Home
  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: Outlines of Universal History, Designed as a Text-book and for Private Reading
Author: Fisher, George Park
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 "Outlines of Universal History, Designed as a Text-book and for Private Reading" ***

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



Transcriber's Comment

In the original text, the author sought, "by the use of different sorts
of type, ... to introduced a considerable amount of detail without
breaking the main current of the narrative, or making it too long". In
the text below, paragraphs in the smallest type have been indented.



OUTLINES OF UNIVERSAL HISTORY

Designed as a Text-book and for Private Reading

By

George Park Fisher, D.D., LL.D.
Professor in Yale University

Inscribed by the author as a token of love and thankfulness to his
daughter

C. R. F.



PREFACE.


In writing this work I have endeavored to provide a text-book suited to
more advanced pupils. My idea of such a work was, that it should
present the essential facts of history in due order, and in conformity
to the best and latest researches; that it should point out clearly the
connection of events and of successive eras with one another; that
through the interest awakened by the natural, unforced view gained of
this unity of history, and by such illustrative incidents as the
brevity of the narrative would allow to be wrought into it, the dryness
of a mere summary should be, as far as possible, relieved; and that,
finally, being a book intended for pupils and readers of all classes,
it should be free from sectarian partiality, and should limit itself to
well-established judgments and conclusions on all matters subject to
party contention. Respecting one of the points just referred to, I can
say that, in composing this work, I have myself been more than ever
impressed with _the unity of history_, and affected by this great
and deeply moving drama that is still advancing into a future that is
hidden from view. I can not but hope that this feeling, spontaneous and
vivid in my own mind, may communicate itself to the reader in his
progress through these pages.

The most interesting object in the study of history is, to quote Dr.
Arnold's words, "that which most nearly touches the inner life of
civilized man, namely, the vicissitudes of institutions, social,
political, and religious." But, as the same scholar adds, "a knowledge
of the external is needed before we arrive at that which is within. We
want to get a sort of frame for our picture....And thus we want to know
clearly the geographical boundaries of different countries, and their
external revolutions. This leads us in the first instance to geography
and military history, even if our ultimate object lies beyond."
Something more is aimed at in the present work than the construction of
this "frame," without which, to be sure, a student wanders about
"vaguely, like an ignorant man in an ill-arranged museum."  By the use
of different sorts of type, it has been practicable to introduce a
considerable amount of detail without breaking the main current of the
narrative, or making it too long. By means of these additional
passages, and by appending lists of books at the close of the several
periods, the attempt has been made to aid younger students in carrying
forward the study of history beyond the usual requirements of the
class-room. I make no apology for the sketches presented of the history
of science, literature, art, and of moral and material decline or
improvement. Professor Seeley, in his interesting book on _The
Expansion of England_, is disposed to confine history to the civil
community, and to the part of human well-being which depends on
that. "That a man in England," he tells us, "makes a scientific
discovery or paints a picture, is not in itself an event in the history
of England." But, of course, as this able writer himself remarks,
"history may assume a larger or a narrower function;" and I am
persuaded that to shut up history within so narrow bounds, is not
expedient in a work designed in part to stimulate readers to wide and
continued studies.

One who has long been engaged in historical study and teaching, if he
undertakes to prepare such a work as the present, has occasion to
traverse certain periods where previous investigations have made him
feel more or less at home. Elsewhere at least his course must be to
collate authorities, follow such as he deems best entitled to credit,
and, on points of uncertainty, satisfy himself by recurrence to the
original sources of evidence. Among the numerous works from which I
have derived assistance, the largest debt is due, especially in the
ancient and mediæval periods, to Weber's _Lehrbuch der
Weltgeschichte_, which (in its nineteenth edition, 1883) contains
2328 large octavo pages of well-digested matter. Duruy's _Histoire
du Moyen Age_ (eleventh edition, 1882), and also his _Histoire
des Temps Modernes_ (ninth edition), have yielded to me important
aid. From the writings of Mr. E. A. Freeman I have constantly derived
instruction. In particular, I have made use of his _General Sketch
of European History_ (which is published in this country, under the
title, _Outlines of History_), and of his lucid, compact, and
thorough _History of European Geography_. The other writings,
however, of this able and learned historian, have been very
helpful. Mr. Tillinghast's edition of Ploetz's _Epitome_ I have
found to be a highly valuable storehouse of historical facts, and have
frequently consulted it with advantage. The superior accuracy of
George's _Genealogical Tables_ is the reason why I have freely
availed myself of the aid afforded by them. Professor (now President)
C. K. Adams's excellent _Manual of Historical Literature_, to
which reference is repeatedly made in the following pages, has been of
service in preparing the lists of works to be read or consulted. Those
lists, it hardly need be said, aim at nothing like a complete
bibliography. No doubt to each of them other valuable works might
easily be added. As a rule, no mention is made of more technical or
abstruse writings, collections of documents, and so forth. The titles
of but few historical novels are given. Useful as the best of these
are, works of this class are often inaccurate and misleading; so that
a living master in historical authorship has said even of Walter
Scott, who is so strong when he stands on Scottish soil, that in his
Ivanhoe "there is a mistake in every line." With regard, however, to
historical fiction, including poems, as well as novels and tales, the
student will find in Mr. Justin Winsor's very learned and elaborate
monograph (forming a distinct section of the catalogue of the Boston
Public Library), the most full information up to the date of its
publication. Most of the historical maps, to illustrate the text of
the present work, have been engraved from drawings after Spruner,
Putzger, Freeman, etc. Of the ancient maps, several have been adopted
(in a revised form) from a General Atlas. That the maps contain more
places than are referred to in the text, is not a disadvantage.

I wish to express my obligation to a number of friends who have kindly
lent me aid in the revisal of particular portions of the proof-sheets
of this volume. My special thanks are due, on account of this service,
to Professor Francis Brown of the Union Theological School; to
Professors W. D. Whitney, Tracy Peck, T. D. Seymour, W. H. Brewer, and
T. R. Lounsbury, of Yale College; to Mr. A. Van Name, librarian of
Yale College; and to Mr. W. L. Kingsley, to whose historical knowledge
and unfailing kindness I have, on previous occasions, been indebted
for like assistance. To other friends besides those just named, I am
indebted for information on points made familiar to them by their
special studies.

G. P. F.



PREFACE TO REVISED EDITION.

The characteristics of this work are stated in the Preface to the
First Edition, which may be read on page v and the next following
pages of the present volume.

The work has been subjected to a careful revision. The aim has been to
make whatever amendments are called for by historical investigations
in the interval since it was published. Besides corrections, brief
statements have been woven here and there into the text. The revision
has embraced the bibliography connected with the successive periods or
chapters. Titles of books which are no longer of service have been
erased. Titles of select recent publications, as well as of
meritorious writings of a remoter past, have been inserted.

In preparing this edition for the press I have not been without the
advantage of aid from friends versed in historical studies. Professor
Henry E. Bourne, of Western Reserve University, besides particular
annotations, has prolonged the history so far as to include in its
compass, in Chapter VII, the last decade of the nineteenth century and
events as recent as the close of the South African War and the
accession of President Roosevelt. Professor Charles C. Torrey, Ph.D.,
of Yale University, has placed in my hands notes of his own on
Oriental History, a portion of history with which, as well as with the
Semitic languages, he is conversant. It will not be for lack of
painstaking if any part of the new edition fails, within the limits of
its plan, to correspond to the present state of historical knowledge.

G. P. F.
Yale University, January, 1904.



CONTENTS.


INTRODUCTION


PART I.  ANCIENT HISTORY.

_From the Beginning of Authentic History to the Migrations of the
Teutonic Tribes (A.D. 375)_

DIVISION I.  ORIENTAL HISTORY.

INTRODUCTION

SECTION  I.  CHINA AND INDIA.

CHAPTER  I.--CHINA

CHAPTER II.--INDIA


SECTION II.  THE EARLIEST GROUP OF NATIONS.

CHAPTER   I.--EGYPT

CHAPTER  II.--ASSYRIA AND BABYLON

CHAPTER III.--THE PHOENICIANS AND CARTHAGINIANS

CHAPTER  IV.--THE HEBREWS

CHAPTER   V.--THE PERSIANS


DIVISION II.  EUROPE.

INTRODUCTION


SECTION I.  GRECIAN HISTORY.

INTRODUCTION


PERIOD I.  GREECE PRIOR TO THE PERSIAN WARS.

CHAPTER  I.--THE PREHISTORIC AGE

CHAPTER II.--THE FORMATION OF THE PRINCIPAL STATES


PERIOD II.  THE FLOURISHING ERA OF GREECE.

CHAPTER   I.--THE PERSIAN WARS

CHAPTER  II.--THE ASCENDENCY OF ATHENS

CHAPTER III.--THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR

CHAPTER  IV.--RELATIONS WITH PERSIA: THE SPARTAN AND THEBAN HEGEMONY


PERIOD III.  THE MACEDONIAN ERA.

CHAPTER  I.--PHILIP AND ALEXANDER

CHAPTER II.--THE SUCCESSORS OF ALEXANDER


SECTION II.  ROMAN HISTORY.

INTRODUCTION


PERIOD I.  ROME UNDER THE KINGS AND THE PATRICIANS (753-304 B.C.).

CHAPTER  I.--ROME UNDER THE KINGS (753-509 B.C.)

CHAPTER II.--ROME UNDER THE PATRICIANS (509-304 B.C.)


PERIOD II.  TO THE UNION OF ITALY (304-264 B.C.).

CHAPTER  I.--CONQUEST OF THE LATINS AND ITALIANS (304-282 B.C.)

CHAPTER II.--WAR WITH PYRRHUS AND UNION WITH ITALY (282-264 B.C.)


PERIOD III.  THE PUNIC WARS.

To the Conquest of Carthage and of the Greek States (264-146 B.C.)

CHAPTER  I.--THE FIRST AND SECOND PUNIC WARS (264-202 B.C.)

CHAPTER II.--CONQUEST OF MACEDONIA: THE THIRD PUNIC WAR: THE DESTRUCTION
OF CORINTH (202-146 B.C.)


PERIOD IV.  THE ERA OF REVOLUTION AND OF THE CIVIL WARS (146-3l B.C.).

CHAPTER   I.--THE GRACCHI: THE FIRST MITHRIDATIC WAR: MARIUS AND SULLA
(146-78 B.C.)

CHAPTER  II.--POMPEIUS AND THE EAST: TO THE DEATH OF CRASSUS (78-53 B.C.)

CHAPTER III.--POMPEIUS AND CAESAR: THE SECOND TRIUMVIRATE.


PERIOD V.  THE IMPERIAL MONARCHY.

To the Migrations of the Teutonic Tribes (375 A.D.)

CHAPTER   I.--THE REIGN OF AUGUSTUS

CHAPTER  II.--THE EMPERORS OF THE AUGUSTAN HOUSE

CHAPTER III.--THE FLAVIANS AND THE ANTONINES

CHAPTER  IV.--THE EMPERORS MADE BY THE SOLDIERS: THE ABSOLUTE MONARCHY:
THE TRIUMPH OF CHRISTIANITY



PART II. MEDIAEVAL HISTORY.

_From the Migrations of the Teutonic Tribes to the Fall of
Constantinople (A.D. 375-1453)._

INTRODUCTION


PERIOD I.  TO THE CARLOVINGIAN LINE OF FRANK RULERS (A.D. 375-751).

CHAPTER   I.--CAUSES OF THE FALL OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE: THE TEUTONIC
CONFEDERACIES

CHAPTER  II.--THE TEUTONIC MIGRATIONS AND KINGDOMS

CHAPTER III.--THE EASTERN EMPIRE

CHAPTER  IV.--MOHAMMEDANISM AND THE ARABIC CONQUESTS


PERIOD II.  FROM THE CARLOVINGIAN LINE OF FRANK KINGS TO THE
ROMANO-GERMANIC EMPIRE (A.D. 751-962).

CHAPTER   I.--THE CARLOVINGIAN EMPIRE TO THE DEATH OF CHARLEMAGNE
(A.D. 814)

CHAPTER  II.--DISSOLUTION OF CHARLEMAGNE'S EMPIRE: RISE OF THE KINGDOMS
OF FRANCE, GERMANY, AND ITALY

CHAPTER III.--INVASIONS OF THE NORTHMEN AND OTHERS: THE FEUDAL SYSTEM


PERIOD III.  FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ROMANO-GERMANIC EMPIRE TO THE
END OF THE CRUSADES (A.D. 962-1270).

CHAPTER   I.--THE CHURCH AND THE EMPIRE: PREDOMINANCE OF THE EMPIRE: TO
THE CRUSADES (A.D. 1096)

CHAPTER  II.--THE CHURCH AND THE EMPIRE: PREDOMINANCE OF THE CHURCH: TO
THE END OF THE CRUSADES (A.D. 1270)

CHAPTER III.--ENGLAND AND FRANCE: THE FIRST PERIOD OF THEIR RIVALSHIP
(A.D. 1066-1217)

CHAPTER  IV.--RISE OF THE BURGHER CLASS: SOCIETY IN THE ERA OF THE
CRUSADES


PERIOD IV.  FROM THE END OF THE CRUSADES TO THE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE
(A.D. 1270-1453): THE DECLINE OF ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY:
THE GROWTH OF THE NATIONAL SPIRIT AND OF MONARCHY.

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER   I.--ENGLAND AND FRANCE: SECOND PERIOD OF RIVALSHIP: THE HUNDRED
YEARS' WAR (A.D. 1339-1453)

CHAPTER  II.--GERMANY: ITALY: SPAIN: THE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES: POLAND
AND RUSSIA: HUNGARY: OTTOMAN TURKS: THE GREEK EMPIRE

CHAPTER III.--THE COUNTRIES OF EASTERN ASIA



PART III.  MODERN HISTORY.

_From the Fall of Constantinople_ (1453) _to the Present Time_

INTRODUCTION


PERIOD I.  FROM THE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE TO THE REFORMATION
           (1453-1517).

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER  I.--FRANCE: ENGLAND: SPAIN: GERMANY: ITALY: THE OTTOMAN TURKS:
RUSSIA: THE INVASIONS OF ITALY

CHAPTER II.--INVENTION AND DISCOVERY: THE RENAISSANCE


PERIOD II.  THE ERA OF THE REFORMATION (1517-1648).

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER   I.--THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY: TO THE TREATY OF NUREMBERG
(1517-1532)

CHAPTER  II.--THE REFORMATION IN TEUTONIC COUNTRIES: SWITZERLAND,
DENMARK, SWEDEN, ENGLAND

CHAPTER III.--THE REFORMATION IN GERMANY, FROM THE PEACE OF NUREMBERG TO
THE PEACE OF AUGSBURG (1532-1555)

CHAPTER  IV.--CALVINISM IN GENEVA: BEGINNING OF THE CATHOLIC
COUNTER-REFORMATION

CHAPTER   V.--PHILIP II., AND THE REVOLT OF THE NETHERLANDS

CHAPTER  VI.--THE CIVIL WARS IN FRANCE, TO THE DEATH OF HENRY IV. (1610)

CHAPTER VII.--THE THIRTY-YEARS' WAR, TO THE PEACE OF WESTPHALIA
(1618-1648)

CHAPTER VIII.--SECOND STAGE OF THE REFORMATION IN ENGLAND: TO THE DEATH
OF ELIZABETH (1547-1603)

CHAPTER  IX.--THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION AND THE COMMONWEALTH (1603-1658)

CHAPTER   X.--COLONIZATION IN AMERICA: ASIATIC NATIONS: CULTURE AND
LITERATURE (1517-1648)


PERIOD III.  FROM THE PEACE OF WESTPHALIA TO THE FRENCH REVOLUTION
(1648-1789).

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER   I.--THE PREPONDERANCE OF FRANCE: FIRST PART OF THE REIGN OF
LOUIS XIV. (TO THE PEACE OF RYSWICK, 1697): THE
RESTORATION OF THE STUARTS: THE ENGLISH REVOLUTION OF 1688

CHAPTER  II.--WAR OF THE SPANISH SUCCESSION (TO THE PEACE OF UTRECHT,
1713): DECLINE OF THE POWER OF FRANCE: POWER AND MARITIME SUPREMACY OF
ENGLAND

CHAPTER III.--THE GREAT NORTHERN WAR: THE FALL OF SWEDEN: GROWTH OF THE
POWER OF RUSSIA

CHAPTER IV.--WAR OF THE AUSTRIAN SUCCESSION: GROWTH OF THE POWER OF
PRUSSIA: THE DESTRUCTION OF POLAND

CHAPTER V.--CONTEST OF ENGLAND AND FRANCE IN AMERICA: WAR OF AMERICAN
INDEPENDENCE: THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES

CHAPTER VI.--LITERATURE, SCIENCE, AND RELIGION


PERIOD IV.  THE ERA OF THE FRENCH REVOLUTION (1789-1815).

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER   I.--FROM THE ASSEMBLING OF THE STATES-GENERAL TO THE EXECUTION
OF LOUIS XVI. (1789-1793)

CHAPTER  II.--FROM THE EXECUTION OF LOUIS XVI. TO THE FALL OF ROBESPIERRE
(JAN. 21, 1793-JULY 27, 1794)

CHAPTER III.--FROM THE FALL OF ROBESPIERRE TO THE EMPIRE OF NAPOLEON
(1794-1804)

CHAPTER  IV.--FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE EMPIRE TO THE RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN
(1804-1812)

CHAPTER   V.--FROM THE RUSSIAN CAMPAIGN (1812) TO THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA
(1814-15)

CHAPTER  VI.--AMERICAN HISTORY IN THIS PERIOD (1789-1815)

CHAPTER VII.--LITERATURE, ART, AND SCIENCE (1789-1815)


PERIOD V.  FROM THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA (1815) TO THE PRESENT TIME.

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER   I.--EUROPE, FROM THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA (1815) TO THE FRENCH
REVOLUTION OF 1830

CHAPTER  II.--EUROPE, FROM THE REVOLUTION OF 1830 TO THE REVOLUTIONARY
EPOCH OF 1848

CHAPTER III.--EUROPE, FROM THE REVOLUTIONS OF 1848 TO THE
AUSTRO-PRUSSIAN WAR (1866)

CHAPTER  IV.--EUROPE, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE AUSTRO-PRUSSIAN WAR TO
THE END OF THE FRANCO-GERMAN WAR (1866-1871)

CHAPTER V.--EUROPE, FROM THE THIRD FRENCH REPUBLIC, AND
THE UNION OF ITALY (1871)

CHAPTER VI.--THE UNITED STATES SINCE 1815: THE SOUTH AMERICAN STATES:
EASTERN ASIA

CHAPTER VII.--THE LAST DECADE OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY

CHAPTER VIII.--DISCOVERY AND INVENTION: SCIENCE AND LITERATURE: PROGRESS
OF HUMANE SENTIMENT: PROGRESS TOWARDS THE UNITY OF MANKIND



LIST OF MAPS.

  THE WORLD AS KNOWN TO THE ANCIENTS

  PHYSICAL FEATURES OF ASIA

  ANCIENT EGYPT

  ANCIENT PALESTINE

  PHYSICAL FEATURES OF EUROPE

  ANCIENT GREECE AND THE AEGEAN ISLANDS

  GREEK AND PHOENICIAN COLONIES

  EMPIRE OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT

  KINGDOMS OF THE SUCCESSORS OF ALEXANDER

  ANCIENT ITALY (NORTHERN PART)

  ANCIENT ITALY (SOUTHERN PART)

  ANCIENT ROMAN EMPIRE

  THE NEW NATIONS AFTER THE GREAT MIGRATIONS (ABOUT A.D. 500)

  EMPIRE OF THE SARACENS (ABOUT A.D. 750)

  EMPIRE OF CHARLEMAGNE

  EMPIRE OF CHARLEMAGNE A.D. 843

  EMPIRE OF CHARLEMAGNE A.D. 887

  CENTRAL EUROPE ABOUT A.D. 980

  MEDITERRANEAN LANDS AT THE TIME OF THE CRUSADES

  FRANCE AND ENGLAND, A.D. 1154-1189

  CENTRAL EUROPE, A.D. 1360

  CENTRAL EUROPE, A.D. 1660

  ITALY ABOUT THE MIDDLE OF IHE SIXTEENTH CENTURY

  EUROPE AT THE TIME OF NAPOLEON'S GREATEST POWER (ABOUT A.D. 1810)

  CENTRAL EUROPE IN 1815

  EUROPE AFTER 1878

  AUSTRO-HUNGARY SINCE 1878

  FRANCE SINCE 1871

  GERMAN EMPIRE SINCE 1871

  TURKISH EMPIRE, GREECE, ETC., SINCE 1878

  TERRITORIAL GROWTH OF THE UNITED STATES

  ASIA AT THE PRESENT TIME



UNIVERSAL HISTORY.


INTRODUCTION.

DEFINITION OF HISTORY.--The subject of history is man. History has for
its object to record his doings and experiences. It may then be
concisely defined as a narrative of past events in which men have been
concerned. To describe the earth, the abode of man, to delineate the
different kingdoms of nature, and to inquire into the origin of them,
or to explain the physical or mental constitution of human beings, is
no part of the office of history. All this belongs to the departments
of natural and intellectual science.

But history, as we now understand the term, is more than a bare record
of what men have done and suffered. It aims to point out the
connection of events with one another. It seeks to explain the causes
and the consequences of things that occur. It would trace the steps
that mark the progress of the race, and of the different portions of
it, through extended periods. It brings to light the thread which
unites each particular stage in the career of a people, or of mankind
as a whole, with what went before, and with what came after.

NATIONS.--History has been called "the biography of a society."
Biography has to do with the career of an individual. History is
concerned with the successive actions and fortunes of a community; in
its broadest extent, with the experiences of the human family. It is
only when men are connected by the social bond, and remain so united
for a greater or less period, that there is room for history. It is,
therefore, with nations, in their internal progress and in their
mutual relations, that history especially deals. Of mere clans, or
loosely organized tribes, it can have little to say. History can go no
farther than to explore their genealogy, and state what were their
journeyings and habits. The nation is a form of society that rests on
the same basis--a basis at once natural and part of a divine
system--as the family. By a nation is meant a people dwelling in a
definite territory, living under the same government, and bound
together by such ties as a common language, a common religion, the
same institutions and customs.  The elements that enter into that
national spirit which is the bond of unity, are multiple. They vary to
a degree in different peoples. As individuals are not alike, and as
the history of any particular community is modified and molded by
these individual differences, so the course of the history of mankind
is shaped by the peculiar characteristics of the various nations, and
by their interaction upon one another. In like manner, groups of
nations, each characterized by distinctive traits derived from
affinities of race or of religion, or from other sources, act on each
other, and thus help to determine the course of the historic stream.

SCOPE OF HISTORY.--The rise and progress of _culture_ and
_civilization_ in their various constituents is the theme of
history. It does not limit its attention to a particular fraction of a
people, to the exclusion of the rest. Governments and rulers, and the
public doings of states,--such as foreign wars, and the struggles of
rival dynasties,--naturally form a prominent topic in historical
writings. But this is only one department in the records of the
past. More and more history interests itself in the character of
society at large, and in the phases through which it has passed. How
men lived from day to day, what their occupations were, their comforts
and discomforts, their ideas, sentiments, and modes of intercourse,
their state as regards art, letters, invention, religious
enlightenment,--these are points on which history, as at present
studied and written, undertakes to shed light.

POINTS OF VIEW.--An eminent German philosopher of our day, _Hermann
Lotze_, intimates that there are five phases of human development,
and hence five points of view from which the course of history is to
be surveyed. These are the _intellectual_ (embracing the progress
of truth and knowledge), the _industrial_, the _aesthetic_
(including art in all its higher ramifications), the _religious_,
and the political. An able English scholar, _Goldwin Smith_,
resolves the elements of human progress, and thus the most general
topics of history, into three, "the moral, the intellectual, and the
productive; or, _virtue_, _knowledge_, and _industry_."
"But these three elements," he adds, "though distinct, are not
separate, but closely connected with each other."

THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY.--That there is, in some sense, a "reign of
law" in the succession of human events, is a conviction warranted by
observed facts, as well as inspired by religion. Events do not spring
into being, disjoined from antecedents leading to them. Even
turning-points in history, which seem, at the first glance, abrupt,
are found to be dependent on previous conditions. They are perceived
to be the natural issue of the times that have gone before. Preceding
events have foreshadowed them. There are laws of historical progress
which have their root in the characteristics of human nature. Ends are
wrought out, which bear on them evident marks of design. History, as a
whole, is the carrying out of a plan:

  "... through the ages one increasing purpose runs."

  _Augustine_ long ago argued, that he who has not left "even the
  entrails of the smallest and most insignificant animal, or the
  feather of a bird, or the little flower of a plant, or the leaf of a
  tree, without a harmony, and, as it were, a mutual peace among all
  its parts,--that God can never be believed to have left the kingdoms
  of men, their dominations and servitudes, outside of the laws of his
  providence."

To discern the plan of history, and the causes or laws through which
it is accomplished, as far as our limited capacity will allow, is the
object of what is called the philosophy of history.

FREEDOM AND LAW.--It must not be forgotten, however, that man is a
free agent. History, although it is not an aimless process, is,
nevertheless, not subject to the forces and laws which govern in the
realm of matter. Physical analogies are not a literal image of what
takes place in the sphere of intelligence and freedom. Moral evil,
wherever it is a factor in history, has its origin in the will of
man. In respect to it, the agency of God is permissive and
overruling. Through his providence, order is made to emerge, a worthy
goal is at last reached, despite the elements of disorder introduced
by human perversity.

Nor is progress continuous and unbroken. It is often, as one has said,
a spiral rather than a straight line. It is not an unceasing advance:
there are backward movements, or what appear to be such. Of particular
nations it is frequently evident, that, intellectually and morally, as
well as in power and thrift, they have sunk below a level once
attained.

  Of the inscrutable blending of human freedom with a pre-ordained
  design, GUIZOT says: "Man advances in the execution of a plan which
  he has not conceived, and of which he is not even aware. He is the
  free and intelligent artificer of a work which is not his own."
  "Conceive a great machine, the design of which is centered in a
  single mind, though its various parts are intrusted to different
  workmen, separated from, and strangers to, each other. No one of
  them understands the work as a whole, nor the general result which
  he concurs in producing; but every one executes with intelligence
  and freedom, by rational and voluntary acts, the particular task
  assigned to him." (_Lectures on the History of Civilization_,
  Lect. xi.)

PERSONAL POWER.--The progress of society has been inseparably
connected with the agency of eminent persons. Signal changes, whether
wholesome or mischievous, are linked to the names of individuals who
have specially contributed to bring them to pass. The achievements of
heroes stand out in as bold relief in authentic history as in the
obscure era of myth and fable. Fruitful inventions, after the earlier
steps in civilization are taken, are traceable to particular authors,
exalted by their genius above the common level. So it is with the
literary works which have exerted the deepest and most lasting
influence. Nations have their pilots in war and in peace. Epochs in
the progress of the fine arts are ushered in by individuals of
surpassing mental power. Reforms and revolutions, which alter the
direction of the historic stream, emanate from individuals in whose
minds they are conceived, and by whose energy they are effected. The
force thus exerted by the leaders in history is not accounted for by
reference to general laws. Great men are not puppets moved by the
spirit of the time. To be sure, there must be a preparation for them,
and a groundwork of sympathy among their contemporaries: otherwise
their activity would call forth no response. Independently of the age
that gives them birth, their power would lose its distinctive form and
hue: they would be incapable of influence.

