slight claims to forbearance, is creditable to him. "I
cannot forgive myself the contemptuous treatment of a man who, with all
his faults, was entitled to my esteem; and I can less forgive, in a
personal attack, the cowardly concealment of my name and character."

Soon after his "release from the fruitless task of the Swiss revolution"
in 1768, he had gradually advanced from the wish to the hope, from the
hope to the design, from the design to the execution of his great
historical work. His preparations were indeed vast. The classics, "as
low as Tacitus, Pliny the Younger and Juvenal," had been long familiar.
He now "plunged into the ocean of the Augustan history," and "with pen
almost always in hand," pored over all the original records, Greek and
Latin, between Trajan and the last of the Western Caesars. "The
subsidiary rays of medals and inscriptions, of geography and chronology,
were thrown on their proper objects; and I applied the collections of
Tillemont, whose inimitable accuracy almost assumes the character of
genius, to fix and arrange within my reach the loose and scattered atoms
of historical information." The Christian apologists and their pagan
assailants; the Theodosian Code, with Godefroy's commentary; the _Annals
and Antiquities_ of Muratori, collated with "the parallel or transverse
lines" of Sigonius and Maffei, Pagi and Baronius, were all critically
studied. Still following the wise maxim which he had adopted as a
student, "multum legere potius quam multa," he reviewed again and again
the immortal works of the French and English, the Latin and Italian
classics. He deepened and extended his acquaintance with Greek,
particularly with his favourite authors Homer and Xenophon; and, to
crown all, he succeeded in achieving the third perusal of Blackstone's

The course of his study was for some time seriously interrupted by his
father's illness and death in 1770, and by the many distractions
connected with the transference of his residence from Buriton to London.
It was not, indeed, until October 1772 that he found himself at last
independent, and fairly settled in his house and library, with full
leisure and opportunity to set about the composition of the first volume
of his history. Even then it appears from his own confession that he
long brooded over the chaos of materials he had amassed before light
dawned upon it. At the commencement, he says, "all was dark and
doubtful"; the limits, divisions, even the title of his work were
undetermined; the first chapter was composed three times, and the second
and third twice, before he was satisfied with his efforts. This
prolonged meditation on his design and its execution was ultimately well
repaid by the result: so methodical did his ideas become, and so readily
did his materials shape themselves, that, with the above exceptions, the
original MS. of the entire six quartos was sent uncopied to the
printers. He also says that not a sheet had been seen by any other eyes
than those of author and printer, a statement indeed which must be taken
with a small deduction; or rather we must suppose that a few chapters
had been submitted, if not to the "eyes," to the "ears" of others; for
he elsewhere tells us that he was "soon disgusted with the modest
practice of reading the manuscript to his friends." Such, however, were
his preliminary difficulties that he confesses he was often "tempted to
cast away the labour of seven years"; and it was not until February 1776
that the first volume was published. The success was instant, and, for a
quarto, probably unprecedented. The entire impression was exhausted in a
few days; a second and a third edition were scarcely adequate to the
demand. The author might almost have said, as Lord Byron after the
publication of _Childe Harold_, that "he awoke one morning and found
himself famous." In addition to public applause, he was gratified by the
more select praises of the highest living authorities in that branch of
literature: "the candour of Dr Robertson embraced his disciple"; Hume's
letter of congratulation "overpaid the labour of ten years." The latter,
however, with his usual sagacity, anticipated the objections which he
saw could be urged against the famous fifteenth and sixteenth chapters.
"I think you have observed a very prudent temperament; but it was
impossible to treat the subject so as not to give grounds of suspicion
against you, and you may expect that a clamour will arise."

The "clamour" thus predicted was not slow to make itself heard. Within
two years the famous chapters had elicited what might almost be called a
library of controversy. The only attack, however, to which Gibbon
deigned to make any reply was that of Davies, who had impugned his
accuracy or good faith. His _Vindication_ appeared in February 1779;
and, as Milman remarks, "this single discharge from the ponderous
artillery of learning and sarcasm laid prostrate the whole disorderly
squadron" of his rash and feeble assailants.[6]

Two years before the publication of this first volume Gibbon was elected
member of parliament for Liskeard (1774). His political duties did not
suspend his prosecution of his history, except on one occasion, and for
a little while, in 1779, when he undertook, on behalf of the ministry, a
task which, if well performed, was also, it must be added, well
rewarded. The French government had issued a manifesto preparatory to a
declaration of war, and Gibbon was solicited by Chancellor Thurlow and
Lord Weymouth, secretary of state, to answer it. In compliance with this
request he produced the able _Mémoire justificatif_, composed in French,
and delivered to the courts of Europe; and shortly afterwards he
received a seat at the Board of Trade and Plantations--little more than
a sinecure in itself, but with a very substantial salary of nearly £800
per annum. His acceptance displeased some of his former political
associates, and he was accused of "deserting his party." In his
_Memoir_, indeed, Gibbon denies that he had ever enlisted with the
Whigs. A note of Fox, however, on the margin of a copy of _The Decline
and Fall_ records a very distinct remembrance of the historian's
previous vituperation of the ministry; within a fortnight of the date of
his acceptance of office, he is there alleged to have said that "there
was no salvation for this country until six heads of the principal
persons in administration were laid upon the table." Lord Sheffield
merely replies, somewhat weakly it must be said, that his friend never
intended the words to be taken literally. More to the point is the
often-quoted passage from Gibbon's letter to Deyverdun, where the frank
revelation is made: "You have not forgotten that I went into parliament
without patriotism and without ambition, and that all my views tended
to the convenient and respectable place of a lord of trade."

In April 1781 the second and third quartos of his _History_ were
published. They excited no controversy, and were comparatively little
talked about--so little, indeed, as to have extorted from him a half
murmur about "coldness and prejudice." The volumes, however, were bought
and read with silent avidity. Meanwhile public events were developing in
a manner that had a considerable influence upon the manner in which the
remaining years of the historian's life were spent. At the general
election in 1780 he had lost his seat for Liskeard, but had subsequently
been elected for Lymington. The ministry of Lord North, however, was
tottering, and soon after fell; the Board of Trade was abolished by the
passing of Burke's bill in 1782, and Gibbon's salary vanished with
it--no trifle, for his expenditure had been for three years on a scale
somewhat disproportionate to his private fortune. He did not like to
depend on statesmen's promises, which are proverbially uncertain of
fulfilment; he as little liked to retrench; and he was wearied of
parliament, where he had never given any but silent votes. Urged by such
considerations, he once more turned his eyes to the scene of his early
exile, where he might live on his decent patrimony in a style which was
impossible in England, and pursue unembarrassed his literary studies. He
therefore resolved to fix himself at Lausanne.

A word only is necessary on his parliamentary career. Neither nature nor
acquired habits qualified him to be an orator; his late entrance on
public life, his natural timidity, his feeble voice, his limited command
of idiomatic English, and even, as he candidly confesses, his literary
fame, were all obstacles to success. "After a fleeting, illusive hope,
prudence condemned me to acquiesce in the humble station of a mute.[7]
... I was not armed by nature and education with the intrepid energy of
mind and voice--'Vincentem strepitus et natum rebus agendis.' Timidity
was fortified by pride, and even the success of my pen discouraged the
trial of my voice." His repugnance to public life had been strongly
expressed to his father in a letter of a very early date, in which he
begged that the money which a seat in the House of Commons would cost
might be expended in a mode more agreeable to him. Gibbon was
eight-and-thirty when he entered parliament; and the obstacles which
even at an earlier period he had not had courage to encounter were
hardly likely to be vanquished then. Nor had he much political sagacity.
He was better skilled in investigating the past than in divining the
future. While Burke and Fox and so many great statesmen proclaimed the
consequences of the collision with America, Gibbon saw nothing but
colonies in rebellion, and a paternal government justly incensed. His
silent votes were all given on that hypothesis. In a similar manner,
while he abhorred the French Revolution when it came, he seems to have
had no apprehension, like Chesterfield, Burke, or even Horace Walpole,
of its approach; nor does he appear to have at all suspected that it had
had anything to do with the speculations of the philosophic coteries in
which he had taken such delight. But while it may be doubted whether his
presence in parliament was of any direct utility to the legislative
business of the country, there can be no question of the present
advantage which he derived from it in the prosecution of the great work
of his life--an advantage of which he was fully conscious when he wrote:
"The eight sessions that I sat in parliament were a school of civil
prudence, the first and most essential virtue of an historian."

Having sold all his property except his library--to him equally a
necessary and a luxury--Gibbon repaired to Lausanne in September 1783,
and took up his abode with his early friend Deyverdun, now a resident
there. Perfectly free from every engagement but those which his own
tastes imposed, easy in his circumstances, commanding just as much
society, and that as select, as he pleased, with the noblest scenery
spread out at his feet, no situation can be imagined more favourable for
the prosecution of his literary enterprise; a hermit in his study as
long as he chose, he found the most delightful recreation always ready
for him at the threshold. "In London," says he, "I was lost in the
crowd; I ranked with the first families in Lausanne, and my style of
prudent expense enabled me to maintain a fair balance of reciprocal
civilities.... Instead of a small house between a street and a
stable-yard, I began to occupy a spacious and convenient mansion,
connected on the north side with the city, and open on the south to a
beautiful and boundless horizon. A garden of four acres had been laid
out by the taste of M. Deyverdun: from the garden a rich scenery of
meadows and vineyards descends to the Leman Lake, and the prospect far
beyond the lake is crowned by the stupendous mountains of Savoy." In
this enviable retreat, it is no wonder that a year should have been
suffered to roll round before he vigorously resumed his great work--and
with many men it would never have been resumed in such a paradise. We
may remark in passing that the retreat was often enlivened, or invaded,
by friendly tourists from England, whose "frequent incursions" into
Switzerland our recluse seems half to lament as an evil. Among his more
valued visitors were M. and Mme Necker; Mr Fox also gave him two welcome
"days of free and private society" in 1788. Differing as they did in
politics, Gibbon's testimony to the genius and character of the great
statesman is highly honourable to both: "Perhaps no human being," he
says, "was ever more perfectly exempt from the taint of malevolence,
vanity, or falsehood."

When once fairly reseated at his task, he proceeded in this delightful
retreat leisurely, yet rapidly, to its completion. The fourth volume,
partly written in 1782, was completed in June 1784; the preparation of
the fifth volume occupied less than two years; while the sixth and last,
begun 18th May 1786, was finished in thirteen months. The feelings with
which he brought his labours to a close must be described in his own
inimitable words: "It was on the day, or rather night, of the 27th of
June 1787, between the hours of eleven and twelve, that I wrote the last
lines of the last page in a summer house in my garden. After laying down
my pen, I took several turns in a _berceau_ or covered walk of acacias,
which commands a prospect of the country, the lake, and the mountains.
The air was temperate, the sky was serene, the silver orb of the moon
was reflected from the waters, and all nature was silent. I will not
dissemble the first emotions of joy on the recovery of my freedom, and,
perhaps, the establishment of my fame. But my pride was soon humbled,
and a sober melancholy was spread over my mind by the idea that I had
taken an everlasting leave of an old and agreeable companion, and that
whatsoever might be the future date of my _History_, the life of the
historian must be short and precarious."