_Cromwell_ would not have been Cromwell had he been born in any
other period of English history. Nor could he have played his part,
being what he was, had not the religious and political struggles of
England for generations framed a theater adapted to his talents and
character. _Michael Angelo_ could not have arisen in a
half-civilized tribe. His creative power would have found no field in
a society rude, and blind to the attractions of art. Nevertheless, his
power _was_ creative. Cromwell and Michael Angelo, and such as
they, are not the passive organs, the mere outcome, of the communities
in which they appear. Without the original thought and personal energy
of leaders, momentous changes in the life of nations could never have
taken place. A great man may be obliged to wait long for the answering
sympathy which is required to give effect to his thoughts and
purposes. Such a mind is said to be in advance of the age. Another
generation may have to appear before the harvest springs from the seed
that he has sown. Moreover, it is not true that great men, efficient
leaders, come forward whenever there is an exigency calling for them,
or an urgent need. Rather is it true that terrible disasters sometimes
occur, at critical points in history, just for the lack of leaders fit
for the emergency.

  THE MEANING OF HISTORY.--A thoughtful student can hardly fail to
  propose to himself the question, "What is the meaning of history?
  Why is this long drama with all that is noble and joyous in it, and
  with its abysses of sin and misery, enacted at all?" It is only a
  partial answer that one can hope to give to this grave inquiry, for
  the designs of Providence can not be fully fathomed. But, among the
  ends in view, the moral training of mankind stands forth with a
  marked prominence. The deliverance of the race from moral evil and
  error, and the building-up of a purified society, enriched with all
  the good that belongs to the ideal of humanity, and exalted by
  fellowship with God, is not only an end worthy in itself, but it is
  the end towards which the onward movement of history is seen to be
  directed. Hence, a central place in the course of history belongs to
  the life and work of Jesus Christ.

  No more satisfactory solution of this problem of the significance of
  history has ever been offered than that brought forward by the
  Apostle Paul in Acts xvii. 27, where he says that the nations of men
  were assigned to their places on the earth, and their duration as
  well as boundaries determined, "that they should seek the Lord, if
  haply they might feel after him, and find him."

  WORKS ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY.-(Professor C. K. ADAMS'S
  _Manual of Historical Literature_ (1882) is an excellent guide
  in historical reading. Briefer lists of works in _Methods of
  Teaching and Studying History_, edited by G. Stanley Hall.)
  _Books on the Philosophy of History_: R. FLINT, _The
  Philosophy of History_, vol. i.,--Writers on the subject in
  France and Germany. Vol. ii. will treat of England and Italy. The
  work is a critical review of the literature on the
  subject. Schlegel, _The Philosophy of History_; Shedd's
  _Lectures on the Philosophy of History_; Bunsen's _God in
  History_ (3 vols., 1870); LOTZE, _Mikrokosmus_, vol. iii,
  book vii.; Montesquieu's _Spirit of the Laws_; Buckle,
  _History of Civilization in England_ (2 vols.). This work is
  based on the denial of free-will, and the doctrine that physical
  influences,--climate, soil, food, etc.,--are the main causes of
  intellectual progress. Draper's _History of the Intellectual
  Development of Europe_(2 vols., 2d edition, 1876) is in the same
  vein. Opposed to this philosophy are GOLDWIN SMITH'S _Lectures on
  the Study of History_; C. Kingsley, in his _Miscellanies, The
  Limits of Exact Science as applied to History_; Froude, in
  _Short Studies_, vol. i., _The Science of History_; Lotze,
  as above; also, Flint, and Droysen, _Grundriss der
  Historik_. Hegel's _Philosophy of History_ has profound
  observations, but connected with an _a priori_ theory.

  HISTORICAL WRITING.--The beginning of historical writing was in the
  form of lists of kings, or bare records of battles, or the simple
  registration of other occurrences of remarkable interest. The
  Egyptians, Babylonians, Assyrians, Chinese, and other nations,
  furnish examples of this rudimental type of historical writing. More
  continuous annals followed; but these are meager in contents, and
  make no attempt to find links of connection between events. The
  ancient Hebrew historians are on a much higher plane, and, apart
  from their religious value, far surpass all other Asiatic
  histories. It was in _Greece_, the fountain-head of science,
  that history, as an art, first appeared. _Herodotus_, born
  early in the fifth century B.C., first undertook to satisfy
  curiosity respecting the past by a more elaborate and entertaining
  narrative. He begins his work thus: "These are the researches of
  Herodotus of Halicarnassus, which he publishes, in the hope of
  thereby preserving from decay the remembrance of what men have done,
  and of preventing the great and marvelous actions of the Greeks and
  the barbarians from losing their due meed of glory, and withal to
  put on record what were the grounds of their hostility." In
  Herodotus, history, owing to the inquiry made into the causes of
  events, begins to rise above the level of a mere chronicle, its
  primitive type. _Thucydides_, who died about 400 B.C.,
  followed. He is far more accurate in his investigations, having a
  deep insight into the origin of the events which he relates, and is
  a model of candor. He, too, writes to minister to the inquisitive
  spirit of his countrymen, and of the generations that were to
  follow. He began to write his history of the war between the
  Athenians and the Peloponnesians while it was still going on, in the
  belief, he says, "that it would turn out great, and worthier of
  being recorded than any that had preceded it." The attention of
  historical writers was still confined to a particular country, or to
  insulated groups of events. Before there could spring up the idea of
  universal history, it was necessary that there should be a broader
  view of mankind as a whole. The ancient _Stoics_ had a glimpse
  of the race as a family, and of the nations as forming one complex
  unity. The conquests and extended dominion of Rome first suggested
  the idea of universal history. _Polybius_, a Greek in the
  second century B.C., had watched the progress of Rome, in its career
  of conquest, until "the affairs of Italy and Africa," as he says,
  "joined with those of Asia and Greece, and all moved together
  towards one fixed and single point." He tells us that particular
  histories can not give us a knowledge of the whole, more than the
  survey of the divided members of a body once endowed with life and
  beauty can yield a just conception of all the comeliness and vigor
  which it has received from Nature. To Polybius belongs the
  distinction of being the first to undertake a universal
  history. Christianity, with its doctrine of the unity of mankind,
  and with all the moral and religious teaching characteristic of the
  gospel, contributed effectively to the widening of the view of the
  office and scope of history. It is only in quite recent times that
  history has directed its attention predominantly to _social
  progress_, and to its causes and conditions.

  History, in its etymological sense (from the Greek, historia), meant
  the ascertaining of facts by inquiry; then, the results of this
  inquiry, the knowledge thus obtained. The work of Herodotus was
  "history" in the strictest sense: he acquired his information by
  travel and personal interrogation.

  The German philosopher, _Hegel_, has divided histories into
  three classes: 1. _Original histories_; i.e., works written by
  contemporaries of the events described, who share in the spirit of
  the times, and may have personally taken part in the
  transactions. Such are the works of Herodotus, Thucydides,
  Xenophon's Anabasis, Clarendon's History of the Great Rebellion in
  England, Caesar's Commentaries. 2. _Reflective histories_,
  where the author writes at a later point of time, on the basis of
  materials which he gathers up, but is not himself a partaker in the
  spirit of the age of which he treats. 3. _Philosophical
  histories_, which set forth the rational development of history
  in its inmost idea.

  Another classification is the following: 1. _Genealogies_, like
  the records of Manetho, the Egyptian priest. 2. _The
  chronicle_, following the chronological order, and telling the
  story in a simple, popular way. 3. _The "pragmatic"_ form of
  writing, which aims to explain by reference to the past some
  particular characteristic or phase of the present, and uses history
  to point a special moral lesson. 4. The form of history which traces
  the rise and progress of "_ideas_," tendencies, or ruling
  forces,--such as the idea of civil equality in early Rome or in
  modern France, the religious ideas of Mohammedanism, the idea of
  representative government, the idea of German unity, etc.

  A broad line of distinction has been drawn between "the old or
  _artistic_ type of history," and the new or _sociological_
  type which belongs to the present century. The ancient historians
  represented the former type. They prized literary form. They aimed
  to interweave moral and political reflections. Polybius often
  interrupts his narrative to introduce remarks of this sort. But they
  were not, as a rule, diligent and accurate in their researches. And,
  above all, they had no just conception of society as a whole, and of
  the complex forces out of which the visible scene springs. The
  Greeks were the masters in this first or artistic form of
  history. The French Revolution was one stimulus to a profounder and
  more comprehensive method of studying history. The methods and
  investigations of natural science have had a decided influence in
  the same direction.

THE SOURCES OF HISTORY.--History must depend for credence on credible
evidence. In order to justify belief, one must either himself have
seen or heard the facts related, or have the testimony, direct or
indirect, of witnesses or of well-informed contemporaries. The sources
of historic knowledge are mainly comprised in _oral tradition_,
or in some form of _written records_.

_Tradition_ is exposed to the infirmities of memory, and to the
unconscious invention and distortion which grow out of imagination and
feeling. Ordinarily, bare tradition, not verified by corroborative
proofs, can not be trusted later than the second generation from the
circumstances narrated. It ceases to be reliable when it has been
transmitted through more than two hands. In the case of a great and
startling event, like a destructive convulsion of nature or a
protracted war, the authentic story, though unwritten, of the central
facts, at least, is of much longer duration. There may be visible
monuments that serve to perpetuate the recollection of the occurrences
which they commemorate. _Institutions_ may exist--popular
festivals and the like--which keep alive the memory of past events,
and, in certain circumstances, are sufficient to verify them to
generations far removed in time. Events of a stirring character, when
they are embodied in _songs_ of an early date, may be transmitted
orally, though in a poetic dress. Songs and legends, it may be added,
even when they do not suffice to verify the incidents to which they
refer, are valuable as disclosing the sentiments and habits of the
times when they originated, or were cherished. The central fact, the
nucleus of the tradition, may be historical when all the details
belonging with it have been effaced, or have been superseded by other
details, the product of imagination. The historical student is to
distinguish between traditionary tales which are _untrustworthy
throughout_, and traditions which have _their roots in
fact_. Apart from oral tradition, the sources of historical
knowledge are the following:--

1. Contemporary registers, chronicles, and other documents, either
now, or known to have been originally, in a manuscript form.

2. Inscriptions on monuments and coins. Such, for example, are the
inscriptions on the monuments of Egypt and on the buried ruins of
Nineveh and Babylon. Such are the ancient epitaphs, heathen and
Christian, in the Roman catacombs. The study of ancient inscriptions
of various sorts has thrown much light of late upon Grecian and Roman
antiquity.

3. The entire literature of a people, in which its intellectual,
moral, and social condition, at any particular era, is mirrored.

4. Material structures of every kind, as altars, tombs, private
dwellings,--as those uncovered at Pompeii,--public edifices, civil and
religious, paintings, weapons, household utensils. These all tell a
story relative to the knowledge and taste, the occupations and
domestic habits, and the religion, of a past generation or of an
extinct people.

5 Language is a memorial of the past, of the more value since it is
not the product of deliberate contrivance. _Comparative
philology_, following languages back to their earlier stages and to
the parent stocks, unveils the condition of society at remote
epochs. It not only describes the origin of nations, but teaches
something respecting their primitive state.

6. Histories written at former periods, but subsequently to the events
described in them, are a secondary but valuable source of historical
knowledge. This is especially true when their authors had access to
traditions that were nearer their fountain, or to literary monuments
which have perished.

  HISTORICAL CRITICISM.--Historical scholars are much more exacting as
  regards evidence than was formerly the case. The criticism of what
  purports to be proof is more searching. At the same time, what is
  called "historical divination" can not be altogether
  excluded. Learned and sagacious scholars have conjectured the
  existence of facts, where a gap in recorded history--"the logic of
  events"--seemed to presuppose them; and later discoveries have
  verified the guess. This is analogous to the success of Leverrier
  and Adams in inferring the existence of an unknown planet, which the
  telescope afterwards discovered. An example of historical divination
  on a large scale is furnished by the theories of the great German
  historian, _Niebuhr_, in respect to early Roman history. He
  propounded opinions, however, which in many particulars fail to
  obtain general assent at present.

  CREDIBILITY OF HISTORY.--At the opposite pole from credulity is an
  unwarrantable historical skepticism. The story is told of Sir Walter
  Raleigh, that when he was a prisoner in the Tower, and was engaged
  in writing his _History of the World_, he heard the sounds of a
  fracas in the prison-yard. On inquiry of those who were concerned in
  it, and were on the spot, he found so many contradictions in their
  statements that he could not get at the truth. Whereupon, it
  occurred to him as a vain thing to undertake to describe what had
  occurred on the vast theater of the world, when he could not
  ascertain the truth about an event occurring within a bow-shot. The
  anecdote simply illustrates, however, the difficulty of getting at
  the exact truth respecting details,--a difficulty constantly
  exemplified in courts of justice. The fact of the conflict in the
  court of the Tower, the general cause, the parties engaged, the
  consequences,--as, for example, what punishment was inflicted,--were
  undisputed. The great facts which influence the course of history,
  it is not difficult to ascertain. Moreover, as against an
  extravagant skepticism, it may be said that history provides us with
  a vast amount of authentic information which contemporaries, and
  even individual actors, were not possessed of. This is through the
  bringing to light of documents from a great variety of sources, many
  of which were secret, or not open to the view of all the leaders in
  the transactions to which they refer. The private correspondence of
  the Protestant leaders,--Luther, Melanchthon, Cranmer, etc.,--the
  letters of Erasmus, the official reports of the Venetian
  ambassadors, the letters of William the Silent and of Philip II.,
  put us in possession of much information, which at the time was a
  secret to most of the prominent participants in the events of the
  sixteenth century. The correspondence of Washington, Hamilton,
  Jefferson, John Adams, Wolcott, Pickering, etc., introduces us into
  the secret counsels of the American political leaders of that
  day. Numerous facts conveyed from one to another under the seal of
  privacy, and not known to the others, are thus revealed to us.

  On the nature and value of tradition, a very valuable discussion is
  that of EWALD, _History of Israel_, vol. i. pp. 13-38; Sir
  G. C. LEWIS, _ Essays on the Credibility of Early Roman
  History_, in which Niebuhr's conclusions are criticised;
  A. Bisset, _Essays on Historical Truth_. On the sources of
  history, Art. by GAIRDNER in _The Contemporary Review_,
  vol. xxxviii.

HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY.--Political Geography, which describes the earth
as inhabited, and as parceled out among nations, has a close relation
to history. Without a distinct idea of the position of places and the
boundaries of countries, historical narrations are enveloped in a sort
of haze. _France_, for example, is a name with very different
meanings at different dates in the past. Unless the varying uses of
the word _Burgundy_ are understood, important parts of European
history are left in confusion.

PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY.--Even more helpful is _Physical Geography_,
which surveys the earth in its three great divisions,--land, sea, and
air,--without reference to lines of political demarkation. The
configuration of the different portions of the globe, with the
varieties of climate, the relations of mountain and plain, of land and
water, have strongly affected the character of nations and the
currents of history. In regions extremely hot or extremely cold man
can not thrive, or build up a rich and enduring civilization. The
occupations of a people are largely dependent on its
situation,--whether it be maritime or away from the sea,--and on
peculiarities of soil and temperature. The character of the Nile
valley, and its periodical inundation, is a striking illustration of
the possible extent of geographical influences. The peninsular and
mountainous character of Greece went far to shape the form of Greek
political society. The high plateau which forms the greater portion of
Spain, with the fertile belts of valley on the Atlantic and
Mediterranean border, have helped to determine the employments and the
character of the Spanish people. Had the physical characteristics of
the Spanish peninsula been essentially different, the success of
Wellington in expelling the French, with the forces at his disposal,
would not have been possible. Were there a chain of mountains along
our Atlantic coast as near as are the Andes to the Pacific, what
different results would have arisen from the English settlements in
North America! The Alpine barrier in the north of Italy was
indispensable to the building-up and maintenance of the dominion of
ancient Rome. Of the great basin or plain between the Alps and the
Apennines, open to the sea only on the east, through which flows one
great river, fed by streams from the mountains on either side,
Dr. Arnold says: "Who can wonder that this large and richly watered
plain should be filled with flourishing cities, or that it should have
been contended for so often by successful invaders?" While the agency
of climate, soil, and other physical circumstances may easily be
exaggerated, that agency must be duly considered in accounting for
historical phenomena.

  The best historical Atlas is the copious German work of VON
  SPRUNER. FREEMAN'S _Historical Geography of Europe_ is a work
  of great value. DROVSEN'S _Allg. Hist. Atlas._ Smaller atlases
  are those of PUTZGER, Rhode, Appleton's _Hist. Atlas_, the
  _International_, and the _Collegiate_. Smaller still,
  Keith Johnston's Crown Atlases and Half-Crown Atlases. On Mediæval
  History, Labberton's Atlas; also, Koeppen: in Ancient Geography,
  SMITH'S work, KIEPERT'S, Long's. On Physical Geography, GUYOT'S
  text-books; Vaughan's _Connection between History and Physical
  Geography_, in _Contemp. Review_, vol. v.; Hall's _Methods
  of Studying History_, etc., p. 201 _seq._,
  _Encycl. Brit._, Art. _Geography_.

CHRONOLOGY.--An exact method of establishing dates was slowly reached.
The invention of eras was indispensable to this end. The earliest
definite time for the dating of events was established at
Babylon,--the era of Nabonassar, 747 B.C. The Greeks, from about 300
B.C., dated events from the first recorded victory at the Olympic
games, 776 B.C. These games occurred every fourth year. Each Olympiad
was thus a period of four years. The Romans, though not until some
centuries after the founding of Rome, dated from that event; i.e.,
from 753 B.C. The Mohammedan era begins at the Hegira, or flight of
Mohammed from Mecca, 622 A.D. The method of dating from the birth of
Jesus was introduced by Dionysius Exiguus, a Roman abbot, about the
middle of the sixth century. This epoch was placed by him about four
years too late. This requires us to fix the date of the birth of
Christ at 4 B.C.

  The day was the simplest and earliest division of time. The week has
  been in use for this purpose in the East from time immemorial. It
  was not introduced among the Romans until after the spread of
  Christianity in the Empire. The month was the earlier unit for
  periods of greater length. To make the lunar and the solar years
  correspond, and to determine the exact length of the solar year, was
  a work of difficulty, and was only gradually effected. _Julius_
  _Cæsar_ reformed the calendar in 46 B.C., the date of the
  Julian era. This made the year eleven minutes too long. _Pope
  Gregory XIII_. corrected the reckoning, in 1582, by ordering
  Oct. 5th to be called the 15th, and instituted the "Gregorian
  calendar." The change, or the "New Style," was subsequently adopted
  by Great Britain (in 1752), and by the other Protestant nations. The
  difference for the present century between the Old and the New Style
  is twelve days: during the last century it was eleven. The Julian
  civil year began with Jan. 1. It was not until the eighteenth
  century that this became the uniform date for the commencement of
  the legal year among the Latin Christian nations.

  On the general subjects of chronology: _Encycl. Britt_.,
  Arts. _Chronology_ and _Calendar_. Manuals of Reference:
  ROSSE'S _Index of Dates_ (1858); Haydn's _Dictionary of
  Dates_ (Vincent's edition, 1866); BLAIR'S _Chronological
  Tables_; Woodward and Cates, _Encycl. of Chronology_ (1872).


ETHNOLOGY.

Ethnology is a new science. Its function is to ascertain the origin
and filiation, the customs and institutions, of the various nations
and tribes which make up, or have made up in the past, the human
race. In tracing their relationship to one another, or their
genealogy, the sources of information are mainly three,--_physical
characteristics, language_, and _written memorials_ of every
sort.

Ethnology is a branch of Anthropology, as this is a subdivision of
Zoölogy, and this, again, of Biology. Ethnography differs from
Ethnology in dealing more with details of description, and less with
rational exposition.

RACES OF MANKIND.--Authorities differ widely from one another in their
classification of races. _Prichard_ made seven, which were
reduced by _Cuvier_ to three; viz., _Caucasian, Mongolian,
Ethiopic.  Blumenbach_ made five, and _Pickering_ eleven. It
is the Caucasian variety which has been chiefly distinguished in
history, and active in the building-up of civilization. None of the
numerous schemes of division, from a zoölogical point of view,
however, are satisfactory.

  _Huxley_ has proposed a fourfold classification: 1. The
  Australoid, represented by the Australians and the indigenous tribes
  of Southern India. 2. The Negroid. 3. The Mongoloid. 4. The
  Xanthochroi, or fair whites, among whom are comprised most of the
  inhabitants of Northern Europe. To these are added a fifth variety,
  the Melanochroi, to which belong a part of the Celts, the Spaniards,
  Greeks, Arabs, etc.

  Of the various methods of race-division, _A. van Humboldt_
  says: "We fail to recognize any typical sharpness of definition, or
  any general or well-established principle, in the division of these
  groups. The extremes of form and color are certainly separated, but
  without regard to the races which can not be included in any of
  these classes." (_Cosmos_, i. 365.) For example, black skin,
  woolly hair, and a negro-like cast of countenance, are not
  necessarily connected together.

MONOGENISM.--Zoölogists, from the point of view of their own science,
now more generally favor the _monogenist_ doctrine, which traces
mankind to a single pair, than the polygenist, which assumed different
centers of origin. The present tendencies of natural science,
especially since Darwin, are favorable to the monogenist view.

  "The opinion of modern Zoölogists, whose study of the species and
  breeds of animals makes them the best judges, is against this view
  of the several origins of man, for two principal reasons. First,
  That all tribes of men, from the blackest to the whitest, the most
  savage to the most cultured, have such general likeness in the
  structure of their bodies and the working of their minds, as is
  easiest and best accounted for by their being descended from a
  common ancestry, however distant. Second, That all the human races,
  notwithstanding their form and color, appear capable of freely
  intermarrying, and forming crossed races of every combination, such
  as the millions of mulattoes and mestizoes sprung in the New World
  from the mixture of Europeans, Africans, and native Americans; this
  again points to a common ancestry of all the races of man. We may
  accept the theory of the unity of mankind as best agreeing with
  ordinary experience and scientific research." (Tylor's
  _Anthropology_, etc., pp. 5, 6.)

EVIDENCE OF LANGUAGE.--Languages, through marked affinities, are
grouped together into several great families, i. The _Aryan_, or
Indo-European, of which the oldest known branch is the Sanskrit, the
language in which the ancient books of the Hindus, the Vedas, were
written. With the Sanskrit belong the Iranian or Persian, the Greek,
the Latin or Italic, the Celtic, the Germanic or Teutonic (under which
are included the Scandinavian tongues), the Slavonian or
Slavo-Lettic. 2. The _Semitic_, embracing the communities
described in Genesis as the descendants of Shem. Under this head are
embraced, first, the Assyrian and Babylonian; secondly, the Hebrew and
Phoenician, with the Syrian or Aramaic; and thirdly, the Arabic. The
Phoenician was spread among numerous colonies, of which Carthage was
the chief. The Arabic followed the course of Mohammedan conquest. It
is the language of the northern border of Africa, and has strongly
affected various other languages,--the Persian, Turkish, etc. 3. The
_Turanian or Scythian_. This is an extensive family of
languages. The Finno-Hungarian, which includes two cultivated peoples,
the Fins and Hungarians; the Samoyed, stretching from the North Sea
far eastward to the boundary between Russia and China; and the Turkish
or Tartar, spreading from European Turkey over a great part of Central
Asia, are connected together by family ties. They spring from one
parent stock. Whether the Mongolian and the Tungusic--the last is the
language of the Manchus--are also thus affiliated, is a point not
absolutely settled.

Besides these three great divisions, there are other languages, as the
_Chinese_, and the monosyllabic tongues of south-eastern Asia,
which possibly are connected lineally with it; the _Japanese_;
the _Malay-Polynesian_, a well-developed family; the
_Hamitic_ (of which the Egyptian or Coptic is the principal
member); the _Dravidian_ or _South Indian_; the _South
African_; the _Central African_; the _American Indian_
languages, etc.

  On language and the divisions of language, W. D. WHITNEY,
  _Language, and the Study of Language_ (1867), _Oriental and
  Linguistic Studies_ (two series, 1872-74), _Life and Growth of
  Language_ (1875); Art. _Philology_, in _Encycl. Brit_.,
  vol. xviii.; Max Müller's _Lectures on the Science of Language_
  (two series), and other writings by the same author.

ETHNOLOGY AND HISTORY.--History is generally written from the
political point of view. It is the history of nations considered
separately and in relation to one another. There are, also, histories
of culture. History, from a cultural point of view, without paying
regard to national boundaries, seeks to unfold the rise and progress
of arts and industry, of inventions, of customs, manners, and
institutions. It is the history of culture and civilization. History,
from the ethnological point of view, would describe the migrations and
experiences of the different races of men, and the formation of the
various nationalities by these races, through conquest and
intermixture. Following the divisions of linguistic science, we should
have, first, the _Egyptian_ race and their history. Then we
should have the _Semitic_ race, in the three eras of their
pre-eminence, and in their various branches. Then would come the
_Aryan_, or Indo-European family, whose power, except when
interrupted and partially broken by the Mohammedan conquests, has
continued to dominate in history since the rise of the ancient Persian
Empire.

  There have been three periods of Semitic ascendency,--the era of the
  Assyrian and Babylonian empires; that of the Phoenician cities and
  of Carthage (a Tyrian settlement), with their colonies; and that of
  the Arabic-Mohammedan Conquests. This last epoch falls within the
  Christian era. In this course of Semitic history would be embraced
  the narrative of the Israelites, and of their dispersion in ancient
  and in modern times. The Indo-European, or Aryan family, follows
  next in order. In recording its history, we should consider, first,
  its oldest representative of which we have knowledge,--the Indian
  race, with its literature, its social organization, and its
  religions, Brahmanism and Buddhism. Then come the Persians, with
  their religion founded by _Zoroaster_, and the Armenians. With
  the fall of the Ancient Persian Empire, the center of power was
  transferred from Asia to Europe, where it has since continued,
  though still in the hands of the same Aryan race. The history of the
  Greeks and of the Romans succeeds; then the history of the three
  races,--the Celtic, Teutonic, and Slavonian,--as they present
  themselves at the threshold of authentic history. The forming of the
  several nationalities of Europe would have to be traced: the
  Slavonian, including Russia and Poland; the Teutonic, comprising
  England, Holland, Germany, and the Scandinavian peoples (viz.,
  Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Iceland); the Romanic or Italic nations
  (viz., Portugal, Spain, Provence, Italy, Wallachia, the Grisons of
  Switzerland), which are the nations the basis of whose languages is
  the rustic or people's Latin of the middle ages. Such, in brief
  outline, is the method which history, from the point of view of race
  affinities, as these are indicated by language, would adopt.

UNITY OF DESCENT.--Whether mankind are all descended from one
pair--the _Monogenist_ view, or spring from more than one center
of origin--the _Polygenist_ view, is a question which
philological science can not answer. The facts of language are
reconcilable with either doctrine. While cautious philologists are
slow in admitting distinct affinities between the generic families of
speech,--as the Semitic and Indo-European,--which would be indicative
of a common origin, they agree in the judgment, that, on account of
the mutability of language, especially when unwritten, and while in
its earlier stages, no conclusion adverse to the monogenist doctrine
can be drawn from the diversities of speech now existing, or that are
known to have existed at any past time. As far as science is
concerned, the decision of the question must be left to zoölogy. The
tendencies of natural science at present, as we have said above, are
strongly toward the monogenist view. The variety of physical
characteristics not only affords no warrant for assuming diversity of
species among men; they do not even imply diversity of parentage at
the beginning.

  "Nothing," says Max Müller, "necessitates the admission of different
  independent beginnings for the _material_ elements" [the
  vocabulary] "of the Turanian, Semitic, and Aryan branches of
  speech."  The same thing Müller affirms of "the formal elements"
  [the grammatical structure] "of these groups of languages." "We can
  perfectly understand how, either through individual influences or by
  the wear and tear of speech in its continuous working, the different
  systems of grammar of Asia and Europe may have been produced."
  (_Lectures on Language_, 1st series, p. 340.) The same
  conclusions are reached by Professor W. D. Whitney, who, while
  disclaiming for linguistic science the power to prove that the human
  race in the beginning formed one society, says, that it is "even far
  more demonstrable" that it can "never prove the variety of human
  races and origins." (_Life and Growth of Language_, p. 269.)

  We know that nations can learn and unlearn a language. The Irish,
  adopting the language of their English conquerors, is one of many
  examples of the same sort in history. What effects upon language
  took place, prior to recorded history, from the mingling of tribes
  and peoples, it is impossible to ascertain. The consequences to
  language, of mixture among different forms of speech, were like
  those which must have been produced upon the physical man from the
  mingling of diverse physical types in remote ages. Science, if it
  has no decided verdict to render, does not stand in conflict with
  the monogenist doctrine, which has generally been understood to be
  the teaching of the Scriptures.


MYTHOLOGY.

The polytheistic religions are in themselves a highly interesting part
of the history of mankind. In the multiform character that belongs to
them we find reflected the peculiar traits of the several peoples
among whom they have arisen. The history of religion stands in a close
connection with the development of the fine arts,--architecture and
sculpture, painting, music, and also poetry. The earliest rhythmical
utterance was in hymns to the gods. To worship, all the arts are
largely indebted for their birth and growth. This, however, is only
one of the ways in which religion is interwoven with the rise and
progress of civilization.

  By _mythology_; we mean the collective beliefs of any tribe or
  nation respecting deities or semi-divine personages. Recent studies
  in language, or the science of _comparative philology_, have
  thrown light on the origin of mythology, and upon the affinities of
  different polytheistic religions with one another. Among various
  nations belonging to the same family (as, for example, the peoples
  of the _Aryan_ race), names of gods, and, to some extent,
  qualities and deeds attributed to them, have been identified. Myths
  are found to have traveled in different guises from land to land. At
  the same time, these discoveries have given rise to much unverified
  theory and conjecture. Too much stress has been laid, by certain
  writers, on _mistakes in language_ as a source of mythology. In
  the primitive stage of language, all nouns had a _gender_,
  either male or female; and verbs, even auxiliary verbs, it is
  alleged, expressed _activity_ of some sort. On the basis of
  these facts it has been inferred, that, at a later day, figurative
  expressions, descriptive of natural changes, were taken as literal;
  as if one should interpret the saying, "the sun follows the dawn,"
  as meaning that one person pursues another. By this kind of
  misunderstanding, it has been thought, a throng of mythological
  tales arose. By some it is held that the names of animals, which had
  been given to ancestors, were interpreted literally by their savage
  descendants, or that traditions of having come from a certain
  _mountain_ or _river_ caused these natural objects to be
  mistakenly regarded as actual progenitors. These suggestions are of
  very limited value in solving the problem of the origin of the
  ethnic religions. Much, however, has been learned from observing the
  rites and beliefs of existing savage nations. Not a few religious
  notions and ceremonies, once in vogue among cultivated heathen
  peoples, may be plausibly considered a survival from a more remote
  and barbarous condition of society.

  That mythology is the product of a mere exaggeration of actual
  events, or is an allegorical picture, either of the operations of
  nature or of human traits, is an untenable and obsolete view.

  We shall not err in defining the main sources of the religions to
  be, _first_, the sense of dependence, and the yearning for the
  fellowship and favor of powers "not ourselves," by which the lot of
  men is felt to be determined; _secondly_, the effort to explain
  the world of nature above and beneath, and the occurrences of life;
  and _thirdly_, the personifying instinct which belongs to the
  childhood of nations as of individuals. This tendency leads to the
  attributing of conscious life to things inanimate. A like tendency
  may impel the savage and the child to ascribe mind to the lower
  animals. The fact that language, in its earlier stage, was charged
  with personal life and activity, is itself the work of the
  personifying instinct. When nature is thus personified, where there
  is no sense of its unity and no capacity to rise in faith to a
  living God above nature, the result is a multitude of divinities of
  higher and lower rank. _Myths_ respecting them are the
  spontaneous invention of unreflecting and uncritical, but
  imaginative, peoples. Thus they serve to indicate the range of
  ideas, and the moral spirit of those who originate and give credence
  to them.

  This is not the place to consider the question, What was the
  primitive religion of man? The earliest deities that history brings
  to our notice were not fetiches, but heavenly beings of lofty
  attributes. Whether the religions of savage tribes, in common with
  their low grade of intelligence, are, or are not, the result of
  _degeneracy_, is a question which secular history affords no
  means of deciding with confidence,

  It may be added, that, in historic eras, the mythopoeic fancy is not
  inactive. Stories of marvelous adventure clustered about the old
  Celtic King Arthur of England and the "knights of the Round-Table,"
  and fill up the chronicles relating to Charlemagne. Wherever there
  is a person who kindles popular enthusiasm, myths accumulate. This
  is eminently true in an atmosphere like that which prevailed in the
  mediaeval period, when imagination and emotion were dominant.


PREHISTORIC TIMES.

PREHISTORIC RELICS.--Within the last half century, in various
countries of Europe, and in other countries, also, which have been,
earlier or later, seats of civilization, there have been found
numerous relics of uncivilized races, which, at periods far remote,
must have inhabited the same ground. Many of these antiquities are met
with in connection with remains of fossil elephants, hyenas, bears,
etc.,--with animals which no longer live in the regions referred to,
and some of which have become wholly extinct. Dwelling-places of these
far-distant peoples--such as caves and rock-shelters, and the remains
of the lake-habitations that were built on piles, in Switzerland and
elsewhere--sepulchers, camps, and forts, and an immense number of
implements and ornaments of stone and metal, have been examined. The
most ancient of these monuments carry us as far back as the era called
by geologists the _Quaternary_ or _Drift_ period.

THE THREE STAGES.--But there are marked distinctions in the relative
age of the various relics referred to. They indicate different degrees
of knowledge and skill; and this proof of a succession of peoples, or
of stages of development, is confirmed by geological evidence. The
prehistoric time is divided into _the Stone Age_, _the Age of
Bronze_, and _the Age of Iron_, according as the implements in
use were of one or another of these materials. But the Stone Age
includes an _earlier_ and a _later_ sub-division. In the
first and most ancient section, the weapons and utensils, mostly of
flint, were very rude in their manufacture. This was the
_Paleolithic Age_, where there are no signs of habitations
constructed by the hand, or of domesticated plants and animals. Men
lived in caves, and their vestments were the skins of beasts. Yet,
among their implements are found fragments of bone, horn, ivory, and
stone, on which are carved in outline, often with much skill,
representations of the reindeer, the bear, the ox, and of other
animals. In the _Neolithic_ period, there was a decided
advance. Implements are better made and polished. There were domestic
animals and cultivated plants. The lake-dwellings in Switzerland were
well contrived for shelter and defense. Every hut had its hearth. It
is probable that most of them were furnished with a loom for
weaving. Fragments of pottery are found, and flax was grown and made
into cord, nettings, etc. Stalls were constructed near the huts for
the ox, the goat, the horse, sheep, and pigs. The lake-dwellers
cultivated wheat and barley. The _Bronze Age_, when implements
were made of copper or of a mixture of copper and tin, exhibits proof
of decided improvement in various directions; and the _Age of
Iron_, a still more marked advance. In the Swiss remains referred
to are distinct traces of a transition from the Stone Age to the Age
of Bronze, and then to the Age of Iron. The kitchen-middens, or
shell-mounds, of Denmark belong exclusively to the Neolithic
period. Where the transition was made from the Stone Age to the Age of
Bronze, it apparently occurred in some cases by degrees, and
peacefully; but sometimes by the incoming of an invading people more
advanced. It should be observed that the lines of division between
these periods are not sharply drawn: implements of stone continued to
be used after the Bronze and even the Iron periods had been
introduced. Nor were these several ages in one region contemporaneous
with like conditions in every other. Moreover, it is not possible to
find in all countries once civilized proofs of a passage through these
successive eras. In Egypt, the evidences of a Stone Age are
scanty. The most ancient human remains show that man in his physical
characteristics was on a level with man at present.

  _Dr. Daniel Wilson_, speaking of the age of the Flint-folk,
  says: "It is of no slight importance to perceive that the interval
  which has wrought such revolutions in the earth" [involving great
  geological changes and mutations of climate] "as are recorded in the
  mammaliferous drift, shows man the same reasoning, tentative, and
  inventive mechanician, as clearly distinguished then from the
  highest orders of contemporary life of the Elephantine or Cave
  periods, as he is now from the most intelligent of the brute
  creation.... The oldest art-traces of the paleotechnic men of
  central France not only surpass those of many savage races, but they
  indicate an intellectual aptitude in no degree inferior to the
  average Frenchman of the nineteenth century."  (_Prehistoric
  Man_, pp. 33, 34.)

  Literature.--Wilson, _Prehistoric Man_, etc. (2 vols., 1876);
  Joly, _Man before the Metals_ (1883); Keary, _The Dawn of
  History_. The writings of E. B. Tylor, _Primitive Culture_
  (2 vols.), _Anthropology, Early History of Mankind_; his
  Art. _Anthropology, Encycl. Britt_.; Lubbock's _Prehistoric
  Times_, and his _Origin of Civilization_; Argyll, _The
  Unity of Nature _(1884); J. Geikie, _Prehistoric Europe_
  (1881); Lyell, _The Antiquity of Man_; W. E. Hearn, _The
  Aryan Household_; L. H. Morgan, _Ancient Society_.


THE ANTIQUITY OF MAN.--Science does not furnish us with the means of
fixing the date of the first human inhabitants of the earth. But its
various departments of investigation concur in pronouncing the
interval between the creation of man and the present to be far longer
than the traditional opinion has assumed. For the growth of language
and its manifold ramifications; for the development of the different
races of mankind, physically considered; for the geological changes
since the beginning of the Stone Age in the regions where its relics
are uncovered; for the rise of the most ancient civilization in Egypt
as well as in Babylon and China,--it is thought that periods of very
long duration are indispensable.

As to the date of the Neolithic man, or of the last section of the
Stone Age, Professor J. Geikie writes: "Any term of years I might
suggest would be a mere guess; but I have written to little purpose,
however, if the phenomena described in the preceding chapters have
failed to leave the impression upon the reader, that the advent of
Neolithic man in Europe must date back far beyond fifty or seventy
centuries."  (_Prehistoric Europe_, p. 558.)

  The chronology gathered from Genesis has been supposed to place the
  date of man's creation at a point far less remote. Usher's
  calculation, attached to the authorized English Version of the
  Bible, sets this date at 4004 B.C. The discussion of these questions
  of Scriptural chronology belongs to theology and biblical
  criticism. It may be observed here, however, that of the three forms
  in which Genesis is handed down to us,--the Hebrew text, the
  Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Septuagint, or ancient Greek
  translation,--no two agree in the numbers on which the estimate is
  founded. Hence Hales and Jackson, following the larger numbers in
  the genealogies of the Septuagint, place the date of the creation at
  a point about fourteen hundred years prior to that fixed upon by
  Usher.


ANCIENT AND MODERN HISTORY.

The periods of history are not divided from one another by merely
chronological limits, according to intervals of time of a definite
duration. Such a classification may be of use to the memory, but it is
arbitrary in its character. The landmarks of history are properly
placed at the turning-points where new eras take their start, whether
the intervals between them are longer or shorter.

Of these natural divisions, the most general and the most marked is
that between ancient and modern history. Ancient history not only
precedes modern in time: it is distinguished from the latter as
relating to a by-gone state of things. Modern history, on the
contrary, deals with an order of things now existing. Between the two
there is this line of demarkation.

History (with the exception of China and India, which require distinct
consideration, as standing apart) begins with Egypt, and flows down in
a continuous stream, until, in the fourth century A.D., the Roman
Empire, into which the ancient civilized peoples were incorporated,
was broken up. Then the new nations, especially the tribes of the
Germanic race, took power into their hands; Christianity was
established among them; out of the chaos of elements there emerged the
European nations, with their offshoots,--the peoples at present on the
stage of action. Ancient history had its center in the
Mediterranean. It embraced the peoples who dwelt on the shores of that
sea, in the three continents, and the nations that were brought into
relations with them. The Roman Empire, the final outcome of ancient
history, was "the monarchy of the Mediterranean." With the breaking-up
of the Empire, new races, new centers of power, a universal religion
in the room of national religions, and a new type of culture and
civilization, were introduced. Invaluable legacies were handed over
from the past, surviving the wreck of ancient civilization. There is,
however, a unity in history: the transition from the ancient to the
modern era was gradual.


MEDIAEVAL AND LATER MODERN HISTORY.

Since the fall of the Roman Empire, there has occurred no revolution
to be compared with the circumstances and results of that event. An
old world passed away, and a new world began to be. Yet the student,
as he travels hitherward, arrives at another epoch of extraordinary
change,--a period of ferment, when modern society in Europe takes on a
form widely different from the character that had belonged to it
previously. The long interval between _ancient_ history and
_modern_ (in this more restricted sense of thes term) is styled
the Middle Ages. Its termination may be found in the fifteenth
century, and a convenient date to mark the boundary-line is the
capture of Constantinople by the Turks (1453).

History thus divides itself into three parts:--

Part I. Ancient History, to the migrations of the Germanic Tribes (375
A.D).

Part II. Mediæval History, from A.D. 375 to the Fall of Constantinople
(1453).

PART III. Modern History, from 1453 until the present.

  Works on General History.--Ranke, _Universal History_; Ploetz,
  _Epitome of Ancient, Mediæval, and Modern History_ (Boston,
  1884); Weber, _Weitgeschichte_ (2 vols.); Assmann, _Handbuch
  d. allgemeinen Geschichte_ (5 vols., 1853-1862); by the same,
  _Abriss d. allgem. Gesch._ (in 3 parts); Oncken, _Allgem.
  Geschichte in Einzeidarstellungen_ (a series of full monographs
  of high merit). Copious works on Universal History, in German, by
  Weber, Schlosser, Becker, Leo. Laurent, _Études sur l'Histoire de
  l'Humanitè_ (this is an extended series of historical
  dissertations),--_The Orient and Greece_ (2 vols.); _Rome_
  (1 vol.); _Christianity_ (1 vol.), etc. Prévost-Paradol,
  _Essai sur l'Histoire Universelle_ (2 vols.: a suggestive
  critical survey of the course of history, with the omission of
  details). S. Willard, _Synopsis of History_.



PART I.  ANCIENT HISTORY.


FROM THE BEGINNING OF AUTHENTIC HISTORY TO THE MIGRATIONS OF THE
TEUTONIC TRIBES (A.D. 375).

DIVISIONS OF ANCIENT HISTORY.--Ancient history separates itself into
two main divisions. In the first the Oriental nations form the
subject; in the second, which follows in the order of time, the
European peoples, especially Greece and Rome, have the central
place. The first division terminates, and the second begins, with the
rise of Grecian power and the great conflict of Greece with the
Persian Empire, 492 B.C.

SECTIONS OF ORIENTAL HISTORY.--But Oriental history divides itself
into two distinct sections. The first embraces China and India,
nations apart, and disconnected from the Mediterranean and adjacent
peoples. China and India have a certain bond of connection with one
another through the spread in China of the Buddhistic religion. The
second section includes the great empires which preceded, and paved
the way for, European history; viz., Egypt, Babylonia and Assyria, and
Persia. In this section, along the course of the historic stream,
other nations which exercised a powerful influence, attract special
attention, especially the Phoenicians and the Hebrews. All these
Oriental peoples are so connected together that they stand in history
as the _Earliest Group of Nations_. The historic narrative must
be so shaped as to describe them in part singly, but, at the same
time, in their mutual relations.

Ancient history, from an _ethnographical_ point of view, would
embrace two general divisions,--Eastern peoples and Western
peoples. The first would comprise Egyptians (Hamitic); Jews,
Babylonians, Assyrians, Phoenicians, Lydians (Semitic); Hindus,
Bactrians, Medes, Persians (Aryan); Parthians, Chinese, Japanese. The
second would include Celts, Britons, _Greeks_, _Romans_,
Teutons (Aryan). (Ploetz, _Universal History_, p. 1.)

From a _geographical_ point of view, ancient history would fall
into three general divisions: I. Asia, including (1) India, (2) China
(with Japan), (3) Babylonia and Assyria, (4) Phoenicia, (5) Palestine,
(6) Media and Persia. II. Africa, including (1) Egypt, (2) Carthage.
III. Europe including (1) Greece, with its states and colonies; (2)
Italy.



DIVISION I.


ORIENTAL HISTORY.

PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY.--Europe and Asia together form one vast continent,
yet have a partial boundary between them in the Ural Mountains and
River, and in the deep bed of the Caspian and Black seas. Asia, which
extends from the Ural Mountains to the Pacific, and from the Arctic
Sea to the Indian Ocean, embraces an immense plateau, stretching from
the Black Sea to Corea. This plateau spreads like a fan as it advances
eastward. It is traversed by chains of mountains, and bordered also by
lofty mountains, of which the Himalayas is the principal range. From
this girdle of mountains descend slopes which lead down into the
lowlands. The great plateau is broken into two by the Hindu-Kush
range. The eastern division, the extensive plateau of Central Asia, is
bordered on the north by the barren plains of Siberia. In the lowlands
on the east and south are included the fertile plains of Central China
and of Hindustan. The plateau of eastern Asia has been the natural
abode of nomad tribes, Tartars and Mongols, whose invading hosts have
poured through the passes of the mountains into the inviting
territories below.  The plateau of western Asia, stretching westward
from the Indus, is not so high as that of the east. It begins with the
lofty tablelands of Iran, and extends, ordinarily at a less elevation,
to the extremity of the continent. On the south lie the plains of
Mesopotamia. Arabia is a low plateau of vast extent, connected by the
plateau and mountains of Syria with the mountain region of Asia
Minor. As might be expected, civilization sprang up in the alluvial
valleys of the Tigris and Euphrates, the Indus and the Ganges, and on
the soil watered by the great rivers of China, the Hoang-Ho and the
Yang-tse-Kiang. Egypt was looked on by the Ancients as a part of
Asia. Its language was distinct from the languages of the African
nations. The seat of its power and thrift was the valley of the
Nile. The conflicts of the nations settled in the lowlands with the
mountainous peoples, eager for spoil and conquest, are a
characteristic feature of Oriental History.

CHARACTER OF THE ASIATIC NATIONS.--Generalizations covering so wide a
field are, of necessity, inexact. As a rule, in the oriental mind, the
intuitive powers eclipse the severely rational and logical.
Civilization--as, for example, in Egypt and China--attains to a
certain grade, and is there petrified. Immobility belongs to the
Eastern nations. Revolutions bring a change of masters, but leave
character and customs unchanged. The sense of individuality has been
less vivid, and freedom less understood or valued. Governments have
taken the despotic form. Law has had its seat in the ruler's sovereign
will. The ruler has been regarded as clothed with divine
authority. Before him the subject prostrates himself with groveling
servility.

RELIGION IN ASIA.--Asia is the cradle of the principal religions of
the world. Here _monotheism_ appears, as in the faith of the
Hebrews, and in the Mohammedan revival of it in a less pure form. Here
have flourished _polytheistic_ systems, each with its throng of
divinities. In the east, _pantheism_, dropping out of the
conception of the Deity the element of personality, has found a
cherished home.

PRIESTHOODS.--Connected with the controlling influence of religion
have arisen the priesthoods,--sometimes ruling as an aristocratic
caste or class, sometimes dividing power with the reigning despot, to
whom sacred attributes are ascribed.

LITERATURE AND ART.--The Oriental nature has been mirrored in the
literature and art of the East. Its products lack the measure, the
grace and symmetry, and the human interest, which characterize the
creations of the European mind. In the mechanical arts, invention and
discovery push on progress to a certain point, then languish and die
out.



SECTION I.  CHINA AND INDIA.



CHAPTER I.  CHINA.


China proper comprises less than half of the present Chinese
Empire. It was called the land of Sinae or Seres by the ancients, and
in the middle ages bore the name of Cathay. In the north of China are
the broad alluvial plains, and in the north-eastern portion of the
empire, an immense delta. The rest of the country is hilly and
mountainous.

The nucleus of the Chinese nation is thought to have been a band of
immigrants, who are supposed by some to have started from the region
south-east of the Caspian Sea, and to have crossed the head waters of
the Oxus. They followed the course of the Hoang-Ho, or Yellow River,
having entered the country of their adoption from the north-west; and
they planted themselves in the present province of Shan-se. Although
nomads, they had some knowledge of astronomy, brought from their
earlier homes; and they quickly made for themselves settled
abodes. The native tribes by degrees were extirpated or driven
out. The new-comers cultivated grain. They raised flax, out of which
they wove garments.

LEGENDARY ERA, TO THE CHOW DYNASTY (1123 B.C.).--The early annals of
the Chinese, like those of other nations, are made up of myth and
fable. The annalists placed the date of the creation at a point more
than two millions of years prior to Confucius. The intervening period
they sought to fill up with lines of dynasties. Preceding the Chow
dynasty, the chroniclers give ten epochs. Prior to the eighth of
these, there are no traces of authentic history. To _Yew-Chaou
She_ (the Nest-having) is given the credit of teaching the people
to make huts of the boughs of trees. Fire was discovered by
_Suy-jin-She_ (the Fire-producer), his successor. Another ruler
(_Fuh-he_), whose date is fixed at 2852 B.C., discovered iron. He
also divided the people into classes. His successor invented the
plow. These tales, perhaps, retain vague reminiscences of the methods
in which useful inventions originated, or of the order in which they
appeared.

With _Yaou_ (2356 B.C.) we reach the period where the narratives
which were compiled many centuries later by Confucius, begin their
story. In the mass of fable, there is a larger infusion of historical
fact, which, however, it is well-nigh hopeless to separate from the
fiction that is mingled with it. In that golden age, few laws were
required. We are told that the house-door could safely be left
open. Yaou extended the empire: he established fairs and marts over
the land. During the reign of _Shun_, who followed him, a
tremendous inundation is said to have occurred; and _Yu_, called
"the Great," was energetic in draining off the waters. He ascended the
throne in 2205 B.C. His degenerate successors provoked a revolt and
the introduction of a new dynasty, called the _Shang_ dynasty,
whose first Emperor, _Tang_ (1760 B.C.), had a wise and
beneficent reign. Tyranny and disaster followed under the later kings
of this house; until finally _Woo-Wang_, the first sovereign of
the Chow dynasty, acceded to the throne (1123 B.C.).

THE CHOW DYNASTY (1123-255 B.C.).--The traditions now become decidedly
more trustworthy, although still largely mixed with
fable. _Woo-Wang_ was brave and upright. Under him a momentous
change in government took place. By him the kingdom was divided into
seventy-two feudal states. Internal divisions and struggles resulted
from this new political system. The Tartars availed themselves of the
weakened condition of the nation, to make predatory incursions. In
this period of disorder and danger, _Confucius_, the great
teacher of China, was born (551 B.C.). His father was a district
magistrate, and died when the son was only three years old. He was
trained and taught by his mother. When she died, he gave up all
employments to mourn for her, during three years. His only occupation
during this period was study. A grave and learned youth, he at length
resolved to become an instructor of his countrymen in the ancient
writings, to which he was devoted. He was regular in all his ways, and
never ate or drank to excess. He gathered about him scholars; his fame
increased; and, in 500 B.C., he was made magistrate of _Chung-tu_
by the sovereign, Duke _Ting_, an office which he justly and
discreetly administered for three years. Sometimes persecuted, he
compared himself to a dog driven from his home. "I have the fidelity
of that animal, and I am treated like it. But what matters the
ingratitude of men? They can not hinder me from doing all the good
that has been appointed me. If my precepts are disregarded, I have the
consolation of knowing in my own breast that I have faithfully
performed my duty." Both by his literary works and by the lessons
taught to his disciples, he laid the foundation of a most powerful and
lasting influence over his countrymen. He died in 478 B.C., at the age
of seventy-three. _Laou-tsze_, another famous thinker, was a few
years older than Confucius. "Three precious things," he said, "I
prize, and hold fast,--humility, compassion, and economy."
_Mencius_, a celebrated teacher and reformer, who followed in the
path of Confucius, after a long life died in 289 B.C. One of his
doctrines was, that the nature of man is good, and that evil is owing
to education and circumstances. One of his maxims was, that the people
can be led aright, but can not be taught the reasons for the guidance
to which they are subjected.

DYNASTY OF TSIN (255-206 B.C.).--Reverting to the course of Chinese
history, the next grand epoch is the enthronement of the Tsin dynasty,
in the person of the ruler of one of the provinces, which, in the
intestine strife among the feudal princes, gained the victory. This
was in 255 B.C. In this line belongs the famous Emperor _Che
Hwang-te_, who, in 246 B.C., at the age of thirteen years,
succeeded to the crown. His palace in his capital, the modern Se-gan
Foo, the edifices which he built elsewhere, the roads and canals
constructed by him, excited wonder. He routed and drove out the Tartar
invaders, and put down the rebellion of the feudal princes. He
enlarged the kingdom nearly to the limits of modern China proper. For
the protection of the northern frontier he began the "Great Wall,"
which he did not live to finish. It was finished 204 B.C., ten years
after it was begun. When finished, it was not less than fifteen
hundred miles in length. It would reach "from Philadelphia to Topeka,
or from Portugal to Naples." The innovations and maxims of government
of Che Hwang-te were offensive to the scholars and the conservative
class, who pointed the people to the heroes of the feudal days and to
the glories of the past. For this reason, the monarch commanded that
all books having reference to the history of the empire should be
destroyed. He would efface the recollection of the old times.  He
would not allow his system to be undermined by tradition. The decree
was obeyed, although hidden copies of many of the ancient writings
were undoubtedly preserved. Numerous scholars were buried alive. His
death, in 210 B.C., was followed by disturbances, growing out of the
disaffection of the higher classes. In the civil war that ensued, his
dynasty was subverted. The throne was next held by

THE HAN RULERS (206 B.C.-22l A.D.).--Their sway, which lasted for four
hundred years, covers a brilliant period in the Chinese annals. During
the reign of _Ming-te_, 65 A.D., a deputation was sent to India,
to obtain the sacred writings and authorized teachers of the
Buddhistic religion, which had begun to spread among the Chinese. The
power of the feudal lords was reduced. Northern Corea was conquered,
and the bounds of the empire extended on the west as far as Russian
Turkestan, In this period, there was a marked revival of learning and
authorship. Then lived a famous public officer, _Yang Chên_, who,
when asked to take a bribe, and assured that no one would know it,
answered, "How so?  Heaven would know, Earth would know, you would
know, and I should know."  Under this dynasty, a custom of burying
slaves with the dead was abolished.

BEGINNING IN 221 A.D., there followed the "era of the three kingdoms."
It was an age of martial prowess, civil war, and bloodshed. This long
period of division was interrupted in 265 A.D. by a re-union of the
greater part of the empire for a brief period. But discord soon sprang
up; and it was not until 590 A.D. that unity and order were restored
by _Yang-Kian_, who founded the dynasty, named from his local
dominion, _Suy_.