Taking the manuscript with him, Gibbon, after an absence of four years,
once more visited London in 1787; and the 51st anniversary of the
author's birthday (27th April 1788) witnessed the publication of the
last three volumes of _The Decline and Fall_. They met with a quick and
easy sale, were very extensively read, and very liberally and deservedly
praised for the unflagging industry and vigour they displayed, though
just exception, if only on the score of good taste, was taken to the
scoffing tone he continued to maintain in all passages where the
Christian religion was specially concerned, and much fault was found
with the indecency of some of his notes.[8]

He returned to Switzerland in July 1788, cherishing vague schemes of
fresh literary activity; but genuine sorrow caused by the death of his
friend Deyverdun interfered with steady work, nor was it easy for him to
fix on a new subject which should be at once congenial and proportioned
to his powers; while the premonitory mutterings of the great
thunderstorm of the French Revolution, which reverberated in hollow
echoes even through the quiet valleys of Switzerland, further troubled
his repose. For some months he found amusement in the preparation of the
delightful _Memoirs_ (1789) from which most of our knowledge of his
personal history is derived; but his letters to friends in England,
written between 1788 and 1793 occasionally betray a slight but
unmistakable tone of ennui. In April 1793 he unexpectedly received
tidings of the death of Lady Sheffield; and the motive of friendship
thus supplied combined with the pressure of public events to urge him
homewards. He arrived in England in the following June, and spent the
summer at Sheffield Place, where his presence was even more highly
prized than it had ever before been. Returning to London early in
November, he found it necessary to consult his physicians for a symptom
which, neglected since 1761, had gradually become complicated with
hydrocele, and was now imperatively demanding surgical aid; but the
painful operations which had to be performed did not interfere with his
customary cheerfulness, nor did they prevent him from paying a Christmas
visit to Sheffield Place. Here, however, fever made its appearance; and
a removal to London (January 6, 1794) was considered imperative. Another
operation brought him some relief; but a relapse occurred during the
night of the 15th, and on the following day he peacefully breathed his
last. His remains were laid in the burial place of the Sheffield family,
Fletching, Sussex, where an epitaph by Dr Parr describes his character
and work in the language at once of elegance, of moderation and of

The personal appearance of Gibbon as a lad of sixteen is brought before
us somewhat dimly in M. Pavilliard's description of the "thin little
figure, with a large head, disputing and arguing, with the greatest
ability, all the best arguments that had ever been used in favour of
popery." What he afterwards became has been made more vividly familiar
by the clever silhouette prefixed to the _Miscellaneous Works_ (Gibbon
himself, at least, we know, did not regard it as a caricature), and by
Sir Joshua Reynolds's portrait so often engraved. It is hardly fair
perhaps to add a reference to Suard's highly-coloured description of the
short Silenus-like figure, not more than 56 in. in height, the slim
legs, the large turned-in feet, the shrill piercing voice; but almost
every one will remember, from Croker's _Boswell_, Colman's account of
the great historian "tapping his snuff-box, smirking and smiling, and
rounding his periods" from that mellifluous mouth. It has already been
seen that Gibbon's early ailments all left him on the approach of
manhood; thenceforward, "till admonished by the gout," he could truly
boast of an immunity well-nigh perfect from every bodily complaint; an
exceptionally vigorous brain, and a stomach "almost too good," united to
bestow upon him a vast capacity alike for work and for enjoyment. This
capacity he never abused so as to burden his conscience or depress his
spirits. "The madness of superfluous health I have never known." To
illustrate the intensity of the pleasure he found alike in the solitude
of his study and in the relaxations of genial social intercourse, almost
any page taken at random, either from the _Life_ or from the _Letters_,
would suffice; and many incidental touches show that he was not a
stranger to the delights of quiet contemplation of the beauties and
grandeurs of nature. His manners, if formal, were refined; his
conversation, when he felt himself at home, interesting and unaffected;
and that he was capable alike of feeling and inspiring a very constant
friendship there are many witnesses to show. That his temperament at the
same time was frigid and comparatively passionless cannot be denied; but
neither ought this to be imputed to him as a fault; hostile criticisms
upon the grief for a father's death, that "was soothed by the conscious
satisfaction that I had discharged all the duties of filial piety," seem
somewhat out of place. His most ardent admirers, however, are
constrained to admit that he was deficient in large-hearted benevolence;
that he was destitute of any "enthusiasm of humanity"; and that so far
as every sort of religious yearning or aspiration is concerned, his
poverty was almost unique. Gibbon was such a man as Horace might have
been, had the Roman Epicurean been fonder of hard intellectual work,
and less prone than he was to the indulgence of emotion.
     (H. Ro.; J. S. Bl.)

Gibbon's literary art, the sustained excellence of his style, his
piquant epigrams and his brilliant irony, would perhaps not secure for
his work the immortality which it seems likely to enjoy, if it were not
also marked by ecumenical grasp, extraordinary accuracy and striking
acuteness of judgment. It is needless to say that in many points his
statements and conclusions must now be corrected. He was never content
with secondhand accounts when the primary sources were accessible; "I
have always endeavoured," he says, "to draw from the fountainhead; my
curiosity, as well as a sense of duty, has always urged me to study the
originals; and if they have sometimes eluded my search, I have carefully
marked the secondary evidence on whose faith a passage or a fact were
reduced to depend." Since he wrote, new authorities have been discovered
or rendered accessible; works in Greek, Latin, Slavonic, Armenian,
Syriac, Arabic and other languages, which he was unable to consult, have
been published. Again, many of the authorities which he used have been
edited in superior texts. The relative weights of the sources have been
more nicely determined by critical investigation. Archaeology has become
a science. In the immense region which Gibbon surveyed there is hardly a
section which has not been submitted to the microscopic examination of

But apart from the inevitable advances made in the course of a century
during which historical research entered upon a new phase, the reader of
Gibbon must be warned against one capital defect. In judging the
_Decline and Fall_ it should carefully be observed that it falls into
two parts which are heterogeneous in the method of treatment. The first
part, a little more than five-eighths of the work, supplies a very
_full_ history of 460 years (A.D. 180-641); the second and smaller part
is a summary history of about 800 years (A.D. 641-1453) in which certain
episodes are selected for fuller treatment and so made prominent. To the
first part unstinted praise must be accorded; it may be said that, with
the materials at the author's disposition, it hardly admitted of
improvement, except in trifling details. But the second, notwithstanding
the brilliancy of the narrative and the masterly art in the grouping of
events, suffers from a radical defect which renders it a misleading
guide. The author designates the story of the later empire at
Constantinople (after Heraclius) as "a uniform tale of weakness and
misery," a judgment which is entirely false; and in accordance with this
doctrine, he makes the empire, which is his proper subject, merely a
string for connecting great movements which affected it, such as the
Saracen conquests, the Crusades, the Mongol invasions, the Turkish
conquests. He failed to bring out the momentous fact that up to the 12th
century the empire was the bulwark of Europe against the East, nor did
he appreciate its importance in preserving the heritage of Greek
civilization. He compressed into a single chapter the domestic history
and policy of the emperors from the son of Heraclius to Isaac Angelus;
and did no justice to the remarkable ability and the indefatigable
industry shown in the service of the state by most of the sovereigns
from Leo III. to Basil II. He did not penetrate into the deeper causes
underlying the revolutions and palace intrigues. His eye rested only on
superficial characteristics which have served to associate the name
"Byzantine" with treachery, cruelty, bigotry and decadence. It was
reserved for Finlay to depict, with greater knowledge and a juster
perception, the lights and shades of Byzantine history. Thus the later
part of the _Decline and Fall_, while the narrative of certain episodes
will always be read with profit, does not convey a true idea of the
history of the empire or of its significance in the history of Europe.
It must be added that the pages on the Slavonic peoples and their
relations to the empire are conspicuously insufficient; but it must be
taken into account that it was not till many years after Gibbon's death
that Slavonic history began to receive due attention, in consequence of
the rise of competent scholars among the Slavs themselves.

The most famous chapters of the _Decline and Fall_ are the fifteenth
and sixteenth, in which the historian traces the early progress of
Christianity and the policy of the Roman government towards it. The
flavour of these chapters is due to the irony which Gibbon has employed
with consummate art and felicity. There was a practical motive for using
this weapon. An attack on Christianity laid a writer open to prosecution
and penalties under the statutes of the realm (9 and 10 William III. c.
22, still unrepealed). Gibbon's stylistic artifice both averted the
peril of prosecution and rendered the attack more telling. In his
_Autobiography_ he alleges that he learned from the _Provincial Letters_
of Pascal "to manage the weapon of grave and temperate irony, even on
subjects of ecclesiastical solemnity." It is not easy, however, to
perceive much resemblance between the method of Pascal and that of
Gibbon, though in particular passages we may discover the influence
which Gibbon acknowledges. For instance, the well-known description (in
chap. xlvii.) of the preposition "in" occurring in a theological dogma
as a "momentous particle which the memory rather than the understanding
must retain" is taken directly from the first Provincial Letter. The
main points in the general conclusions of these chapters have been borne
out by subsequent research. The account of the causes of the expansion
of Christianity is chiefly to be criticized for its omissions. There
were a number of important contributory conditions (enumerated in
Harnack's _Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums_) which Gibbon did
not take into account. He rightly insisted on the facilities of
communication created by the Roman empire, but did not emphasize the
diffusion of Judaism. And he did not realize the importance of the
kinship between Christian doctrine and Hellenistic syncretism, which
helped to promote the reception of Christianity. He was ignorant of
another fact of great importance (which has only in recent years been
fully appreciated through the researches of F. Cumont), the wide
diffusion of the Mithraic religion and the close analogies between its
doctrines and those of Christianity. In regard to the attitude of the
Roman government towards the Christian religion, there are questions
still _sub judice_; but Gibbon had the merit of reducing the number of
martyrs within probable limits.

Gibbon's verdict on the history of the middle ages is contained in the
famous sentence, "I have described the triumph of barbarism and
religion." It is important to understand clearly the criterion which he
applied; it is frequently misapprehended. He was a son of the 18th
century; he had studied with sympathy Locke and Montesquieu; no one
appreciated more keenly than he did political liberty and the freedom of
an Englishman. This is illustrated by his love of Switzerland, his
intense interest in the fortunes of that country, his design of writing
"The History of the Liberty of the Swiss"--a theme, he says "from which
the dullest stranger would catch fire." Such views and sentiments are
incompatible with the idealization of a benevolent despotism. Yet in
this matter Gibbon has been grossly misapprehended and misrepresented.
For instance, Mirabeau wrote thus to Sir Samuel Romilly: "I have never
been able to read the work of Mr Gibbon without being astounded that it
should ever have been written in English; or without being tempted to
turn to the author and say, 'You an Englishman? No, indeed.' That
admiration for an empire of more than two hundred millions of men, where
not one had the right to call himself free; that effeminate philosophy
which has more praise for luxury and pleasures than for all the virtues;
that style always elegant and never energetic, reveal at the most the
elector of Hanover's slave." This criticism is based on a perverse
misreading of the historian's observations on the age of Trajan, Hadrian
and the Antonines. He enlarges, as it was his business to do, on the
tranquillity and prosperity of the empire in that period, but he does
not fail to place his finger on the want of political liberty as a fatal
defect. He points out that under this benevolent despotism, though men
might be happy, their happiness was unstable, because it depended on the
character of a single man; and the highest praise he can give to those
virtuous princes is that they "deserved the honour of restoring the
republic, had the Romans of their days been capable of a rational
freedom." The criterion by which Gibbon judged civilization and
progress was the measure in which the happiness of men is secured, and
of that happiness he considered political freedom an essential
condition. He was essentially humane; and it is worthy of notice that he
was in favour of the abolition of slavery, while humane men like his
friend Lord Sheffield, Dr Johnson and Boswell were opposed to the
anti-slavery movement.