RELIGION IN CHINA.--The ancient religion of China was
polytheistic. The supreme divinity was called _Tien_ or
_Shang-ti_. Tien signifies Heaven. Was Heaven, or Shang-ti--or
the Lord--the visible heaven, the expanse above, clothed with the
attribute of personality?  This has been, and still is, the prevailing
opinion of missionaries and scholars. Dr. _Legge_, however, holds
that Tien is the lord of the heavens, a power above the visible
firmament; and thus finds monotheism as the basis of the Chinese
religious creed.

The prevailing religions of China are three,--_Buddhism_ (which
in its original form was brought in from India in the first century of
the Christian era), _Confucianism_, and _Taouism_. It may be
observed, that, in all these systems, there is but a vague sense of
personality as inhering in the heavenly powers, in comparison with the
creeds in vogue among heathen nations generally. Another fact to be
noted is, that, in Chinese worship, the veneration for ancestors, a
feeling inbred in the Chinese mind, is a very prominent and pervading
element.

Confucius did not profess to reveal things supernatural. His teaching
is made up of moral and political maxims. He builds on the past, and
always inculcates reverence for the fathers and for what has
been. There is much wise counsel to parents and to rulers. His
morality reaches its acme in the Golden Rule, which he gives, however,
only in its negative relation: "Do not unto others what you would not
that others should do unto you."  Laou-tsze is a more speculative and
mystical thinker. In his moral aphorisms, he approaches the theory of
the ancient Stoics. TEH--i.e., virtue--is lauded. Teh proceeds from
TAO. To explain what the Chinese sage means by Tao,--a word that
signifies the "way,"--is a puzzle for commentators and inquirers. From
Tao all things originate: they conform to Tao, and to Tao they
return. There are noble maxims in Laou-tsze,--precepts enjoining
compassion, and condemning the requital of evil with evil. Taouism is
a type of religion which traces itself to the teaching of
Laou-tsze. That teaching became mixed with wild speculations. Then
certain Buddhistic rites and tenets were added to it. The result,
finally, was a compound of knavery and superstition. Taouism is at
once mystical and rationalistic in its tone.

LITERATURE IN CHINA.--The Chinese language was crystallized, in the
written form, in the monosyllabic stage of its development. Beginning
in hieroglyphs, literal pictures of objects, and having no alphabet,
it has so multiplied its characters and combinations of characters as
to put great hindrances in the way of the acquisition of it. The utter
absence of inflection may have crippled the development of poetry and
of the drama, for which the Chinese have a natural taste. In these
departments, Chinese productions do not rise above mediocrity. For
this, however, the lack of imagination and of creative power is
largely accountable. It is in the province of pure prose--as in
historical narrations, topographical writings, such as geographies,
and in the making of encyclopedias--that the Chinese have
excelled. But the yoke of tradition has everywhere weighed heavily. In
one sense, the Chinese have been a literary people. The system of
competitive examinations for public offices has diffused through the
nation a certain degree of book-learning; yet the masses have been
kept in a state of ignorance. At the foundation of all learning are
the "nine classics," which consist of five works, edited or written by
Confucius, of which the "Shoo King," or Book of History, stands at the
head, together with the four books written by his disciples and the
disciples of Mencius. Great as have been the services of Confucius,
his own slavish reverence for the past, so stamped upon his writings,
has had the effect to cramp the development of the Chinese mind, and
to fasten upon it the fetters of tradition.

GOVERNMENT AND CIVILIZATION.--The government of China is "a
patriarchal despotism." As father of his people, the king has absolute
authority. The power of life and death is in his hand. Yet the right
of revolution was taught by Confucius and Mencius, and the Chinese
have not been slow to exercise it. The powers of the emperor are
limited by ceremonial regulations, and by a body of precedents which
are held sacred. He administers rule with the help of a privy
council. Officers of every rank in the employ of the government
constitute the aristocratic class of Mandarins, who are divided into
different ranks.

INVENTION.--Printing by wooden blocks was known in China as early as
the sixth century A.D. Printing did not come into general use until
the thirteenth century. The use of movable types, although devised, it
is said, many centuries earlier, did not come into vogue until the
seventeenth century. Gunpowder was used as early as 250 A.D., in the
making of fire-crackers; but it was certainly as late as the middle of
the twelfth century that it was first employed in war. The Chinese
were early acquainted with the polarity of the loadstone, and used the
compass in journeys by land long before that instrument was known in
Europe. In various branches of manufactures,--as silk, porcelain,
carved work in ivory, wood, and horn,--the Chinese, at least until a
recent period, have been pre-eminent. In the mechanical arts their
progress has been slow. Their crude implements of husbandry are in
contrast with their exhibitions of skill in other directions. Although
imitation long ago supplanted the activity of inventive talent, to
China belongs the distinction of being a civilized land before the
Christian nations of Europe had emerged into being.

  LITERATURE.--_The Middle Kingdom_, by S. WELLS WILLIAMS (2
  vols.);_ Encycl. Brit.,_ Art. _China_ by Professor
  Douglas; Arts. _Confucius and Mencius_ by Dr. Legge; Legge,_
  The Religions of China_; Richthofen, _China_(3 vols.);
  Giles, _Historic China, and Other Sketches_ (1882); Legge,
  _The Chinese Classics_; BOULGER, _History of China_
  (1881-84); Thornton, _History of China_.

JAPAN.--The authentic history of Japan belongs mainly in the modern
period, since the tenth century A.D. The most ancient religion of
Japan, designated by a term which means "the way of the gods,"
included a variety of objects of worship,--gods, deified men, the
mikados, or chief rulers, regarded as "the sons of heaven," animals,
plants, etc. Unquestioning obedience to the mikado was the primary
religious duty. It was a state-religion. Buddhism, brought into the
country in 552 A.D., spread, and became prevalent.

The Japanese are a mixed race. Kiôto and the adjacent provinces are
said to have been occupied by the conquerors. Prior to 660 B.C. we
have no trustworthy history of the island. This is the date assigned
by the Japanese to their hero, _Jimmu Tenno_, the first mikado,
the founder of an unbroken line. For several centuries, however, the
history is open to question. The tenth mikado, Sujin, is noted as a
reformer, and promoter of civilization. An uncrowned princess,
_Jingu-Kogo_ (201-269 A.D.), is famous for her military
prowess. She suppressed a rebellion, and subdued Corea. _Ojin_, a
celebrated warrior, is still worshiped as a god of war. The
introduction of Chinese literature and civilization at this period,
makes a turning-point in Japanese history.

  LITERATURE.--J. J. REIN, _Japan: Travels and Researches_,
  vol. I. (1881); E. J. Reed, _Japan_ (2 vols., 1880); Siebold,
  _Nippon_ (5 vols. 410, and plates); Kampfer, _History of
  Japan_ (2 vols. fol., 1728); _Encycl. Brit._,
  Art. _Japan_.



CHAPTER II.  INDIA.


India is the central one of the three great peninsulas of Southern
Asia. On the north is the mountainous region of the Himalayas, below
which are the vast and fertile river plains, watered by the
_Indus_, the _Ganges_, and other streams. On the south,
separated from the Ganges by the Vindhyá range, is the hilly and
mountainous tract called the Deccan.

THE ARYAN INVADERS.--The history of India opens with glimpses of a
struggle on the borders of the great rivers,--first of the Indus and
then of the Ganges,--between an invading race, the Sanskrit-speaking
Aryans from the north-west, and the dusky aborigines. These rude
native tribes have left few relics but their tombs. Before they
tenanted the soil, there dwelt upon it still earlier inhabitants,
whose implements were of stone or bronze. The incoming people referred
to above were of that Indo-European stock to which we belong. From
their home, perhaps in central Asia, they moved in various
directions. A part built up the Persian kingdom; another portion
migrated farther, and were the progenitors of the Greek nation; and a
third founded Rome. The Indian Aryans migrated southward from the
headwaters of the Oxus at some time prior, doubtless, to 2000 B.C. Our
knowledge of them is derived from their ancient sacred books, the
_Vedas_; of these the oldest, the _Rig-Veda_, contains ten
hundred and seventeen lyrics, chiefly addressed to the gods. Its
contents were composed while the Aryans dwelt upon the Indus, and
while they were on their way to the neighborhood of the Ganges. The
Rig-Veda, therefore, exhibits this people in their earliest stage of
religious and social development. They were herdsmen, but with a
martial spirit, which enabled them by degrees to drive out the native
tribes, and compel them to take refuge in the mountains on the north,
or on the great southern plateau. Among them women were held in
respect, and marriage was sacred. There are beautiful hymns written by
ladies and queens. No such cruel custom as the burning of widows
existed: it was of far later origin. They were acquainted with the
metals. Among them were blacksmiths, coppersmiths, goldsmiths,
carpenters, and other artisans. They fought from chariots, but had not
come to employ elephants in war. They were settled in villages and in
towns. Mention is made of ships, or river-boats, as in use among
them. They ate beef, and drank a sort of fermented beer made from the
_soma_ plant.

THE VEDIC RELIGION.--The early religion of the Indian Aryans was quite
different from the system that grew up later among them. We do not
find in it the dreamy pantheism that appears afterwards. It is
cheerful in its tone, quite in contrast with the gloomy asceticism
which is stamped on it in after times. The head of each family is
priest in his own household. It is only the great tribal sacrifice
which is offered by priests set apart for the service. The worship is
polytheistic, but not without tendencies to monotheism. The principal
divinities are the powers of nature. The deities (_deva_) were
the heavenly or the shining ones. "It was the beautiful phenomenon of
light which first and most powerfully swayed the Aryan mind." The
chief gods were the Father-heaven; Indra, the god of thunder and of
rain, from whom the refreshing showers descended; Varuna, the
encompassing sky; and Agni, the god of fire. Among these _Indra_,
from his beneficence, more and more attracted worship. _Soma_,
too, was worshiped; soma being originally the intoxicating juice of a
plant. _Brihaspati_, the lord of prayer, personifying the
omnipresent power of prayer, was adored. Thirty-three gods in all were
invoked. The bodies of the dead were consumed on the funeral-pile. The
soul survived the body, but the later doctrine of transmigration was
unknown. All the attributes of sovereign power and majesty were
collected in _Varuna_. No one can fathom him, but he sees and
knows all. He is the upholder of order; just, yet the dispenser of
grace, and merciful to the penitent. Worship is made up of oblations
and prayers. It must be sincere. The gods will not tolerate
deceit. They require faith. Of the last things and the last times the
Rig-Veda hardly speaks. The Vedic hymns have much to say of the origin
of things, but little, except in the last book, of the final issues.

  There are four Vedas,--the _Rig-Veda_, which has the body of
  hymns; the _Yajur-Veda_, in which the prescribed formulas to be
  used in acts of sacrifice are collected; the _Sama-Veda_,
  containing the chants; and the _Atharva-Veda_, a collection of
  hymns, in part of a later date. Besides, each Veda contains, as a
  second part, one or more Brâhmanas, or prose treatises on the
  ceremonial system. In addition, there are theological works
  supplementary, and of later origin,--the intermediate
  _Aranyakas_, and the _Upanishads_, which are of a
  speculative cast.

Not only is nature--mountains, rivers, trees, etc.--personified in the
Vedas: the animals--as the cow, the horse, the dog, even the apparatus
of worship, the war-chariot, the plow, and the furrow--are addressed
in prayer. The sacrificial fire is deified in _Agni_, the
sacrificial drink in _Soma_. Indra has for his body-guards the
_Maruts_, gods of the storm and lightning. He is a warlike god,
standing in his chariot, but also a beneficent giver of all good
gifts. _Varuna_ is the god of the vast luminous heavens, in their
serene majesty.  _Indra_, on the other hand, represents the
atmosphere in its active and militant energy. The number of the gods
is variously given. In passages, they are said to be many thousands.

RITES.--There is no hierarchy among the gods. But there is a tendency
to confuse the attributes of the different divinities. Occasionally,
for the time being, one eclipses all the rest, and is addressed as if
all others were forgotten. There is sometimes a tendency to regard
them as all one, under different names. But this tendency develops
itself later. Offerings consisted of rice, cakes, soma, etc. Victims
also were sacrificed, the horse especially; also the goat, the
buffalo, and other animals. Sacrifice purchases the gifts and favor of
the gods. It is an expression of gratitude and dependence. It has,
moreover, a deep, mysterious energy of an almost magical character.

THE ARYANS ON THE GANGES.--Later, but earlier than 1000 B.C., we find
that the Aryan invaders have moved onward in their career of conquest,
and have planted themselves on the plains of the Ganges. A marvelous
transformation has taken place in their social constitution, their
religion, and in their general spirit. The caste system has sprung up,
of which there are few traces in the Rig-Veda. In the first or lowest
of these distinct classes are the _Sudras_, or despised serfs,
who are the subjugated aborigines; the second, or next higher, class
is composed of the tillers of the soil, who are of a lower rank than
the third, the warrior caste. These, in turn, fall below the
_Brahmans_, or priests, who, as rites of worship grew more
complicated, and superstition increased, gained, though not without a
struggle, a complete ascendency. This marks the beginning of the
sacerdotal era. The tendency of the farmer caste was to decrease,
until, in modern times, in various provinces they are hardly
found. The supremacy of the Brahmans was largely owing to their
eminence as the great literary caste. They arose out of the families
by whom the hymns had been composed, and who managed the tribal
sacrifices. They alone understood the language of the hymns and the
ritual. _Brahman_, in the earliest Veda, signifies a worshiper.

BRAHMINICAL PANTHEISM.--The polytheism of the earlier type of religion
was converted into pantheism. _Brahma_, the supreme being, is
impersonal, the eternal source of all things, from which all finite
beings--gods, nature, and men--emanate. It is by _emanation_,--an
outflow analogous to that of a stream from its fountain, in
distinction from _creation_, implying will and
self-consciousness,--that all derived existences emerge into
being. With this doctrine was connected the belief in the
transmigration of souls. All animated beings, including plants as well
as animals, partake of the universal life which has its origin and
seat in Brahma. Alienation from Brahma, finite, individual being, is
evil. To work the way back to Brahma is the great aim and
hope. Absorption in Brahma, return to the primeval essence, is the
supreme good. The sufferings of the present are the penalty of sins
committed in a pre-existent state. If they are not purged away, the
soul is condemned to be embodied again and again,--it may be, in some
repulsive animal. This process of metempsychosis might be repeated far
into the indefinite future. With the doctrine of Brahma and of
transmigration was connected the feeling that all life is sacred. The
Brahman spared even trees and plants from destruction. Pollution or
defilement might be contracted in a great variety of ways. There grew
out of these ideas of sin, rigorous penances, most painful forms of
self-torment. It was only by practices of this sort that there was
hope of avoiding the retribution so much dreaded.

THE BRAHMINICAL CODES.--The principal of these codes is the _Laws of
Manu_. Manu was imagined to be the first human being, conceived of
as a sage. This code is a digest compiled by the priests at a date
unknown, but comprising in it materials of a very high
antiquity. Hence, while exhibiting Brahmanism in its maturer form, it
affords glimpses of society at a much earlier date. A second code was
compiled not earlier than the second century A.D. These codes present
Hindu law under three heads: (1) domestic and civil rights and duties,
(2) the administration of justice, (3) purification and penance. In
truth, the codes prescribe regulations for every department of
life. The obligations of kings, of Brahmans, and of every other class,
are defined in detail. One motive that is kept in view is to set forth
and fortify the special privileges of the Brahminical order.

THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE BRAHMINS.--In process of time, commentaries on
the Vedas were multiplied. Discord arose in the interpretation of the
sacred books. Out of this debate and confusion there emerged, in the
seventh and sixth centuries B.C., several philosophical systems. These
aimed to give peace to the soul by emancipating it from the bondage of
matter, and by imparting a sense of independence of the body and of
the external world.

  These old philosophies are preserved in the _Upanishads_, or
  Instructions. The main idea in these diverse systems--the
  _Sankhya_, the _Vedanta_, etc.--is, that the soul's notion
  of itself as separate from the supreme, impersonal being, is the
  fallen state. This duality must be overcome. Conscious of its
  identity with the Supreme, the soul enters into _yoga_, or the
  state of unison with the Infinite. He who is thus taken away from
  the illusions of sense, or the _yogin_, is free from the power
  of things perishable. Death brings a complete absorption into the
  source of all being. It is the bliss of personal extinction. This
  sort of philosophy attached great value to contemplation and
  self-renunciation. It led to a light esteem of ritual practices and
  ceremonies.



BUDDHISM.

The Brahminical system has not ceased to maintain its supremacy in
India since the time when it was presented to view in the
law-codes. But it has not escaped alteration and attack. New
movements, religious and political, have appeared to modify its
character. Of these, Buddhism is by far the most memorable.

THE LIFE OF BUDDHA.--Of the life of Buddha we have only legendary
information, where it is impossible to separate fact from romance. The
date of his death was between 482 and 472 B.C. He was then old. He
belonged to the family of Gautamas, who were said to be of the royal
line of the Çâkyas, a clan having its seat about a hundred and
thirty-seven miles north of Benares. The story is, that, brought up in
luxury, and destined to reign, he was so struck with the miseries of
mankind, that, at the age of twenty-nine, he left his parents, his
young wife, and an only son, and retired to a solitary life to
meditate upon the cause of human suffering. From Brahminical teachers
he could obtain no solution of the problem. But after seven years of
meditation and struggle, during which sore temptations to return to a
life of sense and of ease were successfully resisted, he attained to
truth and to peace. For forty-four years after this he is said to have
promulgated his doctrine, gathering about him disciples, whom he
charged with the duty of spreading it abroad.

THE BUDDHISTIC DOCTRINE.--Buddhism was not a distinct revolt against
the reigning system of religion. Buddha left theology to the
Brahmans. Indra, Agni, and the other divinities, and the services
rendered to them, he left untouched. Being an anchorite, he was not
required to concern himself with the rites and observances in which
others took part. His aim was practical. His doctrine, though resting
on a theoretical basis, was propounded simply as a way of salvation
from the burdens that oppressed the souls of men. Nor did he undertake
a warfare against caste. The blessing of deliverance from the woes of
life he opened to all without distinction. This was the limit of his
opposition to caste.

THE ROAD TO NIRVANA.--Buddha taught, (1) that existence is always
attended with misery; (2) that all modes of misery result from
passion, or desire unsatisfied; (3) that desire must be quenched; (4)
that there are four steps in doing this, and thus of arriving at
NIRVANA, which is the state in which self is lost and absorbed, and
vanishes from being. These four ways are (1) the awakening to a
perception of the nature and cause of evil, as thus defined; (2) the
consequent quenching of impure and revengeful feelings; (3) the
stifling of all other evil desires, also riddance from ignorance,
doubt, heresy, unkindliness, and vexation; (4) the entrance into
Nirvana, sooner or later, after death.  The great boon which Buddha
held out was escape from the horrors of transmigration. He attributed
to the soul no substantial existence. It is the _Karma_, or
another being, the successor of one who dies, the result and effect of
all that he was, who re-appears in case of transmigration. Buddhism
involved atheism, and the denial of personal immortality, or, where
this last tenet was not explicitly denied, uncertainty and
indifference respecting it. On the foundation of Buddha's teaching,
there grew up a vast system of monasticism, with ascetic usages not
less burdensome than the yoke of caste. The attractive feature of
Buddhism was its moral precepts. These were chiefly an inculcation of
chastity, patience, and compassion; the unresisting endurance of all
ills; sympathy and efficient help for all men.

DEIFICATION OF BUDDHA.--By the pupils of Buddha he was glorified. He
was placed among the Brahminical gods, by whom he was served. A
multitude of cloisters were erected in his honor, in which his relics
were believed to be preserved. On the basis of the simpler doctrine
and precepts of the founder, there accumulated a mass of superstitious
beliefs and observances.

THE SPREAD OF BUDDHISM.--After the death of Buddha, it is said that
his disciples, to the number of five hundred, assembled, and divided
his teaching into three branches,--his own words, his rules of
discipline, and his system of doctrine. During the next two centuries
Buddhism spread over northern India. One of the most conspicuous
agents in its diffusion was _Asoka_, the king of Behar, who was
converted to the Buddhistic faith, and published its tenets throughout
India. His edicts, in which they were set forth, were engraved on
rocks and pillars and in caves. He organized missionary efforts among
the aborigines, using only peaceful means, and combining the healing
of disease, and other forms of philanthropy, with preaching. He
carried the Buddhistic faith as far as _Ceylon_. It spread over
_Burmah_ (450 A.D.). _Siam_ was converted (638 A.D.), and
_Java_ between the fifth and seventh centuries of our
era. Through Central Asia the Buddhistic missionaries passed into
_China_ in the second century B.C., and Buddhism became an
established system there as early as 65 A.D. At present, this religion
numbers among its professed adherents more than a third of the human
race.

THE BRAHMINICAL RE-ACTION.--In India Buddhism did not supplant the old
religion. The Brahmans modified their system. They made their theology
more plain to the popular apprehension. They took up Buddhistic
speculations into their system. But they rendered their ceremonial
practices more complex and more burdensome. Their ascetic rule grew to
be more exacting and oppressive. In diffusing and making popular their
system, customs, like the burning of widows, were introduced, which
were not known in previous times. The divinities, _Brahma_, the
author of all things, _Vishnu_ the preserver, and _Siva_ the
destroyer, were brought into a relation to one another, as a sort of
triad. Successive incarnations of Vishnu became an article of the
creed, _Krishna_ being one of his incarnate names. For centuries
Brahmanism and Buddhism existed together. Gradually Buddhism decayed,
and melted into the older system; helping to modify its character, and
thus to give rise to modern Hinduism. For ten centuries Buddhism, with
multitudinous adherents abroad, has had no existence in the land of
its birth.

THE GREEK-ROMAN PERIOD.--In 327 B.C., _Alexander the Great_
advanced in his victorious career as far as India, entered the Punjab,
which was then divided among petty kingdoms, and defeated one of the
kings, _Porus_, who disputed the passage of the river Jhelum. The
heat of the climate and the reluctance of his troops caused the
Macedonian invader to turn back from his original design of
penetrating to the Ganges. Near the confluence of the five rivers he
built a town, Alexandria. He founded, also, other towns, established
alliances, and left garrisons. On the death of Alexander (323 B.C.)
and the division of his empire, Bactria and India fell to the lot of
Seleucus Nicator, the founder of the Syrian monarchy. About this time
a new kingdom grew up in the valley of the Ganges, under the auspices
of _Chandra Gupti_, a native. After various conflicts, Seleucus
ceded the Greek settlements in the Punjab to this prince, to whom he
gave his daughter in marriage. The successors of Seleucus sent
Græco-Bactrian expeditions into India. Thus Greek science and Greek
art exerted a perceptible influence in Hindustan. During the first six
centuries of the Christian era, Scythian hordes poured down into
northern India. They were stoutly resisted, but effected settlements,
and made conquests. The events as well as the dates of the long
struggle are obscure. The non-Aryan races of India, both on the north
and on the south of the Ganges, many of whom received the Buddhistic
faith, were not without a marked influence--the precise lines of which
it is difficult to trace--upon the history and life of India during
the period of Greek and Scythic occupation and warfare. The
_Dravidian_ people in southern India, made up of non-Aryans,
number at present forty-six millions.

  LITERATURE.--Mill's _History of India_ (Wilson's edition, 9
  vols.); MONIER WILLIAMS, _Indian Wisdom_; Max Müller's
  _History of Sanskrit Literature_; EARTH'S _The Religions of
  India_, 1882; _Encycl. Brit._, Arts. _India, Brahmanism,
  Buddhism_.



SECTION II.  THE EARLIEST GROUP OF NATIONS.



CHAPTER I.  EGYPT.


THE LAND AND THE PEOPLE.--When the curtain that hides the far distant
past is lifted, we find in the valley of the Nile a people of a dark
color, tinged with red, and a peculiar physiognomy, who had long
existed there. Of their beginnings, there is no record. It is not
likely that they came down the river from the south, as some have
thought; more probably they were of Asiatic origin. Their language,
though it certainly shows affinities with the Semitic tongues in its
grammar, is utterly dissimilar in its vocabulary: its modern
descendant is the Coptic, no longer a spoken dialect. The Egyptians
were of the Caucasian variety, but not white like the Lybians on the
west. On the east were tribes of a yellowish complexion and various
lineage, belonging to the numerous people whom the Egyptians
designated as _Amu_. On the south, in what was called
_Ethiopia_, was a negro people; and, also beyond them and
eastward, a dusky race, of totally different origin, a branch of the
widely diffused _Cushites_.

THE NILE: DIVISIONS OF THE COUNTRY.--Egypt (styled by its ancient
inhabitants, from the color of the soil deposited by the Nile,
_Kem_ or the Black Land, and by the Hebrews called
_Mizraim_) is the creation of the great river. "Egypt," says
Herodotus, "is the gift of the Nile;" and this is not only true, as
the historian meant it, physically, because it is the Nile that
rescued the land from the arid waste by which it is bordered; but the
course of Egyptian history--the occupations, habits, and religion of
the people--was largely determined by the characteristics of the
river. The sources of the Nile have had in all ages the fascination of
mystery, and have been a fruitful theme for conjecture. It was
reserved for modern explorers to ascertain that it takes its rise in
equatorial Africa, in the two great lakes, the _Albert_ and
_Victoria Nyanzas_. From that region, fed by few tributaries, it
flows to the Mediterranean, a distance of two thousand miles, but
breaks, as it nears the sea, into two main and several minor
arms. These spread fruitfulness over the broad plain called, from its
shape, the _Delta._ Above the Delta the fringe of productive land
has a width of only a few miles on either side of the stream. Its
fertility is due to the yearly inundation which, as the effect of the
rainfall of Abyssinia, begins early in July, and terminates in
November, when the river, having slowly risen in the interval to an
average height of twenty-three or twenty-four feet, reaches in its
gradual descent the ordinary level. This narrow belt of territory,
annually enriched with a layer of fertile mud, is in striking contrast
with the barren regions, parched by the sun, on either side, with the
long chain of Arabian mountains that adjoin it on the east, and with
the low hills of the Lybian desert on the west. By dikes, canals, and
reservoirs, the beneficent river from the most ancient times has been
made to irrigate the land above, where are the towns and dwellings of
the people, and thus to extend and keep up its unrivaled
fertility. The country of old was divided into two parts,--_Upper
Egypt,_ as it is now called, with _Thebes_ for its principal
city, extending from the first cataract, near _Syene,_ to the
Memphian district; and _Lower Egypt,_ embracing the rest of the
country on the north, including the Delta. The two divisions were
marked by differences of dialect and of customs. The country was
further divided into _nomes,_ or districts, about forty in all,
but varying in number at different times. They were parted from one
another by boundary stones. Each had its own civil organization, a
capital, and a center of worship.

EARLY CULTURE.--At a far remote day, there existed in Lower Egypt an
advanced type of culture. Sepulchers, with their inscriptions and
sculptures, were made of so solid material that they have remained to
testify to this fact. When the pyramids were built, mechanical skill
was highly developed, Egyptian art had reached a point beyond which it
scarcely advanced, and the administration of government had attained
substantially to the form in which it continued to exist. The use of
writing, the division of the year, the beginnings of the sciences and
of literature, are found in this earliest period. Egyptian culture, as
far as we can determine, was not borrowed. It was a native
product. The earliest period was the period of most growth. The
prevailing tendency was to crystallize all arts and customs into
definite, established forms, and to subject every thing to fixed
rules. The desire to preserve what had been gained overmastered the
impulses to progress: individuality and enterprise were blighted by an
excessive spirit of conservatism. Moreover, the culture of the
Egyptians never disengaged itself from its connection with every-day
practical needs, or the material spirit that lay at its root. They did
not, like the Greeks, soar into the atmosphere of theoretical science
and speculation. They did not break loose from the fetters of
tradition.