  BIBLIOGRAPHY.--Of the original quarto edition of _The Decline and
  Fall_, vol. i. appeared, as has already been stated, in 1776, vols.
  ii. and iii. in 1781 and vols. iv.-vi. (inscribed to Lord North) in
  1788. In later editions vol. i. was considerably altered by the
  author; the others hardly at all. The number of modern reprints has
  been very considerable. For many years the most important and valuable
  English edition was that of Milman (1839 and 1845), which was reissued
  with many critical additions by Dr W. Smith (8 vols. 8vo, 1854 and
  1872). This has now been superseded by the edition, with copious
  notes, by Professor J. B. Bury (7 vols. 8vo, 1896-1900). The edition
  in Bohn's British Classics (7 vols., 1853) deserves mention. See also
  the essay on Gibbon in Sir Spencer Walpole's _Essays and Biographies_
  (1907). As a curiosity of literature Bowdler's edition, "adapted to
  the use of families and young persons," by the expurgation of "the
  indecent expressions and all allusions of an improper tendency" (5
  vols. 8vo, 1825), may be noticed. The French translation of Le Clerc
  de Septchênes, continued by Démeunier, Boulard and Cantwell
  (1788-1795), has been frequently reprinted in France. It seems to be
  certain that the portion usually attributed to Septchênes was, in part
  at least, the work of his distinguished pupil, Louis XVI. A new
  edition of the complete translation, prefaced by a letter on Gibbon's
  life and character, from the pen of Suard, and annotated by Guizot,
  appeared in 1812 (and again in 1828). There are at least two German
  translations of _The Decline and Fall_, one by Wenck, Schreiter and
  Beck (1805-1807), and a second by Johann C. Sporschil (1837, new ed.
  1862). The Italian translation (alluded to by Gibbon himself) was,
  along with Spedalieri's _Confutazione_, reprinted at Milan in 1823.
  There is a Russian translation by Neviedomski (7 parts, Moscow,
  1883-1886), and an Hungarian version of cc. 1-38 by K. Hegyessy (Pest,
  1868-1869). Gibbon's _Miscellaneous Works, with Memoirs of his Life
  and Writings, composed by himself; illustrated from his Letters, with
  occasional Notes and Narrative_, published by Lord Sheffield in two
  volumes in 1796, has been often reprinted. The new edition in five
  volumes (1814) contained some previously unpublished matter, and in
  particular the fragment on the revolutions of Switzerland. A French
  translation of the _Miscellaneous Works_ by Marigné appeared at Paris
  in 1798. There is also a German translation (Leipzig, 1801). It may be
  added that a special translation of the chapter on Roman Law
  (_Gibbon's historische Übersicht des römischen Rechts_) was published
  by Hugo at Göttingen in 1839, and has frequently been used as a
  text-book in German universities. This chapter has also appeared in
  Polish (Cracow, 1844) and Greek (Athens, 1840). The centenary of
  Gibbon's death was celebrated in 1894 under the auspices of the Royal
  Historical Society: _Proceedings of the Gibbon Commemoration_,
  1794-1894, by R. H. T. Ball (1895).     (J. B. B.)


  [1] The celebrated William Law had been for some time the private
    tutor of this Edward Gibbon, who is supposed to have been the
    original of the rather clever sketch of "Flatus" in the _Serious

  [2] _The Journal_ for 1755 records that during that year, besides
    writing and translating a great deal in Latin and French, he had
    read, amongst other works, Cicero's _Epistolae ad familiares_, his
    _Brutus_, all his _Orations_, his dialogues _De amicitia_ and _De
    seneciute_, Terence (twice), and Pliny's _Epistles_. In January 1756
    he says: "I determined to read over the Latin authors in order, and
    read this year Virgil, Sallust, Livy, Velleius Paterculus, Valerius
    Maximus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Quintus Curtius, Justin, Florus,
    Plautus, Terence and Lucretius. I also read and meditated Locke _Upon
    the Understanding_." Again in January 1757 he writes: "I began to
    study algebra under M. de Traytorrens, went through the elements of
    algebra and geometry, and the three first books of the Marquis de
    l'Hôpital's _Conic Sections_. I also read Tibullus, Catullus,
    Propertius, Horace (with Dacier's and Torrentius's notes), Virgil,
    Ovid's _Epistles_, with Meziriac's commentary, the _Ars amandi_ and
    the _Elegies_; likewise the _Augustus_ and _Tiberius_ of Suetonius,
    and a Latin translation of Dion Cassius from the death of Julius
    Caesar to the death of Augustus. I also continued my correspondence,
    begun last year, with M. Allamand of Bex, and the Professor
    Breitinger of Zürich, and opened a new one with the Professor Gesner
    of Göttingen. N.B.--Last year and this I read St John's Gospel, with
    part of Xenophon's _Cyropaedia_, the _Iliad_, and Herodotus; but,
    upon the whole, I rather neglected my Greek."

  [3] The affair, however, was not finally broken off till 1763. Mdlle
    Curchod soon afterwards became the wife of Necker, the famous
    financier; and Gibbon and the Neckers frequently afterwards met on
    terms of mutual friendship and esteem.

  [4] The _Essai_, in a good English translation, now appears in the
    _Miscellaneous Works_. Villemain finds in it "peu de vues, nulle
    originalité surtout, mais une grande passion littéraire, l'amour des
    recherches savantes et du beau langage." Sainte-Beuve's criticism is
    almost identical with Gibbon's own; but though he finds that "la
    lecture en est assez difficile et parfois obscure, la liaison des
    idées échappe souvent par trop de concision et par le désir qu'a eu
    le jeune auteur d'y faire entrer, d'y condenser la plupart de ses
    notes," he adds, "il y a, chemin faisant, des vues neuves et qui
    sentent l'historien."

  [5] Her letters to Walpole about Gibbon contain some interesting
    remarks by this "aveugle clairvoyante," as Voltaire calls her; but
    they belong to a later period (1777).

  [6] For a very full list of publications in answer to Gibbon's attack
    on Christianity reference may be made to the _Bibliographer's
    Manual_, pp. 885-886 (1858). Of these the earliest were Watson's
    _Apology_ (1776), Salisbury's _Strictures_ (1776) and Chelsum's
    (anonymous) _Remarks_ (1776). In 1778 the _Few Remarks_ by a
    Gentleman (Francis Eyre), the _Reply_ of Loftus, the _Letters_ of
    Apthorpe and the _Examination_ of Davies appeared. Gibbon's
    _Vindication_ (1779) called forth a _Reply_ by Davies (1779), and _A
    Short Appeal to the Public_ by Francis Eyre (1779). Laughton's
    polemical treatise was published in 1780, and those of Milner and
    Taylor in 1781. Chelsum returned to the attack in 1785 (_A Reply to
    Mr Gibbon's Vindication_), and Sir David Dalrymple (_An Inquiry into
    the Secondary Causes_, &c.) made his first appearance in the
    controversy in 1786, Travis's _Letters on_ I John v. 7 are dated
    1784; and Spedalieri's _Confutazione dell' esame del Cristianismo
    fatto da Gibbon_ was published at Rome (2 vols. 4to) in the same
    year. It is impossible not to concur in almost every point with
    Gibbon's own estimate of his numerous assailants. Their crude
    productions, for the most part, were conspicuous rather for insolence
    and abusiveness than for logic or learning. Those of Bishop Watson
    and Lord Hailes were the best, but simply because they contented
    themselves with a dispassionate exposition of the general argument in
    favour of Christianity. The most foolish and discreditable was
    certainly that of Davies; his unworthy attempt to depreciate the
    great historian's learning, and his captious, cavilling, acrimonious
    charges of petty inaccuracies and discreditable falsification gave
    the object of his attack an easy triumph.

  [7] In 1775 he writes to Holroyd: "I am still a mute; it is more
    tremendous than I imagined; the great speakers fill me with despair;
    the bad ones with terror."

  [8] An anonymous pamphlet, entitled _Observations on the three last
    volumes of the Roman History_, appeared in 1788; Disney's _Sermon,
    with Strictures_, in 1790; and Whitaker's _Review_, in 1791. With
    regard to the second of the above complaints, surprise will probably
    be felt that it was not extended to portions of the text as well as
    to the notes.

GIBBON, the collective title of the smaller man-like apes of the
Indo-Malay countries, all of which may be included in the single genus
_Hylobates_. Till recently these apes have been generally included in
the same family (_Simiidae_) with the chimpanzee, gorilla and
orang-utan, but they are now regarded by several naturalists as
representing a family by themselves--the _Hylobatidae_. One of the
distinctive features of this family is the presence of small naked
callosities on the buttocks; another being a difference in the number of
vertebrae and ribs as compared with those of the _Simiidae_. The extreme
length of the limbs and the absence of a tail are other features of
these small apes, which are thoroughly arboreal in their habits, and
make the woods resound with their unearthly cries at night. In agility
they are unsurpassed; in fact they are stated to be so swift in their
movements as to be able to capture birds on the wing with their paws.
When they descend to the ground--which they must often do in order to
obtain water--they frequently walk in the upright posture, either with
the hands crossed behind the neck, or with the knuckles resting on the
ground. Their usual food consists of leaves and fruits. Gibbons may be
divided into two groups, the one represented by the siamang, _Hylobates
(Symphalangus) syndactylus_, of Sumatra and the Malay Peninsula, and the
other by a number of closely allied species. The union of the index and
middle fingers by means of a web extending as far as the terminal joints
is the distinctive feature of the siamang, which is the largest of the
group, and black in colour with a white frontal band. Black or puce-grey
is the prevailing colour in the second group, of which the hulock (_H.
hulock_) of Assam, _H. lar_ of Arakan and Pegu, _H. entellöides_ of
Tenasserim (fig.), and _H. agilis_ of Sumatra are well-known
representatives. A female of the Hainan gibbon (_H. hainanus_) in
confinement changed from uniform sooty-black (without the white frontal
band of the black phase of the hulock) to puce-grey; but it is probable
that this was only an individual, or at most a sexual, peculiarity. The
range of the genus extends from the southern bank of the Bramaputra in
Assam to southern China, the Malay Peninsula, Java, Sumatra and Borneo.
     (R. L.*)

[Illustration: The Tenasserim Gibbon (_Hylobates entellöides_).]

GIBBONS, GRINLING (1648-1721), English wood-carver, was born in 1648,
according to some authorities of Dutch parents at Rotterdam, and
according to others of English parents at London. By the former he is
said to have come to London after the great fire in 1666. He early
displayed great cleverness and ingenuity in his art, on the strength of
which he was recommended by Evelyn to Charles II., who employed him in
the execution both of statuary and of ornamental carving in wood. In the
early part of the 18th century he worked for Sir Christopher Wren. In
statuary one of his principal works is a life-size bronze statue in the
court of Whitehall, representing James II. in the dress of a Roman
emperor, and he also designed the base of the statue of Charles I. at
Charing Cross. It is, however, chiefly as a sculptor in wood that he is
famous. He was employed to execute the ornamental carving for the chapel
at Windsor, the foliage and festoons in the choir of St Paul's, the
baptismal fonts in St James's, and an immense quantity of ornamental
work at Burleigh, Chatsworth, and other aristocratic mansions. The
finest of all his productions in this style is believed to be the
ceiling which he devised for a room at Petworth. His subjects are
chiefly birds, flowers, foliage, fruit and lace, and many of his works,
for delicacy and elaboration of details, and truthfulness of imitation,
have never been surpassed. He, however, sometimes wasted his ingenuity
on trifling subjects; many of his flowers used to move on their stems
like their natural prototypes when shaken by a breeze. In 1714 Gibbons
was appointed master carver in wood to George I. He died at London on
the 3rd of August 1721.

GIBBONS, JAMES (1834-   ), American Roman Catholic cardinal and
archbishop, was born in Baltimore, Maryland, on the 23rd of July 1834,
and was educated at St Charles College, Ellicott City, Maryland, and St
Mary's Seminary, Baltimore, where he finished his theological training
and was ordained priest on the 30th of June 1861. After a short time
spent on the missions of Baltimore, he was called to be secretary to
Archbishop Martin J. Spalding and assistant at the cathedral. When in
1866 the Second Plenary Council of Baltimore considered the matter of
new diocesan developments, he was selected to organize the new Vicariate
Apostolic of North Carolina; and was consecrated bishop in August 1868.
During the four successful years spent in North Carolina he wrote, for
the benefit of his mission work, _The Faith of our Fathers_, a brief
presentation of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, especially
intended to reach Protestants; the books passed through more than forty
editions in America and about seventy in England, and an answer was made
to it in _Faith of our Forefathers_ (1879), by Edward J. Stearns.
Gibbons was transferred to the see of Richmond, Virginia, in 1872, and
in 1877 was made coadjutor, with the right of succession, to the
Archbishop (James R. Bayley) of Baltimore. In October of the same year
he succeeded to the archbishopric. Pope Leo XIII. in 1883 selected him
to preside over the Third Plenary Council in Baltimore (1884), and on
the 30th of June 1886 created him a cardinal priest, with the title of
Santa Maria Trastevere. His simplicity of life, foresight and prudence
made him a power in the church. Thoroughly American, and a lover of the
people, he greatly altered the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church
toward the Knights of Labor and other labour organizations, and his
public utterances displayed the true instincts of a popular leader. He
contributed frequently to periodicals, but as an author is known
principally by his works on religious subjects, including _Our Christian
Heritage_ (1889) and _The Ambassador of Christ_ (1896). For many years
an ardent advocate of the establishment of a Catholic university, at the
Third Plenary Council of Baltimore (1884) he saw the realization of his
desires in the establishment of the Catholic University of America at
Washington, of which he became first chancellor and president of the
board of trustees.

GIBBONS, ORLANDO (1583-1625), English musical composer, was the most
illustrious of a family of musicians all more or less able. We know of
at least three generations, for Orlando's father, William Gibbons,
having been one of the waits of Cambridge, may be assumed to have
acquired some proficiency in the art. His three sons and at least one of
his grandsons inherited and further developed his talent. The eldest,
Edward, was made bachelor of music at Cambridge, and successively held
important musical appointments at the cathedrals of Bristol and Exeter;
Ellis, the second son, was organist of Salisbury cathedral, and is the
composer of two madrigals in the collection known as the _The Triumphs
of Oriana_. Orlando Gibbons, the youngest and by far the most celebrated
of the brothers, was born at Cambridge in 1583. Where and under whom he
studied is not known, but in his twenty-first year he was sufficiently
advanced and celebrated to receive the important post of organist of the
Chapel Royal. His first published composition "Fantasies in three parts,
composed for viols," appeared in 1610. It seems to have been the first
piece of music printed in England from engraved plates, or "cut in
copper, the like not heretofore extant." In 1622 he was created doctor
of music by the university of Oxford. For this occasion he composed an
anthem for eight parts, _O clap your Hands_, still extant. In the
following year he became organist of Westminster Abbey. Orlando Gibbons
died before the beginning of the civil war, or it may be supposed that,
like his eldest brother, he would have been a staunch royalist. In a
different sense, however, he died in the cause of his master; for having
been summoned to Canterbury to produce a composition written in
celebration of Charles's marriage, he there fell a victim to smallpox on
the 5th of June 1625.

  For a full list of his compositions, see Grove's _Dictionary of
  Music_. His portrait may be found in Hawkins's well-known _History_.
  His vocal pieces, madrigals, motets, canons, &c., are admirable, and
  prove him to have been a great master of pure polyphony. We have also
  some specimens of his instrumental music, such as the six pieces for
  the virginals published in _Parthenia_, a collection of instrumental
  music produced by Gibbons in conjunction with Dr Bull and Byrd.

GIBBS, JOSIAH WILLARD (1839-1903), American mathematical physicist, the
fourth child and only son of Josiah Willard Gibbs (1790-1861), who was
professor of sacred literature in Yale Divinity School from 1824 till
his death, was born at New Haven on the 11th of February 1839. Entering
Yale College in 1854 he graduated in 1858, and continuing his studies
there was appointed tutor in 1863. He taught Latin in the first two
years, and natural philosophy in the third. He then went to Europe,
studying in Paris in 1866-1867, in Berlin in 1867 and in Heidelberg in
1868. Returning to New Haven in 1869, he was appointed professor of
mathematical physics in Yale College in 1871, and held that position
till his death, which occurred at New Haven on the 28th of April 1903.
His first contributions to mathematical physics were two papers
published in 1873 in the _Transactions_ of the Connecticut Academy on
"Graphical Methods in the Thermodynamics of Fluids," and "Method of
Geometrical Representation of the Thermodynamic Properties of Substances
by means of Surfaces." His next and most important publication was his
famous paper "On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances" (in two
parts, 1876 and 1878), which, it has been said, founded a new department
of chemical science that is becoming comparable in importance to that
created by Lavoisier. This work was translated into German by W. Ostwald
(who styled its author the "founder of chemical energetics") in 1891 and
into French by H. le Chatelier in 1899. In 1881 and 1884 he printed some
notes on the elements of vector analysis for the use of his students;
these were never formally published, but they formed the basis of a
text-book on _Vector Analysis_ which was published by his pupil, E. B.
Wilson, in 1901. Between 1882 and 1889 a series of papers on certain
points in the electromagnetic theory of light and its relation to the
various elastic solid theories appeared in the _American Journal of
Science_, and his last work, _Elementary Principles in Statistical
Mechanics_, was issued in 1902. The name of Willard Gibbs, who was the
most distinguished American mathematical physicist of his day, is
especially associated with the "Phase Rule," of which some account will
be found in the article ENERGETICS. In 1901 the Copley medal of the
Royal Society of London was awarded him as being "the first to apply the
second law of thermodynamics to the exhaustive discussion of the
relation between chemical, electrical and thermal energy and capacity
for external work."

  A biographical sketch will be found in his collected _Scientific
  Papers_ (2 vols., 1906).

GIBBS, OLIVER WOLCOTT (1822-1908), American chemist, was born at New
York on the 21st of February 1822. His father, Colonel George Gibbs, was
an ardent mineralogist; the mineral gibbsite was named after him, and
his collection was finally bought by Yale College. Entering Columbia
College in 1837, Wolcott (the Oliver he dropped at an early date)
graduated in 1841, and, having assisted Robert Hare at Pennsylvania
University for several months, he next entered the College of Physicians
and Surgeons in New York, qualifying as a doctor of medicine in 1845.
Leaving America he studied in Germany with K. F. Rammelsberg, H. Rose
and J. von Liebig, and in Paris with A. Laurent, J. B. Dumas, and H. V.
Regnault, returning in 1848. In that year he became professor of
chemistry at the Free Academy, now the College of the City of New York,
and in 1863 he obtained the Rumford professorship in Harvard University,
a post retained until his retirement in 1887 as professor emeritus. He
died on the 9th of December 1908. Gibbs' researches were mainly in
analytical and inorganic chemistry, the cobaltammines, platinum metals
and complex acids being especially investigated. He was an excellent
teacher, and contributed many articles to scientific journals.

  See the Memorial Lecture by F. W. Clarke in the _J.C.S._ (1909), p.

GIBEON, a town in Palestine whose inhabitants wrested a truce from
Joshua by a trick (Josh. ix., x.); where the champions of David fought
those of Ish-bosheth (2 Sam. ii. 12-32); where Joab murdered Amasa (ib.
xx. 8-10); and where Johanan went against Ishmael to avenge the murder
of Gedaliah (Jer. xli. 12). Here was an important high place (1 Kings
iii. 4) where for a time the tabernacle was deposited (2 Chron. i. 3).
The present name is _El-Jib_; this is a small village about 5 m. N.W. of
Jerusalem, standing on an isolated hill above a flat corn valley. The
village is famous for its springs, and the reputation seems ancient (cf.
2 Sam. ii. 13; Jer. xli. 12). The principal spring issues from under a
cliff on the south-east side of the hill, and the water runs to a
reservoir lower down. The sides of the hill are rocky, and remarkable
for the regular stratification of the limestone, which gives the hill at
a distance the appearance of being terraced. Scattered olive groves
surround the place.     (R. A. S. M.)

GIBEONITES, the inhabitants of Gibeon, an Amorite or Hivite stronghold,
the modern El-Jib, 5 m. N.W. from Jerusalem. According to Joshua xviii.
25 it was one of the cities of Benjamin. When the Israelites, under
Joshua, invaded Canaan, the Gibeonites by a crafty ruse escaped the fate
of Jericho and Ai and secured protection from the invaders (Joshua ix.).
Cheyne thinks this story the attempt of a later age to explain the long
independence of Gibeon and the use of the Gibeonites as slaves in
Solomon's temple. An attempt on the part of Saul to exterminate the clan
is mentioned in 2 Sam. xxi., and this slaughter may possibly be
identified with the massacre at Nob recorded in 1 Sam. xxii. 17-19 (see
_Ency. Bib._ col. 1717). The place is also associated with the murders
of Asahel (2 Sam. ii. 12), Amasa (2 Sam. xx. 8) and Gedaliah (Jer. xli.
12), and with the wrathful intervention of Yahweh referred to by Isaiah
(xxviii. 21), which we may identify with the memorable victory of David
over the Philistines recorded in 2 Sam. v. 25 (reading Gibeon for Geba).
Gibeon was the seat of an old Canaanitish sanctuary afterwards used by
the Israelites; it was here that Solomon, immediately after his
coronation, went to consult the oracles and had the dream in which he
chose the gift of wisdom (1 Kings iii.).

GIBRALTAR, a British fortress and crown colony at the western entrance
to the Mediterranean. The whole territory is rather less than 3 m. in
length from north to south and varies in width from ¼ to ¾ m. Gibraltar
is called after Tariq (or Tarik) ben Zaid, its name being a corruption
of Jebel Tariq (Mount Tariq). Tariq invaded Andalusia in A.D. 711 with
an army of 12,000 Arabs and Berbers, and in the last days of July of
that year destroyed the Gothic power in a three days' fight on the banks
of the river Guadalete near where Jerez de la Frontera now stands. In
order to secure his communications with Africa he ordered the building
of a strong castle upon the Rock, known to the Romans as Mons Calpe.
This work, begun in the year of the great battle, was completed in 742.
It covered a wide area, reaching from the shores of the bay to a point
half-way up the north-western slope of the rock; here the keep, a
massive square tower, still stands and is known as the Moorish castle.

The Rock itself is about 2½ m. in length, and at its northern end rises
almost perpendicularly from the strip of flat sandy ground which
connects it with the Spanish mainland. At the north end, on the crest of
the Rock 1200 ft. above sea-level, is the Rock gun, famous in the great
siege. Some six furlongs to the south is the signal station (1255 ft.),
through which the names and messages of passing ships are cabled to all
parts of the world. Rather less than ¾ m. south of the signal station is
O'Hara's Tower (1408 ft.), the highest point of the Rock. South of
O'Hara's Tower the ground falls steeply to Windmill Hill, a fairly even
surface about 1/8 of a sq. m. in area, and sloping from 400 to 300 ft.
above the sea-level. South of Windmill Hill are Europa Flats, a
wall-like cliff 200 ft. or more in height dividing them. Europa Flats,
sloping south, end in cliffs 50 ft. high, which at and around Europa
Point plunge straight down into deep water. Europa Point is the most
southern point of the Rock, and is distant 11½ nautical miles from the
opposite African coast. On Europa Point is the lighthouse in 5° 21' W.
and 36° 6' 30" N. On the Mediterranean side the Rock is almost as steep
and inaccessible as it is from the north. Below the signal station, at
the edge of the Mediterranean, lies Catalan Bay, where there is a little
village chiefly inhabited by fishermen and others who make their living
upon the waters; but Catalan Bay can only be approached by land from
the north or by a tunnel through the Rock from the dockyard; from
Catalan Bay to Europa Point the way is barred by impassable cliffs. On
the west side of the Rock the slopes are less steep, especially as they
near the sea, and on this side lie the town, the Alameda or public
gardens, the barracks and the dockyard.

[Illustration: Gibraltar.]