THE HIEROGLYPHICS.--We owe our knowledge of ancient Egypt chiefly to
hieroglyphical writing. The hieroglyphs, except those denoting
numbers, were pictures of objects. The writing is of three kinds. The
_first_, the hieroglyphical, is composed of literal pictures, as
a circle, O, for the sun, a curved line for the moon, a pointed oval
for the mouth. The _second_ sort of characters, the hieratic, and
the _third_, the demotic, are curtailed pictures, which can thus
be written more rapidly. They are seldom seen on the monuments, but
are the writing generally found on the papyrus rolls or
manuscripts. They are written from right to left. The hieroglyphs
proper may be written either way, or in a perpendicular line. In the
demotic, or people's writing, the characters are somewhat more
curtailed, or abridged, than in the hieratic, or priestly,
style. There were four methods of using the hieroglyphics in
historical times. _First_, there were the primary,
representational characters, the literal pictures. _Secondly_,
the characters were used figuratively, as symbols. Thus a circle, O,
meant not only the sun, but also "day"; the crescent denoted not only
the moon, but also "a month;" a pen and inkstand signified "writing,"
etc. So one object was substituted for another analogous to it,--as
the picture of a boot in a trap, which stood for "deceit." A
conventional emblem, too, might represent the object. Thus, the hawk
denoted the sun, two water-plants meant Upper and Lower Egypt.
_Thirdly_, hieroglyphics were used as determinatives. That is, an
object would be denoted by letters (in a way that we shall soon
explain), and a picture be added _to determine_, or make clear,
what was meant. After proper names, they designated the sex; after the
names of other classes, as animals, they specified the particular
genus. _Fourthly_, the bulk of the hieroglyphs are phonetic. They
stand for sounds. The picture stood for the initial sound of the name
of the object depicted. Thus the picture of an eagle, _akhôm_,
represented "A." Unfortunately, numerous objects were employed for a
like purpose, to indicate the same sound. Hence the number of
characters was multiplied. The whole number of signs used in writing
is not less than nine hundred or a thousand. The discovery of the
Rosetta Stone--a large black slab of stone--with an identical
inscription in hieroglyphics, in demotic and in Greek, furnished to
_Champollion_ (1810) and to _Young_ the clew to the
deciphering of the Egyptian writing, and thus the key to the sense of
the monumental inscriptions. The Egyptian manuscripts were made of the
pith of the byblus plant, cut into strips. These were laid side by
side horizontally, with another layer of strips across them; the two
layers being united by paste, and subjected to a heavy pressure. The
Egyptians wrote with a reed, using black and red ink.

  SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE OF EGYPTIAN HISTORY.--These are (1) the
  inscriptions on the monuments. These, it must be remembered, are
  commonly in praise of the departed, and of their achievements. (2)
  The list of kings in the Turin papyrus, a very important Egyptian
  manuscript, discovered by Champollion. (3) _Manetho_. An
  Egyptian priest, he wrote, about 250 B.C., a history. Only his lists
  of dynasties are preserved as given in an Armenian version of
  _Eusebius_, a writer of the fourth century, and in _George
  Syncellus_, a writer of the eighth century, who professed to
  embody the statements of Eusebius and of another author, _Julius
  Africanus_, probably of the second century, who had also quoted
  the lists of Manetho. Manetho is of great importance; but we do not
  know accurately what his original text was, it being so differently
  reported. His details frequently clash with the monuments. Moreover,
  the method adopted by him in making his lists is, in essential
  points, subject to doubt. (4) The Greek historians. _Herodotus_
  had visited Egypt (between 460 and 450 B.C.), and conferred with
  Egyptian priests. _Diodorus_, also, in the time of Julius
  Caesar, had visited Egypt. He is largely a copyist of Herodotus. (5)
  The Old Testament. Here we have many instructive references to
  Egypt. But, until Rehoboam, the kings of Egypt have in the
  Scriptures the general name of _Pharaoh_. Hence it is not
  always easy to identify them with corresponding kings on the
  Egyptian lists.

CHRONOLOGY.--The date of the beginning of the first dynasty of
Egyptian rulers is a controverted point; there are advocates of a
longer and of a shorter chronology. The data are not sufficient to
settle accurately the questions in dispute. Some judicious scholars
put the beginning of _the first dynasty_ as early as 5000 B.C.;
others have wished to bring it down even lower than 3000 B.C. Egyptian
history, prior to the Persian conquest (525 B.C.), divides itself into
three sections,--the _Old Empire_, having its seat at Memphis;
the _Middle Empire_, following upon a period of strife and
division, and embracing the rule of foreign invaders, _the
Hyksos;_ and the _New Empire_, the era of conquest, by foreign
power, and of downfall.

  The expedition of Shishak, king of Egypt, against Rehoboam, is
  ascertained, from both Egyptian and Hebrew sources, to have been not
  earlier than 971 B.C., and within twenty-five years of that
  date. The nineteenth Egyptian dynasty began about the year 1350
  B.C. The Middle Empire is thought by some to have commenced as early
  as 2200 B.C.; by others as late as 1720 B.C. When we go backward
  into the Old Empire, the sources of uncertainty are multiplied. The
  main difficulty is to determine whether the lists of dynasties are
  _consecutive_ throughout, or in part _contemporary_. One
  class of scholars place the date of the first historic king,
  _Menes_, two or three thousand years earlier than the point
  assigned by the other class! The date of Menes given by _Böckh_
  is 5702 B.C.; by _Lenormant_, 5004 B.C.; by _Brugsch_,
  4455 B.C.; by _Lepsius_, 3852 B.C.; by _Bunsen_, 3623 or
  3059 B.C.; _E. Meyer_ makes 3180 B.C. the lowest possible date
  for Menes; 3233 B.C. is the date assigned by _Duncker_. On the
  contrary, _R. S. Poole_ gives 2717 B.C.; _Wilkinson_, 2691
  B.C.; and _G. Rawlinson_, between 2450 and 2250 B.C. There are
  no means of fully determining the controversy, as Rawlinson has
  shown (_History of Ancient Egypt_, vol. ii., p. 19). It appears
  to be well ascertained that Egyptian civilization was in being at
  least as far back as about 4000 B.C.

THE POLITICAL SYSTEM.--The bulk of the people were farmers and
shepherds, indisposed to war. The land was owned in large estates by
the nobles, who were possessed of multitudes of serfs and of
cattle. They had in their service, also, artisans, oarsmen, and
traffickers. The centers of industry were the numerous cities. Here
the nobles had their mansions, and the gods their temples with
retinues of priests. But the Nomes had each its particular
jurisdiction. The traces of two original communities are preserved in
the mythological legends and in the titles of the kings. The oldest
inscriptions discover to us a systematic organization of the
state. The king is supreme: under him are the rulers of the two halves
of the kingdom. He creates the army, and appoints its generals. The
whole strength of the kingdom is given to him for the erection of the
temples which he raises to the gods, or of the stupendous pyramid
which is to form his sepulcher. The nobility make up his court; from
them he selects his chief officers of state,--his secretary, his
treasurer, his inspector of quarries, etc. The princes and princesses
are educated in connection with the children of the highest nobles. A
body-guard protects the monarch: he shows himself to the people only
in stately processions. All who approach him prostrate themselves at
his feet. He is the descendant of the gods. The Pharaohs are even
looked upon as gods incarnate. They are clothed with all power on
earth. When they die, they go to the gods; and rites of worship are
instituted for them. That there was a well-ordered and efficient civil
administration admits of no doubt. Whether there existed a thrifty
middle class or not we can not decide. The tendency was for the child
to follow the vocation of the parent, but there were no rigid barriers
of caste. Not until the New Empire, was there an attempt to build up
such a wall even about the priesthood.

THE RELIGION.--With the Egyptians, religion was a matter of supreme
and absorbing interest. There was a popular religion; and there arose
early, in connection with it, an esoteric or secret doctrine relative
to the gods and to the legends respecting them,--a lore that pertained
especially to the priesthood. Moreover, while the religious system,
from the earliest date, is polytheistic, we have proof that the
educated class, sooner or later, put a monotheistic interpretation
upon it, and believed in one supreme deity, of whom all the particular
gods were so many forms and manifestations, or that one being under
different names. Whether this more elevated faith preceded the
reigning system, or was a later offspring of it, is a matter of
dispute. For a long period the two co-existed, and without collision.

The great divinities of Egypt are pre-eminently gods of light. They
are associated with the SUN. With the agency of that luminary, with
his rising and setting, they stand in a close relation. All Egypt
worships the sun under the names of _Ra_ and _Horus_. Horus
is the adversary of _Seth_ (called _Typhon_ by the Greeks),
the god of darkness, and is born anew every morning to attack and
conquer him. In honor of Ra, the lofty obelisks, or symbols of the
sun's rays, are erected, each of which has its own name and
priests. With the sun-gods are joined the goddesses of the
heavens,--_Nut_, _Hather_, _Isis_, and others. But
_Osiris_ became the most famous sun-god. His worship was
originally at Abydos and Busiris. At length his cult spread over the
whole land. In the legend, he is murdered by Seth; but Horus is his
avenger. Horus conquers the power of darkness. Henceforward Osiris
reigns in the kingdom of the West, the home of the dead. He is the sun
in the realm of the shades.  He receives the dead, is their protector,
and the judge whose final award is blessedness or perpetual
misery. The departed, if their lives have not been wicked, become one
with him. They are each of them called by his name. To Osiris, all
sepulchral inscriptions are addressed. His career, with the victory of
the power of darkness over him, and his glorious revival in the
regions of the West, typifies human life and destiny. The principal
god at Memphis is _Ptah_, the primal divinity, the former of
heaven and earth; yet, perhaps, a god of light, since he is styled by
the Greeks, _Hephaestus_. At Thebes, _Ammon_ was revered as
the king of the gods: he shared in the properties of the
sun. _Thoth_ is the chief moon-god, who presides over the
reckoning of time. He is the god of letters and of the arts, the
author of sacred books. The Nile is worshiped under the name of
_Hapi_, being figured as a man with pendent breasts, an emblem of
the fertility of the river. The gods were often connected in triads,
there being in each a father, a mother, and a son. To bring to them
the right offerings, and to repeat the right formulas, was a matter of
momentous concern. Homage was directed to the material objects with
which the activity of the god was thought to be connected, and in
which he was believed to be present. All nature was full of
deities. There were sacred trees, stones, utensils. Above all,
animals, in their mysterious life, were identified with the
divinities. Worship was offered to the crocodile, the cat, the bull,
etc. In the temples these creatures were carefully tended and
obsequiously served.

EMBALMING.--Believing that the soul survives death, the Egyptians
linked its weal with the preservation of the body, from which they
could not conceive its destiny to be wholly dissevered. Thus arose the
universal practice of embalming, and of presenting, at intervals,
offerings of food and drink to the departed. The tomb contains a room
for sacred services to the dead. The most ancient structures are
sepulchers. They were the germ of the pyramid, in which rested the
sarcophagus of the king.

RELIGION AND MORALITY.--The leading gods were held to be the makers of
the world and of men, the givers of good, the rulers and disposers of
all things. Morality was not separated from religion. The gods
punished unrighteousness and inhumanity. In the age of the
pyramid-builders, family life was not wanting in purity; the wife and
mother was held in respect: monogamy prevailed. _Ma-t_ was the
goddess of truth: in the myth of Osiris, it is in her hall that the
dead are judged.

THE PRIESTS.--The priests are the guardians of religious rites. They
are acquainted with the origin and import of them. Their knowledge is
communicated only to select believers. It was a body of traditions,
guarded as a mysterious treasure. But the priests, certainly until a
late period, do not control the king. The civil authority is
uppermost.

LITERATURE AND SCIENCE.--The most important Egyptian book that has
come down to us is the _Book of the Dead._ It relates, in a
mystical strain, the adventures of the soul after death, and explains
how, by reciting the names and titles of numberless gods, and by means
of other theological knowledge, the soul can make its way to the hall
of Osiris. It is a monument of the pedantic and punctilious formalism
of the Egyptian ritual. Most of the papyri that have been preserved
are of a religious character. There are songs not void of beauty. The
moral writings are of a decidedly higher grade. Works of fiction are
constructed with considerable skill, and are sometimes not wanting in
humor. Some of the hymns are not destitute of merit. It can not be
doubted that there were important mathematical writings. Astronomical
observations were very early made. In medicine, we have writings which
prove that considerable proficiency was attained in this
department. But here, as in other branches, the spirit was empirical
rather than scientific in the higher sense; and the result was to
petrify knowledge in an unalterable form. At length rules of medical
treatment, with specific remedies, were definitely settled, from which
it was a crime against the state to deviate.

THE OLD EMPIRE (to about 2100 B.C.).--_Senoferu,_ who belongs to
the third dynasty, is the first king who has left behind him a
monumental inscription. A rock-tablet in the peninsula of Sinai gives
him the title of conqueror. By some, the pyramid of Meydoun, built in
three distinct stages to a height of 125 feet, is ascribed to him, and
is believed to be his sepulcher. At Saccarah is a pyramid of like
form, 200 feet in height. _Khufu,_ the Cheops of Herodotus, was
the builder of the "Great Pyramid" of Ghizeh, the largest and loftiest
building on earth. Its original perpendicular height was not less than
480 feet, the length of its side 764 feet, and the area covered by it
more than thirteen acres. Near it are the small pyramids, which were
the sepulchers of his wives and other relatives. The statues of
_Khafra_ remain, and the wooden mummy-case of _Menkaura,_
with the myth of Osiris recorded on it. These were the builders of the
two other most celebrated pyramids, the second and the third. With the
long reign of _Unas_ closes the first era in Egyptian
history. His unfinished pyramid, built of huge blocks of limestone,
indicates that he died too soon to complete it. From this date, back
to the epoch of _Senoferu_, are included nearly three
centuries. In this period of prevalent peace, art had the opportunity
to develop. The spirit of progress in this department had not yet been
cramped by the "hieratic canon," the fixed rules set for artistic
labor. There is evidence of considerable knowledge in anatomy and
medicine. The myth of Osiris expanded, and his worship spread.

With the sixth dynasty a new epoch begins. The most powerful monarch
in this series is _Pepi_. He levied armies, conquered the negroes
of Nubia, and waged war against the nomads of the eastern desert. The
interval from the sixth to the tenth dynasty was marked by usurpations
and insurrections. The district governors sought to make themselves
independent. Monarchs rose and fell. Syrian invaders appear to have
seized the occasion to attack the country. _Heliopolis_, with
_Tum_ for its sun-god, is the center of the new symbolical lore
of the priesthood. Power is transferred to _Thebes_, and
_Ammon_ becomes the embodiment of the monotheistic conception,
the supreme deity.

The Theban ruling-house gradually extended its supremacy over the
land. The kings of the twelfth dynasty have left their inscriptions
everywhere, and of several of them gigantic portrait-statues
remain. _Amenemhat I._ and his successors are prosperous
sovereigns. They carry on a lively intercourse of trade with the small
states of Syria, reaching possibly to Babylon. Under the twelfth
dynasty, the valley of the upper Nile was conquered. _Usurtasen
III._, in after times, was revered as the subduer of the Nubian
land. By monarchs of this epoch, vast structures, like the temple of
Ammon at Thebes and the temple of the Sun at Heliopolis, were
erected. _Amenemhat III._ built the immense artificial reservoir,
Lake Moeris, to receive and dispense the waters of the Nile. Under the
twelfth dynasty is the blossoming period of literature. The carving of
hieroglyphics and the execution of the details of art reach their
perfection. It is the culminating point of Egyptian culture.

THE MIDDLE EMPIRE (FROM ABOUT 2100 TO 1600 B.C.).--The season of
prosperity under the twelfth dynasty was followed by anarchy and the
downfall of the Theban rule. According to _Manetho_, it was under
a king named _Timaos_ that a horde of invaders--the
_Hyksos_, or _"shepherds"_--came in from the north,
devastated the country, and made themselves its rulers. They were
probably of Semitic descent, but nothing more is known as to their
origin. In connection with them, Semitic, and in particular Canaanite,
elements penetrated into Egypt, and left their traces in its
language. The residence of their kings was _Tanis_, on the
eastern Delta, a splendid city, which they still more adorned. They
conquered Memphis, but their power was not permanently established in
Lower Egypt. The duration of their control was a number of
centuries,--how many can only be conjectured. It is believed by some
scholars that either _Apepi,_ or _Nub_, kings of the Hyksos
line, was the sovereign who made _Joseph_ his prime minister, and
invited his family to settle in the land of Goshen. The elevation of a
foreigner and a Semite to an exalted office is thought to be less
improbable in connection with a Semitic dynasty.

The New Empire (from 1600 to 525 B.C.).--The expulsion of the Hyksos
was effected by _Aahmes I_., first king of the eighteenth
dynasty. It was accomplished, however, not all at once, but
gradually. From this event Egypt enters on a new stage in its
career. It becomes a military, an aggressive, and a conquering
state. Notwithstanding the enormous sacrifice of life that must have
been involved in the erection of pyramids and in other public works,
the Egyptians had not been a cruel people: compared with most Semitic
peoples, they had been disposed to peace. But now a martial spirit is
evoked. A military class arises. Wars for plunder and conquest
ensue. The use of horses in battle is a new and significant fact. The
character of the people changes for the worse.  The priestly class
become more compact and domineering. Temples are the principal
edifices, in the room of massive sepulchers.

Under _Thothmes I_. and his successors, especially _Thothmes
III_., wars were successfully waged against the Syrians, and
against the Ethiopians on the south. The palaces and temples of
Thebes, including the gigantic structures at _Karnak_ and
_Luxor_, are witnesses to the grandeur of these monarchs. The
Egyptian arms were carried through Syria, and as far even as
Nineveh. During the reigns of _Amenophis III_. and _Amenophis
IV_., that is, in the latter half of the fifteenth century B.C.,
the _Amarna Letters_ (see p. 44) were written. Under the
_Ramessides_, the conquests of Egypt reached their farthest
limit.

RAMSES II.--Ramses II., or Ramses the Great (1340-1273 B.C.),--who was
called by the Greeks Sesostris, a name with which they linked many
fabulous narratives,--is the most brilliant personage in Egyptian
history. He is the first of the renowned conquerors, the forerunner of
the Alexanders and Napoleons. His monuments are scattered over all
Egypt. In his childhood he was associated on the throne with his
father, himself a magnificent monarch, _Seti I_. In the seventh
year of the sole reign of the son he had to encounter a formidable
confederacy under the lead of the Syrian _Hittites_--the
"Khita"--in the north-east, a powerful nation. How he saved himself by
his personal valor, on the field of _Kadesh_, is celebrated in
the Egyptian Iliad, the heroic poem of _Pentaur_. A subsequent
treaty with this people is one of the most precious memorials of his
reign.

THE HITTITES.--Recent explorations have shown that the _Hittites_
of Scripture were families, or smaller communities, in Palestine, of a
people whose proper seat was in northern Syria, especially the country
lying along the Orontes; their territory being bounded on the east by
the Euphrates, and extending westward into the Taurus Mountains. In
one place they are spoken of as distant (Judg. i. 26). The "Khita" of
the Egyptians, called "Khatti" by the Assyrians, were a civilized and
powerful nation, whose sway was so extended that their outposts were
at times on the western coast of Asia Minor. They were a non-Semitic
people. The great victory of Ramses (1320 B.C.)  was with difficulty
won. The Hittites were also rivals of the Assyrians from an early
period. At length Sargon captured their capital, _Carchemish_
(717 B.C.), and broke down their power. Numerous Hittite inscriptions
have been discovered, written in a hieroglyphic script which has not
yet (1903) been deciphered.

Subsequently we find _Ramses_ in _Galilee_, as it was called
later: we find him storming the city of _Askalon_ in Philistia,
and in various military expeditions, in which he brought home with him
multitudes of captives. The mighty temples which he built at Abydos,
Thebes, and Memphis, and the gorgeous palace, "the House of Ramses,"
south of Karnak, were in keeping with other displays of his energy and
magnificence.

THE BONDAGE OF THE ISRAELITES.--Ramses II. has been generally believed
to be "the Pharaoh of the oppression," under whom the Hebrews
suffered; and his son _Menephthah_, to be the Pharaoh under whom
the exodus took place. Recent discoveries have rendered these
conclusions very doubtful, however. It is also quite uncertain how
long the Egyptian bondage lasted. According to the Hebrew Old
Testament, its duration was 430 years; according to the
_Septuagint_, or Greek version, half that period (as implied in
Gal. iii. 17).

To THE PERSIAN CONQUEST.--From about 1500 to 1300 B.C., Egypt was the
foremost nation in culture, arts, and military prowess. Under the
later kings bearing the name of Ramses, the empire began to decay. The
Ethiopians in the south revolted, and set up an independent kingdom,
_Meroe_, of which _Napata_ was the capital. _Shishak_
(961-940 B.C.) aspired to restore the Egyptian rule in the East. He
marched into Judæa, and captured and plundered Jerusalem. He made
_Rehoboam_, king of Judah, a tributary, and strengthened
Jeroboam, the ally of Egypt. He even led his forces across the valley
of the Jordan. At length (730 B.C.) the Ethiopians gained the upper
hand in Egypt. Their three kings form the twenty-fifth dynasty. As the
power of Egypt was on the wane, the power of Assyria was more and more
in the ascendant. _Shabak_ joined hands with _Hoshea_, king
of Israel, but was defeated by the Assyrians, under _Sargon II_.,
in a pitched battle at _Raphia_, in which the superiority of the
Asiatic kingdom was evinced. Later (701 B.C.) _Sennacherib_
defeated an Egyptian army, sent for the relief of Ekron, and made
_Hezekiah_ a tributary. _Tirhakah,_ the ally of Hezekiah,
continued the struggle. His army was saved from overthrow by the
disaster which happened to Sennacherib's host in the neighboring camp
on the eve of battle. Twenty years later, he was vanquished by an
invading army under the son and successor of Sennacherib,
_Esarhaddon._ The rule of the Ethiopian dynasty was
subverted. The Assyrians intrusted the government to twenty governors,
of whom the most were natives. Of these governors, one, then king of
Sais, _Psammeticus I._ (663-616 B.C.), in alliance with Gyges,
king of Lydia, and with the aid of Carians, Phoenicians, and Lycians,
cast off the Assyrian yoke, and became sole ruler of Egypt. This epoch
is marked by the introduction of numerous foreigners into the country,
and by the exertion of a powerful and lasting Greek influence. _Neku
II._--the _Necho_ of Scripture--(610-594 B.C.), the son of
Psammeticus I., defeated _Josiah,_ king of Judah, at
_Megiddo_ (608 B.C.); and Josiah fell in the battle. But,
advancing to _Carchemish_ by the Euphrates, Neku, in turn, was
vanquished by _Nebuchadnezzar,_ king of Babylon, which had now
become the formidable power. The defeat of Neku ended Egyptian rule in
the East. _Apries_ (588 B.C.), the _Hophra_ of Scripture,
was dethroned by a revolt of his own soldiers, in a war with the
Greeks of Cyrene, and was succeeded by _Aahmes,_ or _Amasis_
(570-526), under whose auspices foreigners, and especially Greeks,
acquired an augmented influence. Egypt had escaped from permanent
subjection to Assyria or Babylon; but a new empire, the Persian Empire
of Cyrus, was advancing on the path to universal
dominion. _Cyrus_ was too busy with other undertakings to attack
Egypt; but _Cambyses,_ his successor, led an army into that
country; and, having defeated _Psammeticus III.,_ at the battle
of _Pelusium,_ he made it a Persian province (525 B.C.).

  LITERATURE.--See the list on p. 16. 1. Works on Oriental History as
  a whole: DUNCKER'S _History of Antiquity._ It includes, also,
  Greece. Lenormant and Chevalier, _Manual of the Ancient History of
  the East_ (2 vols.); G. Rawlinson, _The Five Great
  Monarchies_ (3 vols.), _The Sixth Great Monarchy_ (Parthia),
  _The Seventh Great Monarchy_ (the Sassanidæ), _The Origin of
  Nations_ (1 vol.), _Manual of Ancient History_ (1 vol.),
  _Egypt and Babylon_ (1 vol.). LENORMANT, _The Beginnings of
  History_ (1 vol.); P. Smith, _The Ancient History of the
  East_ (1 vol.), _History of the World_ (_Ancient
  History_, 3 vols.); Maspero, _History of the Ancient Orient_
  (3 vols.); Doublier, _Gesch. des Alterthums_ (from the cultural
  point of view, 1 vol.); E. Meyer, _Gesch. des Alterthums._

  2. Works on the History of Egypt. BRUGSCH-BEY, _History of Egypt
  under the Pharaohs_ (2 vols.); G. Rawlinson, _History of
  Ancient Egypt_ (2 vols.);, _Aperçu de l'Histoire d'Egypte_
  (1864), and numerous other writings; WILKINSON, _Manners and
  Customs of Egypt_ (3 vols.); ERMAN, _Egypt_; Petrie,
  _History of Egypt_; Erman, _Egyptian Life_ (1894); Birch,
  _Records of the Past_ (translations of Egyptian and Assyrian
  Monuments, 11 vols.), _Egypt from the Earliest Times_; Perrot
  and Chipiez, _History of Art in Ancient Egypt_ (1883);
  FERGUSSON'S _History of Architecture_; the great illustrative
  works of the French _savans_ under Napoleon I.; the great
  illustrated works of Rossellini, and the works of Lepsius; the
  novels of Ebers, _The Sisters; Uarda; The Egyptian Princess_.



CHAPTER II.


ASSYRIA AND BABYLON.

THE GEOGRAPHY.--Assyria and Babylonia were geographically
connected. They were inhabited by the same race, and, for the greater
part of their history, were under one government. Babylonia comprised
the lower basin of the _Euphrates_ and _Tigris,_ while
Assyria included the hilly region along the upper and middle Tigris;
the boundary being where the two rivers, in their long progress from
their sources in the mountains of Armenia, at length approach one
another at a place about three hundred and fifty miles from their
outlet in the Persian Gulf. Both streams, in particular the Euphrates,
annually flooded the adjacent territory, and by canals and dams were
made to add to its productiveness. The shores of the Euphrates, after
its descent from the plateau to the plains, were fertile beyond
measure. Here the date-palm, whose juice as well as fruit were so
highly prized, flourished. Even now wheat grows wild near the river's
mouth.

THE EARLY INHABITANTS.--The oldest inhabitants of this region of whom
we have any knowledge were the _Sumerians,_ whose territory
included both _Sumer_ ("Shinar"), or southern Babylonia, and
_Akkad,_ or northern Babylonia. On the east were the
_Elamites,_ with _Susa_ for their capital; to the north of
these were the warlike _Kassites._ The Sumerians, who preceded
the Semites in the occupancy of Babylonia, were of an unknown
stock. They were the founders of Babylonian culture. Even by them the
soil was skillfully cultivated with the help of dikes and canals. They
were the inventors of the cuneiform writing. The cuneiform characters
were originally pictures; but these were resolved into wedge-shaped
characters of uniform appearance, the significance of which was
determined by their position and local relation to one another. It is
not known how long the Sumerian period lasted, nor even when it
closed; the chronology of the earliest Semitic period is also very
uncertain. The south-Babylonian kings _Urukagina,_ of
_Shirpurla_ (Lagash), and _Enshagkushana,_ of a district
which included _Nippur,_ are dated by most Assyriologists as
early as 4000 B.C., or even earlier. Whether they were Sumerians, or
Semites, is not certain; their inscriptions do not settle the
question. It was probably not far from this time, however, that the
one race supplanted the other. A Semitic people--coming either
directly from the ancestral home, Arabia, or from a previous
settlement in Mesopotamia, north-west of Babylonia--invaded the land
and conquered the Sumerians. They planted themselves first in northern
Babylonia, and then gradually extended their power over the districts
on the south. The conquerors adopted the civilization of the
conquered. The earliest Semitic kings all used the Sumerian dialect in
their inscriptions. It was only by slow degrees that the native
language was superseded by that of the new rulers. Later,--before the
time of _Hammurabi_; see below,--these Semites carried their
settlements northward, and became the founders of Assyria.

  SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE.--_Berosus_, a Babylonian priest, wrote a
  history of his country as early as 250 B.C. He was a trustworthy
  writer, as far as his means of knowledge went; but it is only
  fragments of his work that we possess, and these in inaccurate
  quotations, partly at second hand. Greek writers, as _Ctesias_,
  drew from Persian sources; and their narratives up to the later
  times of the Persian rule can not be relied on. The great source of
  knowledge is the rapidly increasing store of records in the
  cuneiform character. A vast number of inscriptions on stone and
  clay, representing nearly every department of literature, have been
  unearthed, and the material which they afford has already given us
  an extensive knowledge of Babylonian and Assyrian history. The site
  of _Nineveh_ has been extensively excavated, and we have,
  therefore, especially full information as to the history and
  literature of Assyria. Babylonian monuments in considerable number
  have more recently come to light. Aside from Nineveh and Babylon,
  especially important excavations have been undertaken at _Nifpur,
  Lagash_ (Telloh)--thus far the chief source of Sumerian
  material--and _Susa_.


I. THE OLD KINGDOM OF BABYLON.

EARLY HISTORY.--The history of ancient Babylonia is still very
obscure, and the chronology only tentative. We see at first a number
of independent cities, each ruled by a petty king, who was also a
priest. Then appear groups of cities, one of which exercised sway over
a more or less extended district. The center of power was now in
Erech, now in Ur, or Babylon, or some other city, whose king ruled
supreme over numerous vassal kings. Among the first important names
known to us are those of _Sargon I._ (3800 B.C.), king of Agade,
a great conqueror and builder, and his son, _Naram-sin_. Another
great builder was _Gudea_, king of Shirpurla. Most conspicuous of
all is _Hammurabi_ (2250 B.C.), king of Babylon, who is probably
the "Amraphel" of Gen. xiv. His kingdom included not only the whole of
Babylonia proper, but also Assyria, and probably even the "West Land"
as far as the Mediterranean. The records show him to have been a truly
great ruler, both in war and in peace. He is known to us chiefly from
a collection of his _Letters_ to certain officials of his
kingdom, and from his elaborate _Code_ of civil laws, found at
Susa in 1899, and first published in 1902; perhaps the most important
single monument of early civilization which has thus far come to
light. The laws, written in the Babylonian (Semitic) language, and
engraved on a stele of hard black stone, were about two hundred and
eighty in number, and bear an interesting general resemblance to the
old Hebrew laws, especially those preserved in Exodus xxi. and xxii.

In the time of the kings _Kadashman-bel_ and _Burnaburiash
II_. (about 1400 B.C.) falls the _Amarna Correspondence_ (see
p. 40). At _Tell el-Amarna_, in upper Egypt, were unearthed, in
1887, more than three hundred clay tablets containing diplomatic
dispatches, written in the cuneiform character, and nearly all in the
Babylonian language. They were addressed to the Egyptian king, or to
his ministers, and had been sent from various officials and royal
personages in Babylonia, Assyria, Palestine (including a number of
letters from _Abdi-khiba_ of _Jerusalem_), and other
districts. They furnish a large amount of important information as to
conditions in western Asia at that early period.

An important _Kassite_ dynasty occupied the throne of Babylon
from the eighteenth century to the twelfth century B.C. Under these
Kassite rulers, the kingdom at length declined, while the neighboring
Assyrian state had increased in power. Later still, apparently not
earlier than the ninth century B.C., the _Chaldoeans_ (of Semitic
stock?) pushed north-westward into Babylonia from their district about
the mouth of the Euphrates, and eventually made themselves masters of
the land.

RELIGION AND SCIENCE.--If the events connected with old Babylon are
less known, more is ascertained respecting its civilization. The
groundwork, as was stated, was laid by the earlier conquered
people. The religion of the Babylonians rested on the basis of the old
Sumerian worship. There was homage to demons, powerful for good or for
evil, who were brought together into groups, and were figured now as
human beings, now as lions or other wild animals, or as dragons and
that sort of monsters. Of the great gods, _Anu_, the god of the
sky, was the father and king of all. _Sin_, the moon-god, a
Sumerian divinity, at the outset had the highest rank. _Bel_, or
_Baal_, however, a Semitic divinity, was the god of the earth,
and particularly of mankind.  _Ea_ was the god of the deep, and
of the underworld. The early development of astrology and its great
influence in old Babylon were closely connected with the supposed
association of the luminaries above with the gods. The stars were
thought to indicate at the birth of a child what his fortunes would
be, and to afford the means of foretelling other remarkable
events. _Ishtar_, a goddess of war and of love, was worshiped
also under the name _Beltis_, the Greek _Mylitta_. This
deity embodied the _generative principle_, the spring of
fertility, whose beneficent agency was seen in the abundant
harvest. She was clothed with sensual attributes, and propitiated with
unchaste rites. It was in the worship of this divinity that the coarse
and licentious side of the Semitic nature expressed itself. At the
same time, there was an opposite ascetic side in the service of this
deity. Her priests were eunuchs: they ministered at her altar in
woman's attire. On the relation of the human soul to the gods, and its
condition after death, there was little speculation. In general, the
Babylonians were more interested in religion and worship, than the
Assyrians. The former erected temples; the latter, palaces.

The attainments of the early Babylonians in mathematics and astronomy
were far beyond those of the Egyptians. They divided the year into
twelve months, and arrived at the signs of the ecliptic or zodiac. The
week they fixed at seven days by the course of the moon. They divided
the day into twelve hours, and the hour into sixty minutes. They
invented weights and measures, the knowledge of which went from them
to the other Asiatic nations. Architecture, as regards taste, was in a
rude state. In pottery, they showed much skill and ingenuity, and
invented the potter's wheel. In the engraving of gems, and in the
manufacture of delicate fabrics,--linen, muslin, and silk,--they were
expert. Trade and commerce, favored by the position of Babylon, began
to flourish. As regards literature, the libraries of Nineveh and
Babylon, at a later day, contained many books translated from the
early Sumerian language. Among them are the "Gilgamesh legends," in
which is contained a story of the flood that resembles in essential
features the account in Genesis.


II. THE ASSYRIAN EMPIRE.

GROWTH OF ITS POWER.--Assyria was even greater, as a conquering power,
than Babylon. In the legends current among the Greeks, the building-up
of the monarchy, and of Nineveh its capital, as well as of Babylon, is
referred to the legendary heroes, _Ninus_ and his queen
_Semiramis_. The name of Ninus is not recorded on the monuments,
and is, perhaps, a kind of mythical personification of Assyrian
conquests and grandeur; and the name of Semiramis does not appear
until the ninth century B.C. She may have been a princess or even
queen. Assyrian independence began before 2300 B.C. Between 1500 and
1400 B.C., Assyria was a weak state. It gained a brief mastery over
Babylon through a conquest by _Tukulti-Ninib_ (1300
B.C.). _Tiglath-Pileser I_. (1100 B.C.) spread his conquests to
the Mediterranean and the Caspian on the west, and south to the
Persian Gulf. But these early acquisitions of Assyria were
transient. There ensued a long interval, until the middle of the tenth
century, when the monarchy was mostly confined within its own proper
borders. A new series of strong and aggressive princes arose. The
conflicts of Damascus and of the nations of Palestine with one another
left room for the growth of the Assyrian might and for the spread of
Assyrian dominion.  _Asshur-nasir-pal_ (formerly called
_Sardanapalus I._) levied tribute upon Tyre, and the other rich
cities of the Syrian coast, and founded the Assyrian rule in
_Cilicia_. About the middle of the eighth century, the kingdom of
Israel, having renounced its vassalage to Assyria, in league with
_Rezin_ of Damascus, the ruler of Syria, made war upon the
kingdom of Judah. _Ahaz_, the Judaean king, against the protest
of the prophet _Isaiah_, invoked the aid of the Assyrian monarch,
_Tiglath-Pileser II_. The call was answered. The league was
overthrown by him in a great battle fought near the Euphrates, and
numerous captives, according to the Assyrian practice, were carried
away from Samaria and Damascus. We are told that _Ahaz_, seeing
the offerings made by Tiglath-Pileser at Damascus, commanded his
priests at Jerusalem, despite the remonstrance of Isaiah, to make
offerings to the Assyrian gods. Judah, as the result of these events,
became tributary to Assyria. All Syria, together with Babylonia, which
was then made up of several states, western Iran, and Armenia, were
subdued by this Assyrian conqueror. He formally assumed the title of
"King of Babylon."  _Shalmaneser IV._ (727-722 B.C.), bent on
completing the subjugation of Syria, subdued anew the revolted cities,
and conquered, as it would seem, the island of _Cyprus_. Tyre
alone, that is, the insular city of that name, withstood a siege of
five years. _Hoshea_, the king of Israel (733-722 B.C.), in order
to throw off the Assyrian yoke, sent an embassy to _Shabak_, the
king of Egypt, to procure his assistance. Hearing of this,
_Shalmaneser_ attacked Israel. After a siege of three years,
Samaria, the capital, fell into the hands of _Sargon_, who had
succeeded him, the kingdom of Israel was subverted, and a great part
of the people dragged off into captivity. In 720 B.C., _Sargon_
encountered _Shabak_, in the great battle of _Raphia_, in
southern Palestine, whom he defeated, and put to flight. He received
tribute from Egypt, conquered a part of Arabia, and received the
homage of the king of _Meroe_, who made a journey from Ethiopia
to bow before him. The reign of _Sennacherib_ (705-681 B.C.) was
an eventful one, both for Assyria and for the neighboring
countries. _Hezekiah_, king of Judah, hoped with the aid of Egypt
to achieve his independence. Sennacherib was obliged to raise the
siege of Jerusalem, after Hezekiah had vainly sought to propitiate him
with large offerings of silver and gold; but the Assyrian was
prevented from engaging in battle with _Tirhaka_ of Egypt by a
great calamity that befell his army. Against Babylon, which frequently
revolted, he was more successful. "Berodach-baladan," as he is called
in Scripture (2 Kings, chap. 20), who at an earlier day had sent an
embassy from Babylon to Hezekiah, was overcome, and a new ruler
enthroned in his place. _Esarhaddon_ (681-668 B.C.) not only
restored the Assyrian sway over Syria, Phoenicia, Cyprus, Judah, and a
part of Arabia, countries that lost no opportunity to shake off the
cruel and hateful rule of Nineveh, but also conquered Egypt, and
parceled it out among twenty governors. By Esarhaddon, or by his
successor, _Manasseh_, king of Judah, was conquered, and carried
off as a captive, but afterwards restored to his throne. Assyria was
now at the summit of its power. _Asshur-bani-pal V._ (668-626
B.C.), called Sardanapalus, although he lost Egypt, confirmed the
Assyrian power in the other subject states, and received tribute from
_Lydia_, on the western border of Asia Minor. Under him, Assyrian
art made its farthest advance. He was the builder of magnificent
palaces. It is his library, dug up from the grave in which it had been
buried for two and a half decades of centuries, that has yielded a
vast amount of welcome information concerning Assyrian and Babylonian
history far back into the Sumerian period.

RELIGION AND ART.--It has been stated that the Assyrian culture was
transplanted from Babylon. The religion was substantially the same,
except that _Asshur_, the tutelary deity of the country, was made
supreme. The Assyrians from the start were devoted to war, pillage,
and conquest. Their unsparing cruelty and brutal treatment of their
enemies are abundantly witnessed by their own monuments. They lacked
the productive power in literature and art which belonged to the
Babylonians. Although they might have built their edifices of stone,
they generally made use of brick. Their sculptures in relief were much
better than the full figures. They laid color upon their works in
sculpture. But their art was merely a pictorial record of events. The
sense of beauty and creative power were wanting. The more religious
character of the Babylonians created a difference in the architecture
of the two peoples. In gem-cutting both were singularly expert. The
Assyrians gave less attention to the burial of the dead. They showed
an aptitude for trade; and Nineveh, in the eighth and seventh
centuries, was a busy mart.

THE FALL OF ASSYRIA.--The first important blow at the Assyrian
imperial rule was struck by the _Medes_. After nearly a century
of resistance, they had been subdued (710 B.C.), and were subject to
Assyria for a century after. In 640 B.C., they rose in revolt, under
_Phraortes_, one of their native chiefs, who fell in battle. The
struggle was continued by his son, _Cyaxares_. His plans were
interrupted, however, by

THE IRRUPTION OF THE SCYTHIANS (623 B.C.).--More than a century
before, these wandering Asiatic tribes had begun to make predatory
incursions into Asia Minor. When _Cyaxares_ was before Nineveh,
they came down in greater force, and a horde of them, moving southward
from the river Halys, invaded Syria. Jerusalem and the stronger cities
held out against them, but the open country was devastated. They were
met by _Psammeticus I._, king of Egypt, and bribed to turn
back. They entered Babylonia; but _Nabopolassar_, the viceroy of
Asshur-bani-pal (Sardanapalus), successfully defended the city of
Babylon against their attacks. By _Cyaxares_, either these or
another horde were defeated; but it was not until 605 B.C. that the
region south of the Black Sea was cleared of them. The kingdom of
_Lydia_ had now come to play an important part in the affairs of
western Asia.

  Our first knowledge of the peoples of Asia Minor is from the Homeric
  poems (about 900 B.C.). The _Chalybeans_ were in Pontus; west
  of them, the _Amazonians_ and _Paphlagonians_; west of
  these, the _Mysians_; on the Hellespont, small tribes related
  to the _Trojans_; on the Ægean, the _Dardanians_ and the
  _Trojans_ (on the north), the _Carians_ and the
  _Lycians_ (on the south); on the north-east of these last, the
  _Phrygians_.

  A large portion of the early inhabitants of Asia Minor were
  _Semitic_, and closely related to the Syrians. Semitic
  divinities were worshiped; a goddess, _Mylitta_, under other
  names, was adored in Pontus, at Ephesus, in Phrygia, and in Lydia.

The Lydians were of the Semitic race. _Cybele_, the female
divinity whom they served, was the same deity whose altars were at
Babylon, Nineveh, and Tyre. The rulers of the dynasty of the
_Mermnadæ, Gyges_ and his successors, spread the Lydian dominion
until it extended to the Hellespont, and included Mysia and
Phrygia. _Alyattes_ was able to extirpate the Cimmerian hordes
from the Sea of Azoff, who had overrun the western part of Asia Minor,
and to make the Halys his eastern boundary. Gyges had been slain in
the contest with those fierce barbarians, called in the Old Testament
_Gomer_. At first he had sought help from the Assyrians, but he
broke away from this dependence.

Liberated from the troubles of the Scythian irruption, _Cyaxares_
formed an alliance with _Nabopolassar_, the viceroy in Babylon,
who had revolted, and gained his independence. The Median ruler had
subdued Armenia, and established his control as far as the Halys,
making a treaty with Lydia. Now ensued the desperate conflict on which
hung the fate of the Assyrian Empire. Nineveh was taken (606 B.C.) by
the Medes under _Cyaxares_, and the Babylonians under
_Nebuchadnezzar_, the son of Nabopolassar. The Grecian story of
Sardanapalus burning himself on a lofty bier, is a myth. Assyria was
divided by the _Tigris_ between the _Medes_ and
_Babylonians._

THE THREE POWERS: EGYPT.--On the fall of Nineveh, there were three
principal powers left on the stage of action, which were bound
together by treaty, _Lydia, Media,_ and _Babylon._ Egypt
proved itself unable to cope with Babylonian power. _Necho,_
during the siege of Nineveh, had attacked Syria, and defeated the Jews
on the plain of Esdraelon, where king _Josiah_ was slain. He
dethroned _Jehoahaz,_ Josiah's son, and enthroned
_Jehoiakim_ in his stead. But when, in 605 B.C., he confronted
Nebuchadnezzar at _Carchemish,_ and was defeated, he was
compelled to give up Syria, and to retire within the boundaries of
Egypt.


III. THE NEW BABYLONIAN EMPIRE.

TRIUMPS OF NEBUCHADNEZZAR.--Syria was now at the mercy of
Nebuchadnezzar. He captured Jerusalem (597 B.C.), despoiled the temple
and palace, and led away Jehoiakim as a captive. He placed on the
throne of Judah Jehoiakim's uncle, _Zedekiah._ But this king,
having arranged an alliance between Egypt and the Phoenician cities,
revolted (590 B.C.), refusing to pay his tribute. Again Nebuchadnezzar
laid siege to Jerusalem, but raised the siege, in order to drive home
_Apries II._ (Hophra), the Egyptian ally of Zedekiah. The city
was taken, the king's sons were killed in his presence, his own eyes
were put out; and, after the temple and palace had been burned and the
city sacked, he, with all the families of the upper class who had not
escaped to the desert, was carried away to Babylon (586 B.C.). Tyre
(the old city) in like manner was taken by assault (585 B.C.).

By Nebuchadnezzar, Babylon was enlarged, and adorned on a scale of
unequaled splendor. The new palace, with its "hanging gardens," the
bridge over the Euphrates, the Median wall connecting the Euphrates
and the Tigris on his northern boundary, and magnificent waterworks,
are famous structures which belong to this reign. Wealth and luxury
abounded. But vigor of administration fell away under his successors;
and Babylon, after a dominion short when compared with the long sway
of Nineveh, was conquered by _Cyrus,_ the Medo-Persian king, in
538 B.C. The last king was _Nabonetus._

THE CITY OF BABYLON.--Babylon was a city of the highest antiquity. The
name (_Bab-ili,_ "Gate of God") is Semitic. The city is mentioned
in the earliest cuneiform records, and from the time of Hammurabi was
the chief city of the land. Destroyed by Sennacherib (690 B.C.), it
was rebuilt by Esarhaddon, but not fully restored and adorned until
the reigns of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar.

Babylon surpassed all ancient cities in size and magnificence. Its
walls were forty miles in circumference. This extent of wall probably
included Borsippa, or "Babylon the Second," on the right bank of the
river. Babylon proper was mainly on the left. Within the walls were
inclosed gardens, orchards, and fields: the space was only filled in
part by buildings; but the whole area was laid out with straight
streets intersecting one another at right angles, like the streets of
Philadelphia. The wall was pierced by a hundred gates, probably
twenty-five in each face. The Euphrates, lined with quays on both
sides, and spanned with drawbridges, ran through the town, dividing it
into two nearly equal parts. The city was protected without by a deep
and wide moat. The wall was at least seventy or eighty feet in height,
and of vast and unusual thickness. On the summit were two hundred and
fifty towers, placed along the outer and inner edges, opposite to one
another, but so far apart, according to Herodotus, that there was room
for a four-horse chariot to pass between. The temple of _Bel_ was
in a square inclosure, about a quarter of a mile both in length and
breadth. The tower of the temple was ascended on the outside by an
inclined plane carried around the four sides. An exaggerated statement
of _Strabo_ makes its height six hundred and six feet. Possibly,
this represents the length of the inclined plane. In the shrine on the
top were a golden table and a couch; according to _Diodorus_,
before the Persian conquest there were colossal golden images of three
divinities, with two golden lions, and two enormous serpents of
silver. It is thought that Herodotus may have described the splendid
temple of _Nebo_ (now _Birs Nimrûd_), and have mistaken it,
by reason of its enormous ruins, for the temple of _Bel_, which
it rivaled in magnificence. The great palace is represented to have
been larger than the temple of Bel, the outermost of its three
inclosing walls being three miles in circumference. Its exterior was
of baked brick. The "Hanging Gardens" was a structure built on a
square, consisting of stages or stories, one above another, each
supported by arches, and covered on the top, at the height of at least
seventy-five feet, with a great mass of earth in which grew flowers
and shrubs, and even large trees. The ascent to the top was by
steps. On the way up were stately and elegant apartments. The smaller
palace was on the other side of the river.

  LITERATURE.--Works on Oriental History mentioned on p. 42. Tiele,
  _Babylonisch-assyrische Geschichte_ (1888); Kaulen, _Assyrien
  und Babylonien_ (5th ed., 1899); Rogers, _History of Babylonia
  and Assyria_ (1901); Goodspeed, _History of the Babylonians and
  Assyrians_ (1902); King, Articles _Assyria_ and
  _Babylonia_ in the _Encyclopedia Biblica_; Sayce,
  _Babylonians and Assyrians: Life and Customs_ (1899); Schrader,
  _The Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament_; Jastrow,
  _Religion of Babylonia and Assyria_ (1898); Perrot & Chipiez,
  _Histoire de l'art dans l'antiquité_, vol. ii., _Chaldèe et
  Assyrie_.



CHAPTER III.  THE PHOENICIANS AND CARTHAGINIANS.


PHOENICIA.--A narrow strip of territory separates the mountains of
Syria and Palestine from the Mediterranean. Of this belt the northern
part, west of Lebanon, about one hundred and fifty miles long, varies
in width from five to fourteen miles. In some places the cliffs
approach close to the sea. This belt of land was occupied by the first
of the great maritime and commercial peoples of antiquity, the
Phoenicians. Their language was Semitic, closely akin to Hebrew.

COMMERCE AND PROSPERITY OF THE PHOENICIANS.--The most important of the
Phoenician cities were Sidon--which was the first of them to rise to
distinction and power--and Tyre, which became more famous as a mart,
and comprised, besides the town on the coast, New Tyre, the city built
on the neighboring rocky island. In New Tyre was the sanctuary of the
tutelary god, _Melkart_. The spirit of trade stimulated
ingenuity. The Phoenicians were noted for their glass, their purple
dyes, their improved alphabet, and knowledge of the art of writing. In
mining and in casting metals, in the manufacture of cloth, in
architecture, and in other arts, they were not less proficient. From
their situation they naturally became a seafaring race. Not only did
they transport their cargoes of merchandise to the islands and shores
of the Mediterranean, conveying thither not merely the fruits of their
own industry and skill, but also the productions of the East: they
ventured to steer their vessels beyond the Strait of Gibraltar; and,
if they did not procure amber directly from the North Sea, they
brought tin either directly from Cornwall or from the Scilly
Islands. Through the hands of Phoenician merchants "passed the gold
and pearls of the East, the purple of Tyre, slaves, ivory, lions' and
panthers' skins from the interior of Africa, frankincense from Arabia,
the linen of Egypt, the pottery and fine wares of Greece, the copper
of Cyprus, the silver of Spain, tin from England, and iron from Elba."
These products were carried wherever a market could be found for
them. At the instigation of Necho, king of Egypt (610-594 B.C.), they
are said to have made a three years' voyage round the southern cape of
Africa.

COLONIES: OPULENCE.-The Phoenicians were the first great colonizing
nation of antiquity. It was the fashion of Assyrians and other
conquerors to transport to their own lands multitudes of people, whom
they carried away as captives from their homes. The Phoenicians--in
this particular the forerunners of the Greeks and of the Dutch and the
English--planted trading settlements in Cyprus and Crete, on the
islands of the Ægean Sea, in southern Spain, and in North
Africa. _Cadiz_, one of the oldest towns in Europe, was founded
by these enterprising traders (about 1100 B.C.). _Tarshish_ was
another of their Spanish settlements. "Ships of Tarshish," like the
modern "East Indiamen," came to signify vessels capable of making long
voyages. The coast of modern Andalusia and Granada belonged to the
Phoenicians. Through caravans their intercourse was not less lively
with the states on the Euphrates, with Nineveh and Babylon, as well as
with Egypt. Tyre was a link between the East and the West.

HIRAM: SETTLEMENT OF CARTHAGE.--The Tyrian power attained to its
height under King _Hiram I._, the contemporary and ally of
_Solomon_. Two Greek historians make his reign to extend from 969
to 936 B.C. The alliance with Solomon extended the traffic of Tyre,
and increased its wealth. Hiram connected old and New Tyre by a
bridge. The Tyrians adorned their city with stately palaces and
temples, and built strong fortifications. Engrossed in manufactures
and commerce, and delighting in the affluence thus engendered, the
Phoenicians were not ambitious of conquest. Although conquerors upon
the sea, they were not a martial people: like commercial states
generally, they preferred peace. Of the people of Laish (Dan), it is
said in the Book of Judges (xviii. 7), "They dwelt careless, after the
manner of the Zidonians, quiet and secure." This pacific temper was
coupled with a fervent attachment to their own land and to their
countrymen wherever they went. But they lacked the political
instinct. They did not appreciate liberty, and their love of traffic
and of gain often made them prefer to pay tribute rather than to
fight. Their colonies were factories, but were not centers of further
conquest, or germs of political communities. When, the family of
_Hiram_ was exterminated (about 850 B.C.) by the high-priest of
the goddess Astarte, who seized on power, civil strife and disorder
ensued. _Pygmalion_, the great-grandson of the high-priest, as it
is related by a Grecian authority, slew his uncle, who was to marry
Pygmalion's sister, _Elissa_. On account of this internal
conflict, and from dread of the Assyrian power, a large number of the
old families emigrated to North Africa, and founded Carthage (about
814 B.C.).

The Phoenician cities were confederated together under hereditary
kings, whose power was limited by the lay and priestly
aristocracy. The common people, many of whom were skilled artisans,
made themselves felt in some degree in public affairs. The mercantile
class were influential. Thus there was developed a germinant municipal
feeling and organization. The "strong city," Tyre, is mentioned in
_Joshua_ xix. 29. In _Isaiah_ xxiii., Tyre is described as
"the crowning city, whose merchants are princes, whose traffickers are
the honourable of the earth." "He stretched out his hand over the sea,
he shook the kingdoms."  The fate of Babylon is pointed at by the
Prophet, to show what Tyre had to expect from Assyria. Later, before
the conquest by Nebuchadnezzar, _Ezekiel_ thus speaks of Tyre
(chap, xxvii.): "They have taken cedars from Lebanon to make masts for
thee." "Of the oaks of Bashan have they made thine oars." "Tarshish
was thy merchant."

RELIGION AND LETTERS.--A very prominent feature of the religion of the
Phaenicians is the local character of their divinities. The word
_baal_("lord" or "god") was not used in Phaenicia as the proper
name of any one god. But such names as _Baal-sidon_, "Lord of
Sidon," _Baal-libanon_, "God of Lebanon," etc., are
common. _Astarte_ was the most common name for the local female
divinities. The gods were often thought of as dwelling in stones,
trees, and other objects; the worship of stone-pillars and sacred
poles (_ashera_; translated "grove" in the English Bible) was
especially common in Phaenicia. On the other hand, a "god of heaven"
and a "goddess of heaven" were worshiped. In the religion of the
Phaenicians, the more elevated ingredients of the Semitic heathenism
are in the background. The sensual features of it are more prominent,
and savage elements are introduced. It was more adapted to foster than
to check lust and cruelty. To Astarte, maidens sacrifice their
chastity. There was the same double ritual, made up of gross
sensuality on the one hand, and of ascetic practices by the priesthood
on the other, that belonged to the service of Mylitta at
Babylon. Human sacrifice by fire was another horrible
feature. Children, especially, were offered to _El _("god";
possibly also called _Melek_ (Moloch), "the king," as among the
Hebrews). To appease him at Tyre and Carthage, girls and boys,
sometimes in large numbers, and of the highest families, were cast
into the flames; while the wailing of their relatives, if it was not
stifled by themselves at the supposed demand of piety, was drowned by
the sound of musical instruments. As late as 310 B.C., when Agathocles
was besieging Carthage, and had reduced the city to the direst
straits, we are told that the people laid two hundred boys of their
noblest families upon the arms of the brazen image of the god, whence
they were allowed to fall into the fire beneath. On similar occasions,
even the head of the state sometimes offered himself as a
sacrifice. _Hamilcar_, the Carthaginian, son of Hanno, in Sicily,
when the tide of battle was turning against him, threw himself into
the fire (480 B.C.). Juba, king of Numidia, prepared to do the same
after the battle of Thapsus. Large and costly temples were built,
generally in the Egyptian style. Such were the temples of
_Melkart_ at Tyre and Cadiz, of _Eshmun_ at Sidon, and of
"the Lady of Byblos" at that city. Nature--as dying in the autumn, and
again reviving in the spring--is figured as the god _Adonisz_,
who is honored first by a protracted season of mourning, and then by a
joyous festival.