  _Geology._--The rock of Gibraltar consists, for the most part, of pale
  grey limestone of compact and sometimes crystalline structure,
  generally stratified but in places apparently amorphous. Above the
  limestone are found layers of dark grey-blue shales with intercalated
  beds of grit, mudstone and limestone. Both limestone and shales are of
  the Lower Jurassic age. Professors A. C. Ramsay and James Geikie
  (_Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society_, London, August 1878)
  found also in the superficial formations of the Rock various features
  of interest to the students of Pleistocene geology, including massive
  accumulations of limestone breccia or agglomerate, bone breccias,
  deposits of calcareous sandstone, raised beaches and loose sands. The
  oldest of these superficial formations is the limestone breccia of
  Buena Vista, devoid of fossils and apparently formed under the stress
  of hard frosts, indicating conditions of climate of great severity. To
  account for frosts like these, it is suggested that the surface of the
  Rock must have been raised to an elevation much greater than its
  present height. In that case Europe and Africa would probably have
  been connected by an isthmus across some part of the present site of
  the Straits, and there would have been a wider area of low ground
  round the base of the Rock. The low ground at this, and probably at a
  later period, must have been clothed with a rich vegetation, necessary
  for the support of a varied mammalian fauna, whose remains have been
  found in the Genista caves. After this there would seem to have been a
  subsidence to a depth of some 700 ft. below the existing level. This
  would account for the ledges and platforms which have been formed by
  erosion of the sea high above the present sea-level, and for the
  deposits of calcareous sandstone containing sea shells of existing
  Mediterranean species. The extent of some of these eroded ledges shows
  that pauses of long duration intervened between the periods of
  depression. The Rock seems after this to have been raised to a level
  considerably above that at which it now stands; Europe and Africa
  would then again have been united. At a later date still the Rock sank
  once more to its present level.

  Many caves, some of them of great extent, penetrate the interior of
  the rock; the best known of these are the Genista and St Michael's
  caves. St Michael's cave, about 1100 ft. above sea-level at its mouth,
  slopes rapidly down and extends over 400 ft. into the Rock; its
  extreme limits have not, however, been fully explored. It consists of
  a series of five or more chambers of considerable extent, connected by
  narrow and crooked passages. The outermost cave is 70 ft. in height
  and 200 in length, with massive pillars of stalactite reaching from
  roof to floor. The second cave was named the Victoria cave by its
  discoverer Captain Brome; beyond these are three caves known as the
  Leonora caves. "Nothing," writes Captain Brome, "can exceed the beauty
  of the stalactites; they form clusters of every imaginable
  shape--statuettes, pillars, foliages, figures," and he adds that
  American visitors have admitted that even the Mammoth cave itself
  could not rival these giant stalactites in picturesque beauty.

  The mammalian remains of the Genista cave have been described by G.
  Busk ("Quaternary Fauna of Gibraltar" in _Trans. of Zool. Soc._ vol.
  x. p. 2, 1877). They were found to contain remains of a bear, probably
  _Ursus fossilis_ of Goldfuss; of a hyena, _H. crocuta_ or _spelaea_;
  of cats varying from a leopard to a wild cat in size; of a rhinoceros,
  resembling in species remains found in the Thames valley; two forms of
  ibex; the hare and rabbit. No trace has been found as yet of
  _Rhinoceros tichorinus_, of _Ursus spelaeus_ or of the reindeer; and
  of the elephant only a molar tooth of _Elephas antiquus_.

  Further details may be found in the _Quarterly Journ. of Geol. Soc._
  (James Smith of Jordanhill), vol. ii. and in vol. xxi. (_Fossil
  Contents of the Genista Cave_, G. Busk and Hugh Falconer; reprinted in
  _Palaeontological Memoirs_, H. Falconer, London, 1868).

  _Flora._--The upper part of the Rock is in summer burnt up and brown,
  but after the first autumn rains and during the winter, spring and
  early summer, it abounds in wild flowers and shrubs. In the public and
  other gardens on the lower ground, where there is a greater depth of
  soil, the vegetation is luxuriant and is only limited by the supply of
  water available for summer irrigation. Dr E. F. Kelaart (_Flora
  Calpensis_, London, 1846) enumerates more than four hundred varieties
  of plants and ferns indigenous to Gibraltar, and about fifty more
  which have been introduced from abroad. Of the former a few are said
  to be species peculiar to the Rock. The stone-pine and wild-olive are
  perhaps the only trees found growing in a natural state. In the public
  and private gardens and by the roadside may be seen the pepper tree,
  the plane, the white poplar, the acacia, the bella-sombra (_Phytolacca
  dioica_), the eucalyptus or blue gum tree, and palms of different
  species; and, of fruit trees, the orange, lemon, fig, pomegranate,
  loquat and almond. The aloe, flowering aloe and prickly pear are
  common, and on the eastern side of the Rock the palmito or dwarf palm
  (_Chamaerops humilis_) is abundant.

  _Fauna._--The fauna of Gibraltar, from want of space, is necessarily
  scanty. The Barbary apes, said to be the only wild monkeys in Europe,
  are still to be found on the upper part of the Rock, but in very
  reduced numbers; about the beginning of the 20th century four or five
  only remained, which were said to be all females; a young male,
  however, was brought from Africa. The last male of the original stock,
  an old patriarch, who had died shortly before this, is believed to
  have killed and, it is said, eaten all the young ones. A small variety
  of pigeon breeds in the steep cliffs at the north end of the Rock. A
  few red-legged partridges, some rabbits, two or three foxes and a
  badger or two will complete the list.

_Climate._--The climate of Gibraltar is pleasant and healthy, mild in
winter, and only moderately hot in summer; but the heat, though not
excessive, is lasting. The three months of June, July and August are
almost always without rain, and it is not often that rain falls in the
months of May and September. The first autumn rains, however, which
sometimes begin in September, are usually heavy. From October to May the
climate is for the most part delightful, warm sunshine prevailing,
tempered by cool breezes; the spells of bad weather, although blustering
enough at times, are seldom of more than a few days' duration. The
thermometer in summer does not often reach 90° F. in the shade; from 83°
to 85° may be taken to be the average maximum for July and August, and
these are the hottest months of the year. The average yearly rainfall is
34.4 in., and in fifty years from 1857 to 1906 the greatest recorded
rainfall was 59.35 in., and the smallest 16.75 in. The water-supply for
drinking and cooking purposes is almost wholly derived from rain-water
stored chiefly in underground tanks; there are very few good wells.
Many of the better class of houses have their own rain-water tanks, and
there are large tanks belonging to the naval and military authorities.
Large storage tanks have been constructed by the sanitary commissioners
with specially prepared collecting areas high up the Rock. The
collecting areas cover 16 acres, and the storage tanks have a capacity
of over six million gallons. The tanks are excavated in the solid rock,
whereby the water is kept in the dark and cool. A large quantity of
brackish water for flushing purposes and baths is pumped from the sandy
flats of the north front on the Spanish side of the Rock.

_The Town._--The modern town of Gibraltar is of comparatively recent
date, nearly all the older buildings having been destroyed during the
great siege (1779-1783). The town lies, with most of its buildings
crowded together, at the north-western corner of the Rock, and covers
only about one-ninth part of the whole area; only a small part of it is
on level ground, and those of its narrow streets and lanes which are at
right angles to the line wall, or sea front, are for the most part,
except at their western ends, little more than ramps or rough stairs
formed of rubble stones, contracting in places into stone steps.

The public buildings present few, if any, features of general interest.
The "Convent" rebuilt upon the remains of an old Franciscan monastery is
the official residence of the governor. The Anglican cathedral is a poor
imitation of Moorish architecture. The garrison library has excellent
reading rooms and a large number of volumes of miscellaneous interest.
The civil hospital is a well-planned and roomy modern building. The
courthouse and exchange buildings are suited to the needs of the town.
The antiquary may here and there find the remains of a Moorish bath
forming part of a stable, or fragments of a sculptured stone gateway
bearing the arms of Castile or of Aragon built into the wall of a modern
barrack. In a small disused graveyard, near Southport gate, lie buried a
number of those who fell at Trafalgar. To the south of the town are the
Alameda parade and gardens, a lunatic asylum, the dockyard, graving
docks and the naval and military hospitals.

_Population._--The inhabitants of Gibraltar are of mixed race; after the
capture of the town by the British nearly the whole of the former
Spanish population emigrated in a body and founded, 6 m. away, the
little town of San Roque. Most of the native inhabitants are of Italian
or Genoese descent; there are also a number of Maltese, and between two
and three thousand Jews. The Jews never intermarry with other races and
form a distinct society of their own. The language of the people is
Spanish, not very correctly spoken. English is learnt as a foreign
language and is rarely, if ever, spoken by the people in their own
homes. Gibraltar being primarily a fortress and naval base, every
effort, in view of war contingencies, is made by the authorities to
prevent the natural increase of the population. Sanitary and building
regulations, modelled upon English statutes designed with quite
different objects, are administered with some ingenuity and not a little
severity. In this way the house room available for the poorer classes is
steadily reduced. The poor are thus being gradually pushed across the
frontier into the neighbouring Spanish town of La Linea de la
Concepcion, itself a mere suburb of Gibraltar, whose population,
however, is nearly double that of the parent city. A large army of
workers come daily from "the Lines" into Gibraltar, returning at "first
evening gunfire" shortly after sunset, at which time the gates are
closed and locked for the night. Aliens are not allowed to reside in
Gibraltar without a special permit, which must be renewed at short
intervals. By an order in council, taking effect from November 1900, the
like disabilities were extended to British subjects not previously

  The recorded births, marriages and deaths over a period of 23 years
  are as follows:--

    | Yearly Average.|Births.|Marriages.|Deaths.|
    | 1883-1885      |  621  |    177   |  513  |
    | 1886-1890      |  603  |    167   |  514  |
    | 1891-1895      |  626  |    186   |  460  |
    | 1896-1900      |  641  |    201   |  498  |
    | 1901-1905      |  629  |    201   |  472  |

  The numbers of the population from causes which have been referred to
  are almost stationary, showing a slight tendency to decrease. There
  are no available statistics later than those of a census taken in
  1901, from which it appeared that the population then numbered 27,460,
  of whom the garrison and its families amounted to 6595, the civil
  population, being British subjects, to 17,818, and aliens resident
  under permits to 3047. The latter are chiefly working men and domestic

_Constitution._--Gibraltar is a crown colony. Of local government
properly so called there is none. There is a sanitary commission which
is vested with large powers of spending and with the control of
buildings and streets and other matters managed by local authorities in
England. Its members are appointed by the governor. An appeal from their
decisions, so far as they affect individuals, lies to the supreme court.
Apart from the garrison and civil officials there are comparatively few
members of the Anglican Church. The great majority of the people belong
to the Church of Rome. The Jews have four synagogues. The Protestant
dissenters have two places of worship, Presbyterian and Wesleyan.
Education is not compulsory for the civil population, but most of the
children, if not all, receive a fair education in private or private
aided schools. The number of the children on the rolls of the private
and private aided schools was in 1905: boys, 1504; girls, 1733; total

  _Commerce._--Except in respect of alcoholic liquors and tobacco
  Gibraltar has been a free port since the year 1705--a distinction due,
  it is said, to the refusal of a sultan of Morocco to allow of
  much-needed exports from Morocco to Gibraltar if full liberty of trade
  were not granted to his subjects. During the great wars of the
  beginning of the 19th century trade was most active in Gibraltar, and
  some large fortunes were made; but trade on a large scale has almost
  disappeared. At the point of contact of two continents, on the direct
  line of ocean trade with the far East, in regular steam communication
  with all the great ports of Europe and with North and South America,
  Gibraltar, by its position, is fitted to be a trade centre of the
  world, but the unrest and suspicion engendered in Morocco by the
  intrigues and designs of the European powers, and excessive protective
  duties and maladministration in Spain, have done much to extinguish
  the trade of Gibraltar. There are, however, no trustworthy statistics
  of imports and exports. Before the year 1898 wine, beer and spirits
  were the only goods which paid duty. In that year a duty of 1d. per
  lb. was for the first time put upon tobacco and produced £1444; the
  duty was, however, in force only for a part of the year; in 1899 the
  duty, at the same rate, produced £7703. In 1902 the duty on tobacco
  was raised to 2d. per lb. and produced £29,311. In 1905 this duty
  produced £24,575. The chief business of Gibraltar is the coaling of
  passing steamers; this gives work to several thousand men. Goods are
  also landed for re-export to Morocco, but the bulk of the Morocco
  trade, much of which formerly came to Gibraltar, is now done by lines
  of steamers trading to and from Morocco direct to British, German or
  French ports. Nearly all the fresh meat consumed in Gibraltar comes
  from Morocco, also large quantities of poultry and eggs. A fair amount
  of retail business is done with the passengers of ocean steamers which
  call on their way to and from the East and from North and South

  The steam-tonnage cleared annually since 1883 is shown in the
  following table:--

    | Yearly Average.|  British. | Foreign. |   Total.  |
    | 1883-1885      | 3,525,135 |  817,926 | 4,343,061 |
    | 1886-1890      | 4,507,101 |  908,419 | 5,415,520 |
    | 1891-1895      | 3,710,856 |  975,390 | 4,686,246 |
    | 1896-1900      | 3,281,165 |1,063,367 | 4,344,532 |
    | 1901-1905      | 2,810,849 |1,309,649 | 4,120,498 |

  The main sources of revenue are (i.) duties upon wine, spirits, malt
  liquors and tobacco; (ii.) port and harbour dues; (iii.) tavern and
  other licences; (iv.) post and telegraph; (v.) ground and other rents;
  (vi.) stamps and miscellaneous. The returns before 1898 were made in
  pesetas (5 = $1). In the following table these have been converted
  into sterling at an average of exchange 30 = £1.

    |Yearly Average.|   i.   |  ii.  | iii. |  iv.  |  v.  |   vi.  | Total. |
    |   1886-1890   |  9,692 |17,070 | 5387 | 6,805 | 6485 |  2,873 | 48,312 |
    |   1891-1895   |  9,250 |13,157 | 4275 | 7,833 | 6208 | 10,113 | 50,836 |
    |   1896-1900   | 14,071 | 8,435 | 4136 |10,016 | 5924 | 14,460 | 57,042 |
    |   1901-1905   | 35,900 | 6,028 | 3905 |12,091 | 6945 | 15,859 | 80,728 |
    |   Year 1905   | 36,554 | 5,872 | 4050 |16,551 | 7489 | 17,007 | 87,523 |

  The money, weights and measures in legal use are British. Before 1898
  Spanish money only was in use. The great depreciation of the Spanish
  currency during the war with the United States led in 1898 to the
  reintroduction of British currency as the legal tender money of
  Gibraltar. Notwithstanding this change the Spanish dollar still
  remains in current use; much of the retail business of the town being
  done with persons resident in Spain, the dollar fully holds its own.

_Harbour and Fortifications._--Great changes were made in the defences
of Gibraltar early in the 20th century. Guns of the newest types
replaced those of older patterns. The heavier pieces instead of being at
or near the sea-level, are now high up, many of them on the crest line
of the Rock; their lateral range and fire area has thereby been greatly
increased and their efficiency improved in combination with an elaborate
system of range finding.

With the completion of the new dockyard works the value of Gibraltar as
a naval base has greatly increased. It can now undertake all the
ordinary repairs and coaling of a large fleet. There is an enclosed
harbour in which a fleet can safely anchor secure from the attacks of
torpedo boats. A mole, at first intended for commercial purposes, closes
the north end of the new harbour. The Admiralty, however, soon found
that their needs had outgrown the first design and the so-called
Commercial Mole has been taken over for naval purposes, plans for a new
commercial mole being prepared. The funds for these extensive works were
provided by the Naval Works Loan Acts of 1895 and subsequent years.

The land space available for the purposes of dockyard extension being
very limited, a space of about 64 acres was reclaimed from the sea in
front of the Alameda and the road to Rosia; some of the land reclaimed
was as much as 40 ft. under water. The large quantity of material
required for this purpose was obtained by tunnelling the Rock from W. to
E. and from quarries above Catalan Bay village, to which access was
gained through the tunnel. The graving docks occupy the dug-out site of
the former New Mole Parade. There are three of these docks, 850, 550 and
450 ft. in length respectively. The largest dock is divisible by a
central caisson so that four ships can be docked at one time. The docks
are all 95 ft. wide at the entrance with 35½ ft. of water over the sills
at low-water spring tides. The pumping machinery can empty the largest
dock, 105,000 tons of water, in five hours. There are two workshops for
the chief constructor's and chief engineer's departments, each 407 ft.
long and 322 broad. For the staff captain's department and stores there
are buildings with 250,000 ft. of floor space. At the north end of the
yard are the administrative offices, slipways for destroyers, a slip for
small craft, an ordnance wharf and a boat camber. The reclaimed area is
faced with a wharf wall of concrete blocks for an unbroken length of
1600 ft. with 33 ft. of water alongside at low tide; on this wharf are
powerful shears and cranes.

The enclosed harbour covers 440 acres, 250 of which have a minimum depth
of 30 ft. at low water. It is closed on the S. and S.W. by the New Mole
(1400 ft.) and the New Mole extension (2700 ft.), together 4100 ft.; on
the W. by the Detached Mole (2720 ft.) and on the N. by the Commercial

The New Mole, so called to distinguish it from the Old Mole and its
later extension the Devil's Tongue at the north end of the town, is said
to have been begun by the Spaniards in 1620. It was successfully
assaulted by landing parties from the British fleet under Sir George
Rooke at the capture of Gibraltar by the British in 1704. It was
extended at different times, and before the beginning of the new works
was 1400 ft. in length. The New Mole, with its latest extension, has a
width at top of 102 ft. It is formed of rubble stone floated into
position in barges. It has a continuous wharf wall on the harbour side
3500 ft. long, with water alongside 30 to 35 ft. deep. On the outer side
coal is stacked in sheds extending nearly the whole length of the mole.

The Detached Mole is a vertical wall formed of concrete blocks, each
block weighing 28 tons. These blocks were built together on the sloping
block system upon a rubble foundation of stone deposited by barges and
levelled by divers for the reception of the concrete blocks.

The Commercial Mole is now chiefly used by the navy as a convenient
wharf for destroyers. It encloses the harbour to the north and extends
westward from the end of the Devil's Tongue. At the end nearest the town
are large stores; there is also a small wharf on its outer side which is
used by the tenders of ocean steamers and by the small boats which ply
to Algeciras.

This mole is built of rubble, and at its western end it has an arm about
1600 ft. long running S. in the direction of the Detached Mole. Parallel
with and inside the western arm are five jetties. The jetties and
western arm have extensive coal sheds and are faced with a concrete
wharf wall of a total length of 7000 ft. with 20 to 30 ft. of water
alongside. The Devil's Tongue was an extension of the Old Mole,
constructed during the great siege 1779-1783 in order to bring a
flanking fire to bear upon part of the Spanish lines. It owes its name
to the success with which it played its destined part. (H. M.*)

_History._--Gibraltar was known to the Greek and Roman geographers as
Calpe or Alybe, the two names being probably corruptions of the same
local (perhaps Phoenician) word. The eminence on the African coast near
Ceuta which bears the modern English name of Apes' Hill was then
designated Abyla; and Calpe and Abyla, at least according to an ancient
and widely current interpretation, formed the renowned Pillars of
Hercules (_Herculis columnae_, [Greek: Hrakleous stêlai]), which for
centuries were the limits of enterprise to the seafaring peoples of the
Mediterranean world. The military history of the Rock begins with its
capture and fortification by Tariq in 711. In 1309 it was retaken by
Alonzo Perez de Guzman for Ferdinand IV. of Castile and Leon, who, in
order to attract inhabitants to the spot, offered an asylum to thieves
and murderers, and promised to levy no taxes on the import or export of
goods. The attack of Ismail ben Ferez in 1315 (2nd siege) was
frustrated; but in 1333 Vasco Perez de Meyra, having allowed the
fortifications and garrison to decay, was obliged to capitulate to
Mahomet IV. (3rd siege) after a defence of five months. Alonzo's
attempts to recover possession (4th siege) were futile, though
pertinacious and heroic; but after his successful attack on Algeciras in
1344 he was encouraged to try his fortune again at Gibraltar. In 1349 he
invested the Rock, but the siege (5th siege) was brought to an untimely
close by his death in March 1350. The next or 6th siege resulted simply
in the transference of the position from the hands of the king of
Morocco to those of Yussef III. of Granada (1411), and the 7th,
undertaken by the Spanish count of Niebla, Enrique de Guzman, proved
fatal to the besieger and his forces (1435). In 1462, however, success
attended the efforts of Alonzo de Arcos (8th siege), and in August the
Rock passed once more under Christian sway. The duke of Medina Sidonia,
a powerful grandee who had assisted in its capture, was anxious to get
possession of the fortress, and though Henry IV. at first managed to
maintain the claims of the crown, the duke ultimately made good his
ambition by force of arms (9th siege), and in 1469 the king was
constrained to declare his son and his heirs perpetual governors of
Gibraltar. In 1479 Ferdinand and Isabella made the second duke marquess
of Gibraltar, and in 1492 the third duke, Don Juan, was reluctantly
allowed to retain the fortress. At length in 1502 it was formally
incorporated with the domains of the crown. Don Juan tried in 1506 to
recover possession, and added a 10th to the list of sieges. In 1540 the
garrison had to defend itself against a much more formidable attack
(11th siege)--the pirates of Algiers having determined to recover the
Rock for Mahomet and themselves. The conflict was severe, but resulted
in the repulse of the besiegers. After this the Spaniards made great
efforts to strengthen the place, and they succeeded so well that
throughout Europe Gibraltar was regarded as impregnable, the engineer
Daniel Speckle (1536-1589) being chiefly responsible for the design of
the fortifications.

Gibraltar was taken by the allied British and Dutch forces, after a
three days' siege, on the 24th of July 1704 (see SPANISH SUCCESSION, WAR
OF THE). The capture was made, as the war was being fought, in the
interests of Charles, archduke of Austria, but Sir George Rooke (q.v.),
the British admiral, on his own responsibility caused the British flag
to be hoisted, and took possession in name of Queen Anne, whose
government ratified the occupation. A great number of the inhabitants of
the town of Gibraltar abandoned their homes rather than recognize the
authority of the invaders. The Spaniards quickly assembled an army to
recapture the place, and a new siege opened in October 1704 by troops of
France and Spain under the marquess of Villadarias. The activity of the
British admiral, Sir John Leake, and of the military governor, Prince
George of Hesse-Darmstadt (who had commanded the land forces in July),
rendered the efforts of the besiegers useless. A notable incident of
this siege was the gallant attempt made by 500 chosen volunteers to
surprise the garrison (31st of October), an attempt which, at first
successful, in the end failed disastrously. Finally, in April 1705 the
French marshal de Tessé, who had replaced Villadarias, gave up the siege
and retired. During the next twenty years there were endless
negotiations for the peaceful surrender of the fortress, varied in 1720
by an abortive attempt at a _coup de main_, which was thwarted by the
resourcefulness of the governor of Minorca (Colonel Kane), who threw
reinforcements and supplies into Gibraltar at the critical moment. In
1726 the Spaniards again appealed to arms. But the count of las Torres,
who had the chief command, succeeded no better than his predecessors.
The place had been strengthened since 1705, and the defence of the
garrison under Brigadier Clayton, the lieutenant-governor, Brigadier
Kane of Minorca, and the governor, the earl of Portmore, who arrived
with reinforcements, was so effective that the armistice of the 12th of
June practically put a close to the siege, though two years elapsed
before the general pacification ensued.

  Siege of Gibraltar (1779-1783).