The Phoenicians were not a literary people. Their alphabet (invented
by them?) was the old Semitic alphabet. Every character represented a
sound. From the Phaenicians it spread, and became the mother of most
of the graphic systems now existing. Cadmus, however, by whom it was
said to be carried to the Greeks, is a fabulous person. The alleged
history of _Sanchuniathon_, which was published in Greek by
_Philo_ of Byblus, in the second century A.D., is now generally
believed to be the work of Philo himself.

HISTORICAL EVENTS.--In the struggles against the Mesopotamian empires,
the Phaenicians defended themselves with valor and perseverance. When
_Sargon_ (722-705 B.C.) had subjugated their cities on the
mainland, insular Tyre for five years repelled his assaults, although
the conduits bringing fresh water from the shore were cut off, and the
besieged were obliged to content themselves with the scanty supply to
be gained from wells dug with great labor. Soon the Tyrian fleets
regained their mastery on the sea. When Nebuchadnezzar captured old
Tyre, and a multitude of its inhabitants shared the lot of the Jews,
and were dragged off by the conqueror to the Euphrates, the island
city withstood his attack for thirteen years, and did not yield until
it extorted from him a treaty. But the power of resistance was
weakened by the repeated invasions and domination of Nineveh and
Babylon. Tyre submitted to Persia after the downfall of the Babylonian
monarchy, and added her fleet to the Persian forces; although to the
Phoenician towns was left a degree of freedom and their local
government. Sidon, Tyre, and Arados had a council of their own, which
met with their respective kings and senators at Tripolis, for the
regulation of matters of common interest. Manufactures and commerce
continued to flourish. Under the Persian supremacy, Sidon once more
became the chief city. In the middle of the fourth century B.C., it
revolted against the tyranny of the foreign governors. The Persian
king, _Ochus_, ordered that the noblest citizens should be put to
death; whereupon the inhabitants set the city on fire, and destroyed
themselves and their treasures in the flames. Tyre remained, but
ventured to resist _Alexander the Great_, after his conquest of
the Persians, and by him was captured and partly demolished (332
B.C.). After the death of Alexander, the Phoenicians fell under the
sway of the _Seleucidæ_ at Antioch, and, for a time, of the
Egyptian _Ptolemies_. Both Tyre and Sidon were rebuilt, and
flourished anew. It is probably to the third century B.C. that we
should assign the native Sidonian dynasty which included the Kings
_Eshmunazar I., Sedek-yaton, Tabnit, Bodashtart_, and
_Eshmunazar II._, whose names are known to us from inscriptions.
In the time of the last-named king, the cities Dor and Joppa, with the
plain of Sharon, belonged to Sidon.

CARTHAGINIAN HISTORY.--The most prominent of all the Phoenician
settlements was Carthage. It had remarkable advantages of
situation. Its harbor was sufficient for the anchorage of the largest
vessels, and it had a fertile territory around it. These
circumstances, in conjunction with the energy of its inhabitants,
placed it at the head of the Phoenician colonies. In Carthage, there
was no middle class. There were the rich landholders and merchants,
and the common people. The government was practically an
oligarchy. There were two kings or judges (_Shofetes_), with
little power, and a _council_ or _senate_; possibly a second
council also. But the senate and magistrates were subordinate to an
aristocratic body, the _hundred judges_. The bulk of the citizens
had little more than a nominal influence in public affairs.

ASCENDENCY OF CARTHAGE.-When the Greeks (about 600 B.C.)  spread their
colonies, the rivals of the Phoenician settlements, in the west of the
Mediterranean, Carthage was moved to deviate from the policy of the
parent cities, and to make herself the champion, protector, and
mistress of the Phoenician dependencies in all that region. Thus she
became the head of a North-African empire, which asserted its
supremacy against its Greek adversaries in Sicily and Spain, as well
as in Lybia. When Tyre was subjugated by Persia, Carthage was
strengthened by the immigration of many of the best Tyrian
families. As the Tyrian strength waned, the Carthaginian power
increased. _Syracuse_, in Sicily, became the first Greek naval
power, and the foremost antagonist of the Carthaginian dominion. In
480 B.C., Carthage made war upon the Greek cities in Sicily. The
contest was renewed from time to time. In the conflicts between
439-409 B.C., she confirmed her sway over the western half of the
island. In later conflicts (317-275 B.C.), in which _Agathocles_,
tyrant of Syracuse, was a noted leader of the Greeks, and, after his
death, _Pyrrhus_, king of Epirus, was their ally, Carthage
alternately lost and regained her Sicilian cities. But the result of
the war was to establish her maritime ascendency.

  LITERATURE.--Works mentioned on pp. 16, 42: Pietschmann,
  _Geschichte der Phönizier_ (1889); Rawlinson, _History of
  Phoenicia_ (1889); E. Meycr, Art. _Phoenicia_ in the
  _Encycl. Bibl._; Perrot & Chipiez, _History of Art in
  Phoenicia and Cyprus_, 2 vols.; Renan, _Mission de Phenicie_
  (1874); Meltzer, _Geschichte der Karthager_; F. W. Newman's
  _Defense of Carthage_.



CHAPTER IV.  THE HEBREWS.


PECULIARITY OF THE HEBREWS.--While the rest of the nations worshiped
"gods many and lords many," whom they confounded with the motions of
the heavenly bodies, or with other aspects of nature, there was one
people which attained to a faith in one God, the Creator and Preserver
of the universe, who is exalted above nature, and whom it was deemed
impious to represent by any material image. More than is true of any
other people, religion was consciously the one end and aim of their
being. To bring the true religion to its perfection, and to give it a
world-wide diffusion and sway, was felt by them to be their
heaven-appointed mission. The peculiarity of their faith made them
stand alone, and rendered them exclusive, and intolerant of the
surrounding idolatries. The mountainous character of their land,
separated by Lebanon from Phoenicia, and by the desert from the
nations on the East and South, was well adapted to the work which they
had to fulfill in the course of history.

THE PATRIARCHAL AGE.--The Israelites traced their descent from
_Abraham_, who, to escape the infection of idolatry, left his
home, which was in _Ur_ on the lower Euphrates, and came into the
land of Canaan, where he led a wandering life, but became the father
of a group of nations. According to the popular narrative,
_Isaac_, his son by _Sarah_, was recognized as the next
chief of the family; while _Ishmael_, Abraham's son by
_Hagar_, became the progenitor of the _Arabians_. Of the two
sons of Isaac, _Esau_, who was a huntsman, married a daughter of
the native people: from him sprung the _Edomites_. _Jacob_
kept up the occupation of a herdsman. Of his twelve sons,
_Joseph_ was an object of jealousy to the other eleven, by whom
he was sold to a caravan of merchants on their way to Egypt. There,
through his skill in interpreting dreams, he rose to high dignities
and honors in the court of Pharaoh; and, by his agency, the entire
family were allowed to settle oh the pasture-lands of _Goshen_ in
northern Egypt (p. 40). Here in the neighborhood of _Heliopolis_,
for several centuries, they fed their flocks. From Israel, the name
given to Jacob, they were commonly called _Israelites_. The name
_Hebrews_ was apparently derived from a word signifying "across
the river" (Euphrates); but the original application is quite
uncertain.

THE EXODUS (see p. 41).--The time came when the Israelites were no
longer well treated. A new Egyptian dynasty was on the throne. Their
numbers were an occasion of apprehension. An Egyptian princess saved
_Moses_ from being a victim of a barbarous edict issued against
them. He grew to manhood in Pharaoh's court, but became the champion
of his people. Compelled to flee, he received in the lonely region of
_Mount Sinai_ that sublime disclosure of the only living God
which qualified him to be the leader and deliverer of his brethren. A
"strong east wind," parting the Red Sea, opened a passage for the
Israelites, whom a succession of calamities, inflicted upon their
oppressors by the Almighty, had driven Pharaoh (Menephthah?) to permit
to depart in a body; but the returning waves ingulfed the pursuing
Egyptian army. "The sea covered them: they sank as lead in the mighty
waters." For a long period _Moses_ led the people about in the
wilderness. They were trained by this experience to habits of order
and military discipline. At _Horeb_, the Decalogue, the kernel,
so to speak, of the Hebrew codes, the foundation of the religious and
social life of the people, was given them under circumstances fitted
to awaken the deepest awe. They placed themselves under Jehovah as the
Ruler and Protector of the nation in a special sense. The worship of
other divinities, every form of idolatry, was to be a treasonable
offense. The laws of Jehovah were to be kept in the Ark of the
Covenant, in the "Tabernacle," which was the sanctuary, and was
transported from place to place. The priesthood was devolved on
_Aaron_ and his successors, at the side of whom were their
assistants, the _Levites_. The civil authority in each tribe was
placed in the hands of the patriarchal chief and the "elders," the
right of approval or of veto being left to the whole tribe gathered in
an assembly. The heads of the tribes, with seventy representative
elders, together with Aaron and Moses, formed a supreme council or
standing committee. On particular occasions a congregation of all the
tribes might be summoned. The ritual was made up of sacrifices and
solemn festivals. The _Sabbath_ was the great weekly
commemoration, a day of rest for the slave as well as for the master,
for the toiling beast as well as for man. Every seventh year and every
fiftieth year were sabbaths, when great inequalities of condition,
which might spring up in the intervals, respecting the possession of
land, servitude consequent on debts, etc., were removed.

  Hebrew Laws.--The Israelites, in virtue of their covenant with
  Jehovah, were to be a holy people, a nation of priests. They were
  thus to maintain fraternal equality. There was to be no enslaving of
  one another, save that which was voluntary and for a limited
  time. Only prisoners not of their race, or purchased foreigners,
  could be held as slaves. Every fiftieth year, land was to revert to
  its original possessor. In the sabbatical years the land was not to
  be tilled. What then grew wild might be gathered by all. There were
  careful provisions for the benefit of the poor.

HEADS OF TRIBES.--The progenitors of the tribes, the sons of Jacob, as
given in _Exodus_, were Reuben, Simeon, Levi, Judah, Issachar,
Zebulon, Dan, Naphtali, Gad, Asher, Joseph, and Benjamin.

THE HEBREW RELIGION--Such, in brief, were the beginnings of a religion
as unique as it was elevated in its character,--a religion which stood
from the outset in mortal antagonism to the Egyptian worship of
sun-gods, and to the star-worship, the service of Baal, and of sensual
or savage divinities joined with him,--to that service which was
diffused through the Semitic nations of western Asia. A people was
constituted to be the guardian of this light, kindled in the midst of
the surrounding darkness, to carry it down to later ages, and to make
it finally, in its perfected form, the heritage of mankind.

THE PROPHETS.--_Moses_ was not only a military leader and a
legislator: he stands at the head of the _prophets_, the class of
men who at different times, especially in seasons of national peril and
temptation, along the whole course of Israelitish history, were raised
up to declare the will of Jehovah, to utter the lessons proper to the
hour, to warn evil-doers, and to comfort the desponding.

CONQUEST OF CANAAN: THE ERA OF THE JUDGES.--Moses himself did not
enter "the promised land," where the patriarchs were buried, and which
the Israelites were to conquer. According to Deut. vii. 2, a war of
extermination was commanded. The reason given for the command was that
the people must avoid the contagion of idolatry, that it was the fit
reward of the nation which they were bidden to dispossess.

  The word _"Canaanite"_ was used especially to designate the
  inhabitants of the coast region of Palestine. It was applied,
  however, to all the tribes, who were under thirty-one kings or
  chiefs, in the time of Joshua, There were six principal tribes,--the
  _Hittites_, _Hivites_, _Amorites_, _Jebusites_,
  _Perizzites_, and _Girgashites_. These, with the exception
  of the _Hittites_, and possibly the _Amtorites_, were
  Semitic in their language. The Canaanites had houses and
  vineyards. From them the Israelites learned agriculture. "They were
  in possession of fortified towns, treasures of brass, iron, gold,
  and foreign merchandise" Their religious rites were brutal and
  debasing,--"human sacrifice, licentious orgies, the worship of a
  host of divinities."

On the death of Moses, _Joshua_ succeeded to the post of a
leader. He defeated the _Amontes_ and other tribes on the east of
the Jordan. After the first victories of Joshua, each tribe carried on
for itself the struggle with Canaanites, victory over them being often
followed by indiscriminate slaughter. It is plain, however, especially
from the account in the first chapter of the Book of Judges, that
there was a process of assimilation as well as one of conquest. The
actual settlement was effected by peaceful as well as by warlike
methods. Resistance was stubborn, and the progress of occupation
slow. It was not until David's time, centuries after the invasion,
that _Jebus_, the site of Jerusalem, was captured. This delay was
due largely to a lack of union, not to a lack of valor. The strength
of the Israelites was in their infantry. Hence they preferred to fight
upon the hills, rather than to cope with horsemen and chariots on the
plains below.

THE PERIOD OF THE JUDGES.--The era of the Judges extends from about
1300 B.C. over at least two centuries. Powerful tribes--as
_Moabites_, _Midianites_, _Ammonites_,
_Philistines_--were unsubdued.  The land was desolated by
constant war. It was one sure sign of the prevailing disorder and
anarchy, that "the highways were unoccupied, and the travelers walked
through byways" (Judg. v. 6). Not unfrequently the people forgot
Jehovah, and fell into idolatrous practices. In this period of
degeneracy and confusion, men full of sacred enthusiasm and of heroic
courage arose to smite the enemies of Israel, and to restore the
observance of the law. Of these heroic leaders, _Deborah_,
_Gideon_, _Jepththa_, and _Samson_ were the most
famous. There remains the song of Deborah on the defeat and death of
_Sisera_ (Judg. v.).

The _Philistines_, on the western coast, captured the sacred
ark,--an act that spread dismay among the Israelites. Then they
pushed on their conquests as far as the Jordan, took away from the
Israelites their weapons, and grievously oppressed them. The
_Ammonites_ threatened the tribes on the east of the Jordan with
a like fate. At this juncture, an effective leader and reformer
appeared, in the person of _Samuel_, who had been consecrated
from his youth up to the service of the sanctuary, and whose devotion
to the law was mingled with an ardent patriotism. He roused the
courage of the people, and recalled them to the service of Jehovah. In
the "schools of the prophets" he taught the young the law, trained
them in music and song, and thus prepared a class of inspiring
teachers and guides to co-operate with the priesthood in upholding the
cause of religion.

THE MONARCHY: SAMUEL AND SAUL.--In the distracted condition of the
country, the people demanded a king, to unite them, and lead them to
victory, and to administer justice. They felt that their lack of
compact organization and defined leadership placed them at a
disadvantage in comparison with the tribes about. This demand
_Samuel_ resisted, as springing out of a distrust of Jehovah, and
as involving a rejection of Him. He depicted the burdens which regal
government would bring upon them. Later history verified his
prediction. A strong, centralized authority was not in harmony with
the family and tribal government which was the peculiarity of their
system. It brought in, by the side of the prophetic order, another
authority less sacred in its claims to respect. Collisions between the
two must inevitably result. But, whatever might be the ideal political
system, the exigency was such that Samuel yielded to the persistent
call of the people. He himself chose and anointed for the office a
tall, brave, and experienced soldier, _Saul_. Successful in
combat, the king soon fell into a conflict with the prophet, by
failing to comply with the divine law, and by sparing, contrary to the
injunction laid upon him, prisoners and cattle that he had
captured. Thereupon Samuel secretly anointed _David_, a young
shepherd of the tribe of Judah; thus designating him for the
throne. The envy of Saul at the achievements of David, and at his
growing popularity, coupled with secret suspicion of what higher
honors might be in store for the valiant youth, embittered the king
against him. David was befriended and shielded by _Jonathan_,
Saul's son, who might naturally be looked upon as his suitable
successor. The memorials of the friendship of these two youths, in the
annals of that troublous time, are like a star in the darkest
night. David was obliged to take refuge among the Philistines, where
he led a band of free lances, whom the Philistines did not trust as
auxiliaries, but who were inured by their daring combats for the
struggles that came afterwards. Saul and Jonathan were slain, Saul by
his own hand. For six years David was king in _Hebron_, over the
tribes of Judah and Benjamin. The other tribes were ruled by Saul's
son, _Ishbaal_ ('Ishbosheth'). At length David was recognized as
king by all the tribes. Saul's family were exterminated.

CHRONOLOGY.--There is much difficulty in settling the chronology in
the early centuries of the regal period of Hebrew history. Apart from
the questions which arise in comparing the biblical data, the
information derived from Egyptian and especially from Assyrian sources
has to be taken into account. Hence the dates given below must be
regarded as open to revision as our knowledge increases.

Assyriologists find that Shalmaneser II. received tribute from
_Ahab_, King of Israel, 854 B.C., and from _Jehu_, 842 B.C.;
that _Tiglath-Pileser III_ (745-727 B.C.) received tribute from
_Menahem_ in 738 B.C. and that Samaria fell in 722
B.C. Assyriology, on the basis of its data, _as at present
ascertained_, would make out a chronology something like the
following: Era of the judges, 1300-1020; Saul, 1020-1000; David,
1000-960; Solomon, 960-930; Reho-boam, 930-914 (Jeroboam I., 930-910);
Jehoshaphat, 870+-850 (Ahab, 875-853); Azanah (or Uzziah), 779-740
(Jehu, 842-815); (Jeroboam II., 783-743); (Menahem, 744-738).

DAVID AND SOLOMON.--David's reign (about 1000-970 B.C.)  is the period
of Israel's greatest power. He extended his sway as far as the Red Sea
and the Euphrates; he overcame Damascus, and broke down the power of
the Philistines; he subdued the Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites; he
conquered the Jebusites, and made Jerusalem his capital and the center
of national worship. A poet himself, he enriched the religious
service, which he organized, by lyrics--some of them composed by
himself--of unrivaled devotional depth and poetic beauty. He organized
his military force as well, and established an orderly civil
administration. His favorite son, _Absalom_, led away by
ambition, availed himself of disaffection among the people to head a
revolt against his father, but perished in the attempt. David left his
crown to _Solomon_ at the close of a checkered life, marked by
great victories, and by flagrant misdeeds done under the pressure of
temptation.

CHARACTERS OF SOLOMON'S REIGN.--Solomon's reign (about 970-933 B.C.)
was the era of luxury and splendor. He sought to emulate the other
great monarchs of the time. With the help of _Hiram_, king of
Tyre, who furnished materials and artisans, he erected a magnificent
temple on Mount Moriah in Jerusalem. He built costly palaces. He
brought horses from Egypt, and organized a standing army, with its
cavalry and chariots. He established a harem, bringing into it women
from the heathen countries, whom he allowed in their idolatrous
rites. He was even seduced to take part in them himself. Renowned for
his knowledge and for his wisdom--which was admired by the _Queen of
Saba_ (Sheba), who came to visit him from the Arabian coast--famous
as the author of wise aphorisms, he nevertheless entailed disasters on
his country. He established a sort of Oriental despotism, which
exhausted its resources, provoked discontent, and tended to undermine
morality as well as religion.

THE DIVIDED KINGDOM.--The bad effect of Solomon's magnificence soon
appeared. Before his death a revolt was made under the lead of
_Jeroboam_, which was put down. Of _Rehoboam_, the successor
of Solomon, the ten tribes north of Judah required pledges that their
burdens should be lightened. In the room of the heads and elders of
the tribes, the late king's officers had come in to oppress them with
their hard exactions. The haughty young king spurned the demand for
redress. The tribes cast off his rule, and made _Jeroboam I._
their king (about 933 B.C.). The temple was left in the hands of
_Judah_ and _Benjamin_. The division of the kingdom into
two, insured the downfall of both. The rising power of the
Mesopotamian Empire could not be met without union. On the other hand,
the concentration of worship at Jerusalem, under the auspices of the
two southern tribes, may have averted dangers that would have arisen
from the wider diffusion, and consequent exposure to corruption, of
the religious system. The development and promotion of the true
religion--the one great historical part appointed for the Hebrews--may
have been performed not less effectively, on the whole, for the
separation.

HEATHEN RITES.--From this time the energetic and prolonged contest of
the prophets with idolatry is a conspicuous feature, especially in the
history of Israel, the northern kingdom. _Jeroboam_ set up golden
calves at _Dan_ and _Bethel_, ancient seats of the worship
of Jehovah. Wars with Judah and Damascus weakened the strength of
Israel. The Egyptian king, _Shishak_, captured Jerusalem, and
bore away the treasures collected by Solomon (p. 41). Under
_Jehoshaphat_ (about 873-849 B.C.) the heathen altars were
demolished and prosperity returned.

STRUGGLE WITH IDOLATRY: ELIHAH AND ELISHA.--The contemporary of
Jehoshaphat in the northern kingdom was _Ahab_ (about 876-854
B.C.). He expended his power and wealth in the building up of
Baal-worship, at the instigation of the Tyrian princess,
_Jezebel_, whom he had married. At Samaria, his capital, he
raised a temple to Baal, where four hundred and fifty of his priests
ministered. The priests of Jehovah who withstood these measures were
driven out of the land, or into hiding-places. The austere and
intrepid prophet _Elijah_ found refuge in _Mount
Carmel_. The people, on the occasion of a famine, which he declared
to be a divine judgment, rose in their wrath, and slew the priests of
Baal. In a war--the third of a series--which Ahab waged against
_Syria_, he still fought in his chariot, after he had received a
mortal wound, until he fell dead. He had previously thrown the prophet
_Micaiah_ into prison for predicting this result. By the marriage
of _Athalia_, a daughter of Ahab and Jezebel, with Jehoshaphat's
son, Baal-worship was introduced into Jerusalem. _Joram_
succeeded Ahab. The prophet _Elisha_, who followed in the steps
of Elijah, anointed _Jehu_ "captain of the host of Joram." He
undertook, with fierce and unsparing energy, to destroy Baal-worship,
and to extirpate the house of Ahab, root and branch. The two kings of
Israel and of Judah he slew with his own hand. The priests and
servants of Baal were put to the sword. These conflicts reduced the
strength of Israel, which fell a prey to Syria, until its power was
revived by _Jeroboam II_. (783-743 B.C.). The death of
_Athalia_ brought on the expulsion of the Phoenician idolatry
from Jerusalem. The southern kingdom suffered from internal strife,
and from wars with Israel, until _Uzziah_ (779-740 B.C.)
restored its military strength, and caused agriculture and trade once
more to flourish.

THE ASSYRIAN CAPTIVITY.--The two kingdoms, in the ninth and eighth
centuries, instead of standing together against the threatening might
of Assyria, sought heathen alliances, and wasted their strength in
mutual contention. Against these hopeless alliances, and against the
idolatry and the formalism which debased the people, the prophets
contended with intense earnestness and unflinching
courage. _Amos_, called from feeding his flocks, inveighed
against frivolity and vice, misgovernment and fraud, in
Israel. _Hosea_ warned _Menahem_ (743-737 B.C.)  against
invoking the help of Assyria against Damascus, but in vain. He was
terribly punished by what he suffered from the Assyrians; but Jotham
(740-736 B.C.) and Ahaz (736-728 B.C.), the Judaean kings,
successively followed his example. _Tiglath-Pileser_ made Judaea
tributary. The Assyrian rites were brought into the temple of
Jehovah. The service of Canaanitish deities was introduced. The one
incorruptible witness for the cause of Jehovah was the fearless and
eloquent prophet, _Isaiah_. Hosea, king of Israel, by his
alliance with Egypt against _Sargon_, so incensed this most
warlike of the Assyrian monarchs, that, when he had subdued the
Phoenician cities, he laid siege to Samaria; and, having captured it
at the end of a siege of three years, he led away the king and the
larger part of his subjects as captives, to the Euphrates and the
Tigris, and replaced them by subjects of his own (722 B.C.). The later
Samaritans were the descendants of this mixed population.

The Babylonian Captivity.--When _Sargon_, the object of general
dread, died, _Hezekiah_, king of Judah (727-699 B.C.), flattered
himself that it was safe to disregard the warnings of Isaiah, and, in
the hope of throwing off the Assyrian yoke, made a treaty of alliance
with the king of Egypt, and fortified Jerusalem. He abolished,
however, the heathen worship in "the high places."
_Sennacherib_, Sargon's successor, was compelled to raise the
siege (p. 46). _Manasseh_ (698-643 B.C.), in defiance of the
prophets, fostered the idolatrous and sensual worship, against which
they never ceased to lift their voices. _Josiah_ (640-609 B.C.)
was a reformer. As a tributary of Babylon, he sought to prevent
_Necho_, king of Egypt, from crossing his territory, but was
vanquished and slain at _Megiddo_, on the plain of
Esdraelon. _Nebuchadnezzar's_ victory over Necho, at
_Carchemish_, enabled the Babylonian king to tread in the
footsteps of the Assyrian conquerors. The revolt of _Zedekiah_,
which the prophet _Jeremiah_ was unable to prevent, and his
alliance with Egypt, led to the Babylonian captivity of the Jews. In
this period of national ruin, the prophetic spirit found a voice
through _Jeremiah_ and _Ezekiel_. It was during the era of
Assyrian and Babylonian invasion that the predictions of a MESSIAH, a
great Deliverer and righteous Ruler who was to come, assumed a more
definite expression. The spiritual character of _Isaiah's_
teaching has given him the name of "the evangelical prophet."

_Cyrus_, the conqueror of Babylon, opened the way (538 B.C.)  for
the return of the exiles. A small part first came back under
_Zerubbabel_, head of the tribe of Judah, who was made Persian
governor. They began to rebuild the temple, which was finished in 516
B.C. Later (458 B.C.) _Ezra_ "the scribe" and _Nehemiah_ led
home a larger body. The newly returned Jews were fired with a zeal for
the observance of the Mosaic ritual,--a zeal which had been sharpened
in the persecutions and sorrows of exile. The era of the
_"hagiocracy,"_ of the supreme influence of the priesthood and
the rigid adherence to the law, with an inflexible hostility to
heathen customs, ensued. The spirit of which prophecy had been the
stimulant, and partially the fruit, declined. The political
independence of the land was gone for ever. The day of freedom under
the _Maccabees_, after the insurrection (168 B.C.) led by that
family against the Syrian successors of Alexander, was short. But
Israel "had been thrown into the stream of nations." Its religious
influence was to expand as its political strength dwindled. Its
subjugation and all its terrible misfortunes were to serve as a means
of spreading the leavening influence of its monotheistic faith.

  In the year 63 B.C., _Pompeius_ made the Jews tributary to the
  Romans. In the year 40 B.C., _Herod_ began to reign as a
  dependent king under Rome.