Neither in the War of the Austrian Succession nor in that of 1762 did
Spain endeavour to besiege the rock, but the War of American
Independence gave her better opportunities, and the great siege of
1779-1783 is justly regarded as one of the most memorable sieges of
history. The governor, General Sir George Augustus Elliot (afterwards
Lord Heathfield), was informed from England on the 6th of July 1779 that
hostilities had begun. A short naval engagement in the straits took
place on the 11th, and General Elliot made every preparation for
resistance. It was not, however, until the month of August that the
Spaniards became threatening. The method of the besiegers appeared to be
starvation, but the interval between strained relations and war had been
well employed by the ships, and supplies were, for the time at any rate,
sufficient. While the Spanish siege batteries were being constructed the
fortress fired, and many useful artillery experiments were carried out
by the garrison at this time and subsequently throughout the siege. On
the 14th of November there took place a spirited naval action in which
the privateer "Buck," Captain Fagg, forced her way into harbour. This
was one of many such incidents, which usually arose from the attempts
made from time to time by vessels to introduce supplies from Tangier and
elsewhere. December 1779, indeed, was a month of privation for the
garrison, though of little actual fighting. In January 1780, on the
rumour of an approaching convoy, the price of foods "fell more than
two-thirds," and Admiral Sir George Rodney won a great victory over De
Langara and entered the harbour. Prince William Henry (afterwards King
William IV.) served on board the British fleet as a midshipman during
this expedition. Supplies and reinforcements were thrown into the
fortress by Rodney, and the whole affair was managed with the greatest
address both by the home government and the royal navy. "The garrison,"
in spite of the scurvy, "might now be considered in a perfect state of
defence," says Drinkwater.

On the 7th of June took place an attack by Spanish fireships, which were
successfully dealt with by the naval force in the bay under Captain
Lesley of H.M. frigate "Enterprise." Up to October the state of things
within the fortress was much what it had been after Rodney's success.
"The enemy's operations on the land side had been for many months so
unimportant as scarcely to merit our attention" (Drinkwater). Scurvy
was, however, prevalent (see Drinkwater, p. 121), and the supply
question had again become acute. Though the enemy's batteries did not
open fire, the siege works steadily progressed, in spite of the fire
from the fortress, and there were frequent small engagements at sea in
which the English were not always successful. Further, the expulsion,
with great harshness, of the English residents of Barbary territory put
an end to a service of supply and information which had been of the
greatest value to Elliot (January 1781). Three more months passed in
forced inaction, which the garrison, stinted as it was, endured calmly.
Then, on the 12th of April 1781, on the arrival of a British relieving
squadron under Admiral Darby, the whole of the Spanish batteries opened
fire. Stores were landed in the midst of a heavy bombardment, and much
damage was done both to the fortifications and military buildings and to
the town. At this time there was a good deal of indiscipline in the
garrison, with which General Elliot dealt severely. This was in the last
degree necessary, for the bombardment continued up to the 1st of June,
after which the rate of the enemy's fire decreased to 500 rounds per
day. By the 12th of July it had almost ceased. In September the firing
again became intense and the casualties increased, the working parties
suffering somewhat heavily. In October there was less expenditure of
ammunition, as both sides were now well covered, and in November the
governor secretly prepared a great counterstroke. The sortie made on the
night of the 26th-27th of November was brilliantly successful, and the
Spanish siege works were mostly destroyed. At the close of the year the
garrison was thus again in an excellent position.

Early in 1782 a new form of gun-carriage wheel, allowing of a large
angle of depression being given, was invented by an officer of the Royal
Artillery, and indeed throughout the siege many experiments (such as
would nowadays be carried out at a school of gunnery) were made with
guns, mountings, ammunition, methods of fire, &c., both in Gibraltar and
in the Spanish camp. The gun-carriage referred to enabled 93% of hits to
be obtained at 1400 yds. range. In April grates for heating shot were
constructed by order of the governor; these were destined to be famous.
At the same time it was reported that the duc de Crillon was now to
command the besiegers (French and Spaniards) with D'Arçon as his chief
engineer. The grand attack was now imminent, and preparations were made
to repel it (July 1782). The chief feature of the attack was to be, as
reported on the 26th of July, ten ships "fortified 6 or 7 ft. thick ...
with green timber bolted with iron, cork and raw hides; which were to
carry guns of heavy metal and be bombproof on the top with a descent for
the shells to slide off; that these vessels ... were to be moored within
half gunshot of the walls," &c. On the other side many of the now
existing rock galleries were made about this time. The count of Artois
and another French prince arrived in the French lines in August to
witness the culminating effort of the besiegers, and some polite
correspondence passed between Crillon and the governor (reprinted in
Drinkwater, p. 267). The garrison made a preliminary trial of the
red-hot shot on the 8th of September, and the success of the experiment
not only elated the garrison but was partly instrumental in causing
Crillon to hasten the main attack. After a preliminary bombardment the
famous battering ships took up their positions in broad daylight on the
13th and opened fire. The British solid shot seem to have failed
absolutely to penetrate the massive wooden armour on the sides and the
roofs of the battering ships, and about noon the ships had settled down
to their work and were shooting coolly and accurately. But between 1 and
2 P.M. the British artillerymen began to use the red-shot freely. All
day the artillery duel went on, the shore guns, though inferior in
number, steadily gaining the upper hand, and the battering ships were in
great distress by nightfall. The struggle continued in the dark, the
garrison now shooting rapidly and well, and one by one the ten ships
were set on fire. Before noon on the 14th the attack had come to an end
by the annihilation of the battering fleet, every ship having been blown
up or burnt to the water's edge. Upwards of 8300 rounds were expended by
the garrison though less than a hundred pieces were in action. The
enemy's bombardment was, however, resumed and partial engagements
continued up to the third naval relief of the fortress by Lord Howe, who
won a great victory at sea over the Spaniards. The long siege came to an
end on the 6th of February 1783, when the duc de Crillon informed Elliot
that the preliminaries of peace had been signed. On the 31st of March
the duke visited the fortress, and many courtesies passed between the
late enemies. Captain (afterwards Colonel) John Drinkwater (1762-1844),
the historian of the siege, first published his work in 1785. A new
edition of _A History of the Siege of Gibraltar_ was published in 1905.
The history of the four eventful years' siege is fully detailed also in
the Memoir, attached to Green's _Siege of Gibraltar_ (1784), of its
gallant defender Sir George Augustus Elliot, afterwards Lord Heathfield,
whose military skill and moral courage place him among the best soldiers
and noblest men of his time.

Since 1783 the history of Gibraltar has been comparatively uneventful.
In the beginning of 1801 there were rumours of a Spanish and French
attack, but the Spanish ships were defeated off Algeciras in June by
Admiral Saumarez. Improvements in the fortifications, maintenance of
military discipline and legislation in regard to trade and smuggling,
are the principal matters of recent interest.

  BIBLIOGRAPHY.--To the works which have been already mentioned may be
  added: I. L. de Ayala, _Historia de Gibraltar_ (Madrid, 1792); Jas.
  Bell, translation of Ayala's history (London, 1845); F. Carter,
  _Gibraltar to Malaga_ (London, 1777-1780); G. Cockburn, _Gibraltar,
  Cadiz, &c._ (London, 1815); O. Debeaux and G. Dautez, _Synopsis de la
  flore de Gibraltar_ (1889); E. D. Fenton, _Sorties from Gibraltar_,
  (1872); H. M. Field, _Gibraltar_ (New York, 1888); J. Galt,
  _Gibraltar, Sardinia, &c._ (London, 1813); J. Heriot, _Historical
  Sketch of Gibraltar_ (London, 1792); R. Hort, _The Rock of Gibraltar_
  (London, 1839); L. W. L. Irby, _Ornithology of the Straits_ (London,
  1875); Thos. James, _History of the Herculean Straits_ (London, 1771);
  J. H. Mann, _Gibraltar and its Sieges_ (London, 1870); Montero,
  _Historia de Gibraltar_ (Cadiz, 1860); A. M. Monti, _Historia de
  Gibraltar_ (Seville, 1851); J. Navarrete, _Las Llaves del Estrecho_
  (Madrid, 1882); M. S. Pasley, _Wild Flowers of Gibraltar_ (Portsmouth,
  1887); John Purdy, _Gibraltar and Mediterranean Sailing Directions_
  (London, 1840); H. J. M. Rey, _Essai sur la topographie médicale de
  Gibraltar_ (Paris, 1833); Captain Sayer, _History of Gibraltar_
  (London, 1862); D. Sutherland, _Gibraltar to Constantinople_ (London,
  1790); Walker, _A Year's Insect Hunting in Gibraltar_ (London, 1888).
       (C. F. A.)

GIBSON, CHARLES DANA (1867-   ), American artist and illustrator, was
born at Roxbury, Massachusetts, on the 14th of September 1867. After a
year's study at the schools of the Art Students' League, he began with
some modest little drawings for the humorous weekly _Life_. These he
followed up with more serious work, and soon made a place for himself as
the delineator of the American girl, at various occupations,
particularly those out of doors. These obtained an enormous vogue, being
afterwards published in book form, running through many editions. The
"Gibson Girl" stood for a type of healthy, vigorous, beautiful and
refined young womanhood. Some book illustrations followed, notably for
_The Prisoner of Zenda_. He was imitated by many of the younger
draughtsmen, copied by amateurs, and his popularity was shown in his
engagement by _Collier's Weekly_ to furnish weekly for a year a double
page, receiving for the fifty-two drawings the sum of $50,000, said to
have been the largest amount ever paid to an illustrator for such a
commission. These drawings covered various local themes and were highly
successful, being drawn with pen and ink with masterly facility and
great directness and economy of line. So popular was one series, "The
Adventures of Mr Pipp," that a successful play was modelled on it. In
1906, although besieged with commissions, Gibson withdrew from
illustrative work, determining to devote himself to portraiture in oil,
in which direction he had already made some successful experiments; but
in a few years he again returned to illustration.

GIBSON, EDMUND (1669-1748), English divine and jurist, was born at
Bampton in Westmorland in 1669. In 1686 he was entered a scholar at
Queen's College, Oxford, where in 1692 he published a valuable edition
of the _Saxon Chronicle_ with a Latin translation, indices and notes.
This was followed in 1693 by an annotated edition of the _De
institutione oratoria_ of Quintilian, and in 1695 by a translation in
two volumes folio of Camden's _Britannia_, "with additions and
improvements," in the preparation of which he had been largely assisted
by William Lloyd, John Smith and other English antiquaries. Shortly
after Thomas Tenison's elevation to the see of Canterbury in 1694 Gibson
was appointed chaplain and librarian to the archbishop, and in 1703 and
1710 respectively he became rector of Lambeth and archdeacon of Surrey.
In the discussions which arose during the reigns of William and Anne
relative to the rights and privileges of the Convocation, Gibson took a
very active part, and in a series of pamphlets warmly argued for the
right of the archbishop to continue or prorogue even the lower house of
that assembly. The controversy suggested to him the idea of those
researches which resulted in the famous _Codex juris ecclesiastici
Anglicani_, published in two volumes folio in 1713,--a work which
discusses more learnedly and comprehensively than any other the legal
rights and duties of the English clergy, and the constitution, canons
and articles of the English Church. In 1716 Gibson was presented to the
see of Lincoln, whence he was in 1720 translated to that of London,
where for twenty-five years he exercised an immense influence, being
regularly consulted by Sir Robert Walpole on all ecclesiastical affairs.
While a conservative in church politics, and declaredly opposed to
methodism, he was no persecutor, and indeed broke with Walpole on the
Quakers' Relief Bill of 1736. He exercised a vigilant oversight over the
morals of his diocese; and his fearless denunciation of the licentious
masquerades which were popular at court finally lost him the royal
favour. Among the literary efforts of his later years the principal were
a series of _Pastoral Letters_ in defence of the "gospel revelation,"
against "lukewarmness" and "enthusiasm," and on various topics of the
day; also the _Preservative against Popery_, in 3 vols. folio (1738), a
compilation of numerous controversial writings of eminent Anglican
divines, dating chiefly from the period of James II. Gibson died on the
6th of September 1748.

  A second edition of the _Codex juris_, "revised and improved, with
  large additions by the author," was published at Oxford in 1761.
  Besides the works already mentioned, Gibson published a number of
  _Sermons_, and other works of a religious and devotional kind. The
  _Vita Thomae Bodleii_ with the _Historia Bibliothecae Bodleianae_ in
  the _Catalogi librorum manuscriptorum_ (Oxford, 1697), and the
  _Reliquiae Spelmannianae_ (Oxford, 1698), are also from his pen.

GIBSON, JOHN (1790-1866), English sculptor, was born near Conway in
1790, his father being a market gardener. To his mother, whom he
described as ruling his father and all the family, he owed, like many
other great men, the energy and determination which carried him over
every obstacle. When he was nine years old the family were on the point
of emigrating to America, but Mrs Gibson's determination stopped this
project on their arrival at Liverpool, and there John was sent to
school. The windows of the print shops of Liverpool riveted his
attention, and, having no means to purchase the commonest print, he
acquired the habit of committing to memory the outline of one figure
after another, drawing it on his return home. Thus early he formed the
system of observing, remembering and noting, sometimes even a month
later, scenes and momentary actions from nature. In this way he, by
degrees, transferred from the shop window to his paper at home the chief
figures from David's picture of Napoleon crossing the Alps, which, by
particular request, he copied in bright colours as a frontispiece to a
little schoolfellow's new prayer-book, for sixpence. At fourteen years
of age Gibson was apprenticed to a firm of cabinetmakers,--portrait and
miniature painters in Liverpool requiring a premium which his father
could not give. This employment so disgusted him that after a year
(being interesting and engaging then apparently as in after-life) he
persuaded his masters to change his indentures, and bind him to the
wood-carving with which their furniture was ornamented. This satisfied
him for another year, when an introduction to the foreman of some marble
works, and the sight of a small head of Bacchus, unsettled him again. He
had here caught a glimpse of his true vocation, and in his leisure hours
began to model with such success that his efforts found their way to the
notice of Mr Francis, the proprietor of the marble works. The
wood-carving now, in turn, became his aversion; and having in vain
entreated his masters to set him free, he instituted a strike. He was
every day duly at his post, but did no work. Threats, and even a blow,
moved him not. At length the offer of £70 from Francis for the
rebellious apprentice was accepted, and Gibson found himself at last
bound to a master for the art of sculpture. Francis paid the lad 6s. a
week, and received good prices for his works,--sundry early works by the
youthful sculptor, which exist in Liverpool and the neighbourhood, going
by the name of Francis to this day. It was while thus apprenticed that
Gibson attracted the notice of William Roscoe, the historian. For him
Gibson executed a basso rilievo in terra-cotta, now in the Liverpool
museum. Roscoe opened to the sculptor the treasures of his library at
Allerton, by which he became acquainted with the designs of the great
Italian masters.

A cartoon of the Fall of the Angels marked this period,--now also in the
Liverpool museum. We must pass over his studies in anatomy, pursued
gratuitously by the kindness of a medical man, and his introductions to
families of refinement and culture in Liverpool. Roscoe was an excellent
guide to the young aspirant, pointing to the Greeks as the only examples
for a sculptor. Gibson here found his true vocation. A basso rilievo of
Psyche carried by the Zephyrs was the result. He sent it to the Royal
Academy, where Flaxman, recognizing its merits, gave it an excellent
place. Again he became unsettled. The ardent young breast panted for
"the great university of Art"--Rome; and the first step to the desired
goal was to London. Here he stood between the opposite advice and
influence of Flaxman and Chantrey--the one urging him to Rome as the
highest school of sculpture in the world, the other maintaining that
London could do as much for him. It is not difficult to guess which was
Gibson's choice. He arrived in Rome in October 1817, at a comparatively
late age for a first visit. There he immediately experienced the charm
and goodness of the true Italian character in the person of Canova, to
whom he had introductions,--the Venetian putting not only his experience
in art but his purse at the English student's service. Up to this time,
though his designs show a fire and power of imagination in which no
teaching is missed, Gibson had had no instruction, and had studied at no
Academy. In Rome he first became acquainted with rules and
technicalities, in which the merest tyro was before him. Canova
introduced him into the Academy supported by Austria, and, as is natural
with a mind like Gibson's, the first sense of his deficiencies in common
matters of practice was depressing to him. He saw Italian youths already
excelling, as they all do, in the drawing of the figure. But the tables
were soon turned. His first work in marble--a "Sleeping Shepherd"
modelled from a beautiful Italian boy--has qualities of the highest
order. Gibson was soon launched, and distinguished patrons, first sent
by Canova, made their way to his studio in the Via Fontanella. His aim,
from the first day that he felt the power of the antique, was purity of
character and beauty of form. He very seldom declined into the
prettiness of Canova, and if he did not often approach the masculine
strength which redeems the faults of Thorwaldsen, he more than once
surpassed him even in that quality. We allude specially to his "Hunter
and Dog," and to the grand promise of his "Theseus and Robber," which
take rank as the highest productions of modern sculpture. He was
essentially classic in feeling and aim, but here the habit of
observation we have mentioned enabled him to snatch a grace beyond the
reach of a mere imitator. His subjects were gleaned from the free
actions of the splendid Italian people noticed in his walks, and
afterwards baptized with such mythological names as best fitted them.
Thus a girl kissing a child, with a sudden wring of the figure, over her
shoulder, became a "Nymph and Cupid"; a woman helping her child with his
foot on her hand on to her lap, a "Bacchante and Faun"; his "Amazon
thrown from her Horse," one of his most original productions, was taken
from an accident he witnessed to a female rider in a circus; and the
"Hunter holding in his Dog" was also the result of a street scene. The
prominence he gave among his favourite subjects to the little god "of
soft tribulations" was no less owing to his facilities for observing
the all but naked Italian children, in the hot summers he spent in Rome.

In monumental and portrait statues for public places, necessarily
represented in postures of dignity and repose, Gibson was very happy.
His largest effort of this class--the group of Queen Victoria supported
by Justice and Clemency, in the Houses of Parliament--was his finest
work in the round. Of noble character also in execution and expression
of thought is the statue of Huskisson with the bared arm; and no less,
in effect of aristocratic ease and refinement, the seated figure of
Dudley North. But great as he was in the round, Gibson's chief
excellence lay in basso rilievo, and in this less-disputed sphere he
obtained his greatest triumphs. His thorough knowledge of the horse, and
his constant study of the Elgin marbles--casts of which are in
Rome--resulted in the two matchless bassi rilievi, the size of life,
which belong to Lord Fitzwilliam--the "Hours leading the Horses of the
Sun," and "Phaëthon driving the Chariot of the Sun." Most of his
monumental works are also in basso rilievo. Some of these are of a truly
refined and pathetic character, such as the monument to the countess of
Leicester, that to his friend Mrs Huskisson in Chichester cathedral, and
that of the Bonomi children. Passion, either indulged or repressed, was
the natural impulse of his art: repressed as in the "Hours leading the
Horses of the Sun," and as in the "Hunter and Dog"; indulged as in the
meeting of Hero and Leander, a drawing executed before he left England.
Gibson was the first to introduce colour on his statues,--first, as a
mere border to the drapery of a portrait statue of the queen, and by
degrees extended to the entire flesh, as in his so-called "tinted"
Venus, and in the "Cupid tormenting the Soul," in the Holford

Gibson's individuality was too strongly marked to be affected by any
outward circumstances. In all worldly affairs and business of daily life
he was simple and guileless in the extreme; but he was resolute in
matters of principle, determined to walk straight at any cost of
personal advantage. Unlike most artists, he was neither nervous nor
irritable in temperament. It was said of him that he made the heathen
mythology his religion; and indeed in serenity of nature, feeling for
the beautiful, and a certain philosophy of mind, he may be accepted as a
type of what a pure-minded Greek pagan, in the zenith of Greek art, may
have been. Gibson was elected R.A. in 1836, and bequeathed all his
property and the contents of his studio to the Royal Academy, where his
marbles and casts are open to the public. He died at Rome on the 27th of
January 1866.

  The letters between Gibson and Mrs Henry Sandbach, granddaughter of Mr
  Roscoe, and a sketch of his life that lady induced him to write,
  furnish the chief materials for his biography. See his _Life_, edited
  by Lady Eastlake.     (E. E.)

GIBSON, THOMAS MILNER (1806-1884), English politician, who came of a
good Suffolk family, was born in Trinidad, where his father, an officer
in the army, was serving. He went to Trinity College, Cambridge, and in
1837 was elected to parliament as Conservative member for Ipswich, but
resigned two years later, having adopted Liberal views, and became an
ardent supporter of the free-trade movement. As one of Cobden's chief
allies, he was elected for Manchester in 1841, and from 1846 to 1848 he
was vice-president of the board of trade in Lord John Russell's
ministry. Though defeated in Manchester in 1857, he found another seat
for Ashton-under-Lyne; and he sat in the cabinets from 1859 to 1866 as
president of the board of trade. He was the leading spirit in the
movement for the repeal of "taxes on knowledge," and his successful
efforts on behalf of journalism and advertising were recognized by a
public testimonial in 1862. He retired from political life in 1868, but
he and his wife, whose salon was a great Liberal centre, were for many
years very influential in society. Milner Gibson was a sportsman and a
typical man of the world, who enjoyed life and behaved liberally to
those connected with him.

GIBSON, WILLIAM HAMILTON (1850-1896), American illustrator, author and
naturalist, was born in Sandy Hook, Connecticut, on the 5th of October
1850. The failure and (in 1868) death of his father, a New York broker,
put an end to his studies in the Brooklyn Polytechnic Institute and made
it necessary for him to earn his own living. From the life insurance
business, in Brooklyn, he soon turned to the study of natural history
and illustration,--he had sketched flowers and insects when he was only
eight years old, had long been interested in botany and entomology, and
had acquired great skill in making wax flowers,--and his first drawings,
of a technical character, were published in 1870. He rapidly became an
expert illustrator and a remarkably able wood-engraver, while he also
drew on stone with great success. He drew for _The American
Agriculturist_, _Hearth and Home_, and Appleton's _American
Cyclopaedia_; for _The Youth's Companion_ and _St Nicholas_; and then
for various Harper publications, especially _Harper's Monthly Magazine_,
where his illustrations first gained popularity. He died of apoplexy,
brought on by overwork, on the 16th of July 1896 at Washington,
Connecticut, where he had had a summer studio, and where in a great
boulder is inset a relief portrait of him by H. K. Bush-Brown. He was an
expert photographer, and his drawings had a nearly photographic and
almost microscopic accuracy of detail which slightly lessened their
artistic value, as a poetic and sometimes humorous quality somewhat
detracted from their scientific worth. Gibson was perfectly at home in
black-and-white, but rarely (and feebly) used colours. He was a popular
writer and lecturer on natural history; in his best-known lecture, on
"Cross-Fertilization," he used ingenious charts and models.

  Gibson illustrated S. A. Drake's _In the Heart of the White
  Mountains_, C. D. Warner's _New South_, and E. P. Roe's _Nature's
  Serial Story_; and his own books, _The Complete American Trapper_
  (1876; revised, 1880, as _Camp Life in the Woods); Pastoral Days: or,
  Memories of a New England Year_ (1880); _Highways and Byways_ (1882);
  _Happy Hunting Grounds_ (1886); _Strolls by Starlight and Sunshine_
  (1891); _Sharp Eyes: a Rambler's Calendar_ (1891); _Our Edible
  Mushrooms and Toadstools_ (1895); _Eye Spy: Afield with Nature among
  Flowers and Animate Things_ (1897); and _My Studio Neighbours_ (1898).

  See John C. Adams, _William Hamilton Gibson, Artist, Naturalist
  Author_ (New York, 1901).

*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th Edition, Volume 11, Slice 8 - "Germany" to "Gibson, William"" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.