_Hebrew Literature_.--The literature of the Hebrews is
essentially religious in its whole motive and spirit. This is true
even of their historical writings. The marks of the one defining
characteristic of their national life--faith in Jehovah and in his
sovereign and righteous control--are everywhere seen. Hebrew poetry is
mainly lyrical. Relics of old songs are scattered through the
historical books. In the _Psalms_, an anthology of sacred lyrics,
the spirit of Hebrew poesy attains to its highest flight. Examples of
didactic poetry are the Book of _Job_, and books like the
_Proverbs_, composed mainly of pithy sayings or gnomes. Nowhere,
save in the Psalms, does the spirit of the Hebrew religion and the
genius of the people find an expression so grand and moving as in the
_Prophets_, of whom _Isaiah_ is the chief.

ART.--In art the Hebrews did not excel. The plastic arts were
generally developed in connection with religion. But the religion of
the Hebrews excluded all visible representations of deity. Nor were
they proficients in science. "Israel was the vessel in which the water
of life was inclosed, in which it was kept cool and pure, that it
might thereafter refresh the world."

  The HISTORICAL BOOKS of the Old Testament comprise, first, the
  _Pentateuch_, which describes the origin of the Hebrew people,
  the exodus from Egypt, and the Sinaitic legislation. Questions
  pertaining to the date and authorship of these five books, and of
  the materials at the basis of them, are still debated among
  historical critics. It may be regarded as certain, however, that
  materials belonging to nearly every period of Hebrew literature,
  from the earliest times, are here combined. The early part of
  Genesis is designed to explain the genealogy of the Hebrews, and to
  show how, step by step, they were sundered from other peoples. The
  narratives in the first ten chapters--as the story of the creation,
  the flood, etc.--so strikingly resemble legends of other Semitic
  nations, especially the _Babylonians_and _Phoenicians_, as
  to make it plain that all these groups of accounts are historically
  connected with one another. But the Genesis narratives are
  distinguished by their freedom from the polytheistic ingredients
  which disfigure the corresponding narratives elsewhere. They are on
  the elevated plane of that pure theism which is the kernel of the
  Hebrew faith. This whole subject is elucidated by Lenormant, in
  _The Beginnings of History_ (1882). The Book of _Joshua_
  relates the history of the conquest of Canaan; _Judges_, the
  tale of the heroic age of Israel prior to the monarchy; the Books of
  _Samuel_ and of _Kings_, of the monarchy in its glory and
  its decline; the Books of _Chronicles_ treat of parts of the
  same era, more from the point of view of the priesthood; _Ruth_
  is an idyl of the narrative type; _Ezra_, _Nehemiah_, and
  _Esther_ have to do with the return of the Jews from exile, and
  the events next following.

  The POETIC WRITINGS include the _Psalter_, by many authors; the
  _Proverbs_ of Solomon and others; _Ecclesiastes_, which
  gives the sombre reflections of one who had tasted to the full the
  pleasures and honors of life; the _Canticles_, or _Song of
  Solomon_, which depicts a young woman's love in its constancy,
  and victory over temptation.

  The PROPHETS are divided into four classes: i. Those of the early
  period from the twelfth to the ninth century, including
  _Samuel_, _Elijah_, _Eliska_, etc, who have left no
  prophetical writings. 2. The prophets of the Assyrian age (800-700
  B.C.), where belong _Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, Micah,_ and
  _Nahum_. 3. The prophets of the Babylonian age, _Zephaniah,
  Jeremiah, Habakkuk, Ezekiel_. Here some scholars would place a
  part of _Isaiah_. 4. The post-exilian prophets, _Haggai,
  Zachariah, Malackt, Jonah., Daniel, Joel, Obadiah_, and
  considerable portions of _Isaiah_ and _Jeremiah_.

  The APOCRYPHAL BOOKS belong between the closing of the Old-Testament
  canon and the New Testament. They are instructive as to that
  intermediate period. The _first_ Book of _Maccabees_ is
  specially important for its historical matter; the Books of
  _Wisdom_ and the _Son of Sirach_ for their moral
  reflections and precepts.

  WORKS RELATING TO HEBREW HISTORY.--EWALD, _History of the
  Israelitish People_ (Eng. trans., 5 vols.); Milman, _History of
  the Jews_ (3 vols.); Stade, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_
  (2 vols., 1889); Renan, _History of the People of Israel_
  (Eng. trans., 1896); Wellhausen. _Israelitische und judische
  Geschichte_ (3d ed., 1897); Kent, _History of the Hebrew
  People_ (1898); Guthe, _Geschichte des Volkes Israel_
  (1899); the Art. _Israel_ by Wellhausen, in the
  _Encycl. Brit_., and the one by Guthe in the
  _Encycl. Bibl._ The historical works of Jewish scholars,
  Herzfeld, Jost, Zunz, Graetz, DERENBOURG, etc., are valuable.



CHAPTER V.  THE PERSIANS.


In the western part of the plateau of Iran, which extends from the
Suleiman Mountains to the plains of Mesopotamia, were the
_Medes_. On the southern border of the same plateau, along the
Persian Gulf, were the _Persians_. Both were offshoots of the
Aryan family, and had migrated westward from the region of the upper
Oxus, from Bactria, the original seat of their religion.

RELIGION.--The ancient religion of the Iranians, including the Medes
and Persians, was reduced to a system by the Bactrian sage,
_Zoroaster_ (or Zarathustra), who, in the absence of authentic
knowledge respecting him, may be conjecturally placed at about 1000
B.C. The _Zendavesta_, the sacred book of the Parsees, the
adherents of this religion, is composed of parts belonging to very
different dates. It is the fragment of a more extensive literature no
longer extant. The Bactrian religion differed from that of their
Sanskrit-speaking kindred on the Indus, in being a form of dualism. It
grew out of a belief in good demons or spirits, and in evil spirits,
making up two hosts perpetually in conflict with each other. At the
head of the host of good spirits, in the Zoroastrian creed, was
_Ormuzd_, the creator, and the god of light; at the head of the
evil host, was _Ahriman_, the god of darkness. The one made the
world good, the other laid in it all that is evil. The one is disposed
to bless man, the other to do him harm. The conflict of virtue and
vice in man is a contest for control on the part of these antagonistic
powers. In order to keep off the spirits of evil, one must avoid what
is morally or ceremonially unclean. He who lived pure, went up at
death to the spirits of light. The evil soul departed to consort with
evil spirits in the region of darkness. _Mithra_, the sun-god in
the Zoroastrian system, is the equal, though the creature, of
_Ormuzd_. Mithra is the conqueror of darkness, and so the enemy
of falsehood. The Medes and Persians were fire-worshipers. To the good
spirits, they ascribed life, the fruitful earth, the refreshing
waters, fountains and rivers, the tilled ground, pastures and trees,
the lustrous metals, also truth and the pure deed. To the evil spirits
belonged darkness, disease, death, the desert, cold, filth, sin, and
falsehood. The animals were divided between the two realms. All that
live in holes, all that hurt the trees and the crops, rats and mice,
reptiles of all sorts, turtles, lizards, vermin, and noxious insects,
were hateful creatures of _Ahriman_. To kill any of these was a
merit. The dog was held sacred; as was also the cock, who announces
the break of day. In the system of worship, sacrifices were less
prominent than in India. Prayers, and the iteration of prayers, were
of great moment.

THE MAGI.--The Zoroastrian religion was not the same at all times and
in every place. The primitive Iranian emigrants were monotheistic in
their tendencies. In their western abodes, they came into contact with
worshipers of the elements,--fire, air, earth, and water. It is
thought by many scholars, that the _Magian_ system, with its more
defined dualism and sacerdotal sway, was ingrafted on the native
religion of the Iranians through the influence of tribes with whom
they mingled in Media. The Magi, according to one account, were
charged by Darius with corrupting the Zoroastrian faith and
worship. Whatever may have been their origin, they became the leaders
in worship, and privy-counselors to the sovereign. They were likewise
astrologers, and interpreters of dreams. They were not so distinct a
class as the priests in India. A hereditary order, they might still
bring new members into their ranks. From the Medes, they were
introduced among the Persians.

PERSIAN RELIGIOUS CUSTOMS.--Peculiar customs existed among the Medes
in disposing of the dead. They were not to be cast into the fire or
the water, or buried in the earth, for this would bring pollution to
what was sacred; but their bodies were to be exposed in the high
rocks, where the beasts and birds could devour them. Sacrifices were
offered on hill-tops. Salutations of homage were made to the rising
sun. On some occasions, boys were buried alive, as an offering to the
divinities. In early times, there were no images of the gods. As far
as they were introduced in later times, it was through the influence
of surrounding nations. In the supremacy and the final victory, which,
in the later form of Zoroastrianism, were accorded to _Ormuzd_,
there was again an approach to monotheism. Hostility to deception of
all sorts, and thus to stealing, was a Persian trait. _Herodotus_
says that the Persians taught their children to ride, to shoot the
bow, and to speak the truth. To prize the pursuits of agriculture and
horticulture, was a part of their religion. They allowed a plurality
of wives, and concubines with them; but there was one wife to whom
precedence belonged. Voluntary celibacy in man or woman was counted a
flagrant sin.

HISTORY.--The first authentic notice that we have of the MEDES shows
them under Assyrian power. This is in the time of _Shalmaneser
II._, 840 B.C. Their rise is coincident with the fall of
Assyria. _Phraortes_ (647-625 B.C.) began the Median struggle for
independence; although the name of _Deioces_ is given by
_Herodotus_ as a previous king, and the builder of
_Ecbatana_ the capital. It was reserved for _Cyaxares_
(625-585 B.C.), having delivered his land from the Scythian marauders
(p. 47), to complete, in conjunction with the Babylonian king,
_Nabopolassar_, the work of breaking down the Assyrian empire
(p. 48). He brought under his rule the _Bactrians_, and the
_Persians_ about _Pasargadæ_ and _Persepolis_, and made
the _Halys_, dividing Asia Minor, the limit of his kingdom. His
effeminate son, _Astyages_, lost what his father had won. The
Persian branch of the Iranians gained the supremacy. _Cyrus_, the
leader of the Persian revolt, by whom _Astyages_ was defeated, is
described as related to him; but this story, as well as the account of
his being rescued from death and brought up among shepherds, is
probably a fiction.

CYRUS.--In the sixth century B.C., this famous ruler and conqueror
became the founder of an empire which comprised nearly all the
civilized nations of Asia. During his reign of thirty years (559-530
B.C.), he annexed to his kingdom the two principal states, LYDIA and
BABYLON. The king of Lydia was _Croesus_, whose story,
embellished with romantic details, was long familiar as a signal
example of the mutations of fortune. Doomed to be burned after the
capture of _Sardis_, his capital, he was heard, just when the
fire was to be kindled, to say something about _Solon_. In answer
to the inquiry of Cyrus, whose curiosity was excited, he related how
that Grecian sage, after beholding his treasures, had refused to call
him the most fortunate of men, on the ground that "no man can be
called happy before his death," because none can tell what disasters
may befall him. Cyrus, according to the narrative, touched by the
tale, delivered Croesus from death, and thereafter bestowed on him
honor and confidence.

  There is another form of the tradition, which is deemed by some more
  probable. Croesus is said to have stood on a pyre, intending to
  offer himself in the flames, to propitiate the god _Sandon_,
  that his people might be saved from destruction; but he was
  prevented, it is said, by unfavorable auguries.

The subjection of the Greek colonies on the Asia-Minor coast followed
upon the subjugation of Lydia. From these colonies, the
_Phocoeans_ went forth, and founded _Elea_ in Lower Italy,
and Massilia (Marseilles) in Gaul. The Asian Greek cities were each
allowed its own municipal rulers, but paid tribute to the Persian
master. The conquest of _Babylon_ (538 B.C.), as it opened the
way for the return to Jerusalem of the Jewish exiles, enabled Cyrus to
establish a friendly people in Judaea, as a help in fortifying his
sway in Syria, and in opening a path to _Egypt_. But in 529 he
lost his life in a war which he was waging against the
_Massagetae_, a tribe on the Caspian, allied in blood to the
Scythians.

There was a tradition that the barbarian queen, _Tomyris_,
enraged that Cyrus had overcome her son by deceit, dipped the slain
king's head in a skin-bag of blood, exclaiming, "Drink thy fill of
blood, of which thou couldst not have enough in thy lifetime!"

CAMBYSES.--The successor of Cyrus, a man not less warlike than he, but
more violent in his passions, reigned but seven years (529-522
B.C.). His most conspicuous achievement was the conquest of EGYPT. One
ground or pretext of his hostility, according to the tale of
Herodotus, was the fact that Amasis, the predecessor of _Psammeticus
III._, not daring to refuse the demand of his daughter as a wife,
to be second in rank to the Persian queen, had fraudulently sent,
either to Cambyses, or, before his time, to Cyrus, _Nitetis_, the
daughter of the king who preceded him, Apries. Defeated at
_Pelusium_, and compelled to yield up _Memphis_ after a
siege, it is said that Psammeticus, the _Psammenitus_ of
Herodotus, the unfortunate successor of the powerful Pharaohs, was
obliged to look on the spectacle of his daughters in the garb of
working-women, bearing water, and to see his sons, with the principal
young nobles, ordered to execution. But this tale lacks
confirmation. His cruelties were probably of a later date, and were
provoked by the chagrin he felt, and the satisfaction manifested by
the people, at the failure of great expeditions which he sent
southward for the conquest of _Meroe_, and westward against the
_Oasis of Ammon_. His armies perished in the Lybian deserts. Even
the story of his stabbing the sacred steer (_Apis_), after these
events, although it may be true, is not sanctioned by the Egyptian
inscriptions. His attack upon Ammon probably arose, in part at least,
from a desire to possess himself of whatever lay between Egypt and the
Carthaginian territory. But the Phoenician sailors who manned his
fleet refused to sail against their brethren in
Carthage. _Cambyses_ assumed the title and character of an
Egyptian sovereign. The story of his madness is an invention of the
Egyptian priests.

DARIUS (521-485 B.C.).--For a short time, a pretender, a Magian, who
called himself _Smerdis_, and professed to be the brother of
Cambyses, usurped the throne. Cambyses is said to have put an end to
his own life. After a reign of seven months, during which he kept
himself for the most part hidden from view, Smerdis was destroyed by a
rising of the leading Persian families. Darius, the son of Hystaspes,
of the royal race of the _Achaemenidae_, succeeded. He married
_Atossa_, the daughter of Cyrus. The countries which composed an
Oriental empire were so loosely held together that the death of a
despot or the change of a dynasty was very likely to call forth a
general insurrection. Darius showed his military prowess in conquering
anew various countries, including Babylon, which had revolted. He made
Arabia tributary, and spread the bounds of his vast empire as far as
India and in North Africa. A mighty expedition which he organized
against the Scythians on the Lower Danube failed of the results that
were hoped from it. The barbarians wasted their own fields, filled up
their wells, drove off their cattle, and fled as the army of Darius
advanced. He returned, however, with the bulk of his army intact,
although with a loss of prestige, and enrolled "the Scyths beyond the
sea" among the subjects of his empire. His armies conquered the tribes
of _Thrace_, so that he pushed his boundaries to the frontiers of
Macedonia. The rebellion of the Greek cities on the Asia-Minor coast
he suppressed, and harshly avenged. Of his further conflicts with the
Greeks on the mainland, more is to be said hereafter. He had built
_Persepolis_, but his principal seat of government appears to
have been _Susa_. He did a great work in organizing his imperial
system. The division into _satrapies_--large districts, each
under a _satrap_, or viceroy--was a part of this work. He thus
introduced a more efficient and methodical administration into his
empire,--an empire four times as large as the empire of Assyria, which
it had swallowed up.

GOVERNMENT.--Persia proper corresponded nearly to the modern province
of _Farsistan_ or _Fars_. The Persian Empire stretched from
east to west for a distance of about three thousand miles, and was
from five hundred to fifteen hundred miles in width. It was more than
half as large as modern Europe. It comprised not less than two
millions of square miles. Its population under Darius may have been
seventy or eighty millions. He brought in uniformity of
administration. In each satrapy, besides the satrap himself, who was a
despot within his own dominion, there was at first a commander of the
troops, and a secretary, whose business it was to make reports to the
GREAT KING. These three officers were really watchmen over one
another. It was through spies ("eyes" and "ears") of the king that he
was kept informed of what was taking place in every part of the
empire. At length it was found necessary to give the satraps the
command of the troops, which took away one important check upon their
power. There was a regular system of taxation, but to this were added
extraordinary and oppressive levies. Darius introduced a uniform
coinage. The name of the coin, "daric," is probably not derived from
his name, however. Notwithstanding the government by satraps, local
laws and usages were left, to a large extent, undisturbed. Great
roads, and postal communication for the exclusive use of the
government, connected the capital with the distant provinces. In this
point the Persians set an example which was followed by the
Romans. From _Susa_ to _Sardis_, a distance of about
seventeen hundred English miles, stretched a road, along which, at
proper intervals, were caravansaries, and over which the fleet
couriers of the king rode in six or seven days. The king was an
absolute lord and master, who disposed of the lives and property of
his subjects without restraint. To him the most servile homage was
paid. He lived mostly in seclusion in his palace. On great occasions
he sat at banquet with his nobles. His throne was made of gold,
silver, and ivory. All who approached him kissed the earth. His
ordinary dress was probably of the richest silk. He took his meals
mostly by himself. His fare was made up of the choicest
delicacies. His seraglio, guarded by eunuchs, contained a multitude of
inmates, brought together by his arbitrary command, over whom, in a
certain way, the queen-mother presided. His chief diversions were
playing at dice within doors, and hunting without. _Paradises_,
or parks, walled in, planted with trees and shrubbery, and furnished
with refreshing fountains and streams, were his hunting-ground. Such
inclosures were the delight of all Persians. In war he was attended
with various officers in close attendance on his person,--the
stool-bearer, the bow-bearer, etc. In peace, there was another set,
among whom was "the parasol-bearer,"--for to be sheltered by the
parasol was an exclusive privilege of the king,--the fan-bearer,
etc. There were certain privileged families,--six besides the royal
clan of the _Achæmenidæ_, the chiefs of all of which were his
counselors, and from whom he was bound to choose his legitimate
wives. When the monarch traveled, even on military expeditions, he was
accompanied by the whole varied apparatus of luxury which ministered
to his pleasures in the court,--costly furniture, a vast retinue of
attendants, of inmates of the harem, etc.

ARMY AND NAVY.--The arms of the footman were a sword, a spear, and a
bow. Persian bowmen were skillful. Persian cavalry, both heavy and
light, were their most effective arm. The military leaders depended on
the celerity of their horsemen and the weight of their numbers. It is
doubtful whether they employed military engines. They were not wholly
ignorant of strategy. Their troops were marshaled by nations, each in
its own costume, the commander of the whole being in the center of the
line of battle. The body-guard of the king was "the Immortals," a body
of ten thousand picked footmen, the number being always kept
intact. The enemies of the Persians, except in the case of rebels,
were not treated with inhumanity. In this regard the Persians are in
marked contrast with the Semitic ferocity of the Assyrians. Their
navies were drawn from the subject-peoples. The _trireme_, with
its projecting prow shod with iron, and its crew of two hundred men,
was the principal, but not the only vessel used in sea-fights.

LITERATURE AND ART.--A Persian youth was ordinarily taught to read,
but there was little intellectual culture. Boys were trained in
athletic exercises. It was a discipline in hardy and temperate
habits. Etiquette, in all ranks of the people, was highly
esteemed. The Persians, as a nation, were bright-minded, and not
deficient in fancy and imagination. But they contributed little to
science. Their religious ideas were an heirloom from remote
ancestors. The celebrated Persian poet, _Firdousí_, lived in the
tenth century of our era. His great poem, the _Shahnameh_, or
Book of Kings, is a storehouse of ancient traditions. It is probable
that the ancient poetry of the Persians, like this production, was of
moderate merit. Of the Persian architecture and sculpture, we derive
our knowledge from the massive ruins of _Persepolis_, which was
burned by Alexander the Great, and from the remains of other
cities. They had learned from Assyria and Babylon, but they display no
high degree of artistic talent. They were not an intellectual people:
they were soldiers and rulers.

  LITERATURE--Works mentioned on pp 16, 42; _Encycl. Brit.,_
  Art. Persia; Vaux, Persia from the Monuments (1876); Nöldeke,
  _Aufsdtze zur persischen Geschichte_ (1887); Justi,
  _Geschichte trans_ (1900); Markham, _General Sketch of the
  History of Persia_ (1874).


RETROSPECT.

In Eastern Asia the _Chinese nation_ was built up, the principal
achievement of the Mongolian race. Its influence was restricted to
neighboring peoples of kindred blood. Its civilization, having once
attained to a certain stage of progress, remained for the most part
stationary. China, in its isolation, exerted no power upon the general
course of history. Not until a late age, when the civilization of the
Caucasian race should be developed, was the culture of China to
produce, in the mingling of the European and Asiatic peoples, its full
fruits, even for China herself. _India_--although the home of a
Caucasian immigrant people, a people of the Aryan family too--was cut
off by special causes from playing an effective part, either actively
or passively, in the general historic movement.

_Egypt_, from 1500 to 1300 B.C., was the leading community of the
ancient world. But civilization in Egypt, at an early date,
crystallized in an unchanging form. The aim was to preserve unaltered
what the past had brought out. The bandaged mummy, the result of the
effort to preserve even the material body of man for all future time,
is a type of the leaden conservatism which pervaded Egyptian life. The
pre-eminence of Egypt was lost by the rise of the Semitic states to
increasing power. _Semitic_ arms and culture were in the
ascendant for six centuries (1300 to 700 B.C.). _Babylonia_
shares with Egypt the distinction of being one of the two chief
fountains of culture. From Babylonia, astronomy, writing, and other
useful arts were disseminated among the other Semitic peoples. It was
a strong state even before 2000 B.C. Babylon was a hive of industry,
and was active in trade, a link of intercourse between the East and
the West. But this function of an intermediate was discharged still
more effectively by the _Phoenicians_, the first great commercial
and naval power of antiquity. _Tyre_ reached the acme of its
prosperity under _Hiram_, the contemporary of _Solomon_,
about 1000 B.C. Meantime, among the Hebrew people, the foundations of
the true religion had been laid,--that religion of monotheism which in
future ages was to leaven the nations. Contemporaneously, the
_Assyrian Monarchy_ was rising to importance on the banks of the
Tigris. The appearance, "in the first half of the ninth century B.C.,
of a power advancing from the heart of Asia towards the West, is an
event of immeasurable importance in the history of the world."  The
_Israelites_ were divided. About the middle of the eighth century
B.C., both of their kingdoms lost their independence. Assyria was
vigorous in war, but had no deep foundation of national life. "Its
religion was not rooted in the soil, like that of Egypt, nor based on
the observation of the sky and stars, like that of Babylon." "Its gods
were gods of war, manifesting themselves in the prowess of ruling
princes." The main instrument in effecting the downfall of Assyria was
the _Medo-Persian_ power. Through the _Medes_ and
_Persians_, the Aryan race comes forward into conspicuity and
control. One branch of the Iranians of Bactria, entering _India_,
through the agency of climate and other physical influences converted
their religion into a mystical and speculative pantheism, and their
social organization into a caste-system under the rule of a
priesthood. The Medes and Persians, under other circumstances, in
contact with tribes about them, turned their religion into a dualism,
yet with a monotheistic drift that was not wholly extinguished. The
conquest of Babylon by _Cyrus_ annihilated Semitic power. The
fall of _Lydia_, the conquest of _Egypt_ by _Cambyses_,
and the victories of _Darius_, brought the world into subjection
to Persian rule.

The dates of some of the most important historical events in this
Section are as follow
  Menes, the first historic king of Egypt....... about 4000 B.C.
  Accession of Ramses II. to the Egyptian throne...... 1340 B.C.
  Rise of the Babylonian kingdom................ about 4000 B.C.
  Reign of Hiram at Tyre, and of Solomon........ about  950 B.C.
  Assyrian captivity: downfall of Israel............... 722 B.C.
  Fall of Nineveh...................................... 606 B.C.
  Babylonian captivity: downfall of Judah.............. 586 B.C.
  Reign of Cyrus begins................................ 559 B.C.
  Fall of Lydia: capture of Sardis..................... 546 B.C.
  Fall of Babylon...................................... 538 B.C.
  Reign of Darius begins............................... 521 B.C.

BEGINNINGS OF CIVILIZATION.--In the history of _Western Asia_ we
discern the beginnings of civilization and of the true religion. In
the room of useless and destructive tribal warfare, great numbers are
banded together under despotic rule. CITIES were built, where property
and life could be protected, and within whose massive walls of vast
circumference the useful arts and the rudiments of science could
spring up. Trade and commerce, by land and sea, naturally
followed. Thus nations came to know one another. Aggressive war and
subjugation had a part in the same result. The power of the peoples of
western Asia, the guardians of infant civilization, availed to keep
back the hordes of barbarians on the north, or, as in the case of the
great Scythian invasion (p. 47), to drive them back to their own
abodes.

DEFECTS OF ASIATIC CIVILIZATION.--But the civilization of the Asiatic
empires had radical and fatal defects. The development of human nature
was in some one direction, to the exclusion of other forms of human
activity. As to knowledge, it was confined within a limit beyond which
progress was slow. The _geometry_ of Egypt and the
_astronomy_ of Babylon remained where the necessity of the
pyramid-builders and the superstition of the astrologers had carried
them. Even the art of war was in a rudimental stage. In battle, huge
multitudes were precipitated upon one another. There are some
evidences of strategy, when we reach the campaigns of Cyrus. But war
was full of barbarities,--the destruction of cities, the expatriation
of masses of people, the pitiless treatment of
captives. _Architecture_ exhibits magnitude without
elegance. Temples, palaces, and tombs are monuments of labor rather
than creations of art. They impress oftener by their size than by
their beauty. _Statuary_ is inert and massive, and appears
inseparable from the buildings to which it is
attached. _Literature_, with the exception of the Hebrew, is
hardly less monotonous than art. The religion of the Semitic nations,
the _Hebrews_ excepted, so far from containing in it a purifying
element, tended to degrade its votaries by feeding the flame of
sensual and revengeful passion. What but debasement could come from
the worship of Astarte and the Phoenician El?

The great empires did not assimilate the nations which they
comprised. They were bound, but not in the least fused, together.
Persia went farther than any other empire in creating a uniform
administration, but even the Persian Empire remained a conglomerate of
distinct peoples.

ORIENTAL GOVERNMENT.--The government of the Oriental nations was a
despotism. It was not a government of laws, but the will of the one
master was omnipotent. The counterpart of tyranny in the ruler was
cringing, abject servility in the subject. Humanity could not thrive,
man could not grow to his full stature, under such a system. It was on
the soil of Europe and among the Greeks that a better type of manhood
and a true idea of liberty were to spring up.



DIVISION II.  EUROPE.


PHYSICAL GEOGRAPHY.--The Alps, continued on the west by the Pyrenees
and the Cantabrian mountains, and carried eastward to the Black Sea by
the Balkan range, form an irregular line, that separates the three
peninsulas of Spain, Italy, and Greece from the great plain of central
Europe. On the north of this plain, there is a corresponding system of
peninsulas and islands, where the Baltic answers in a measure to the
Mediterranean. This midland sea, which at once unites and separates
the three continents, is connected with the Atlantic by the narrow
Strait of Gibraltar, and on the east is continued in the Aegean Sea,
or the Archipelago, which leads into the Hellespont, or the Strait of
the Dardanelles, thence onward into the Propontis, or Sea of Marmora,
and through the Bosphorus into the Black Sea, and the Sea of Azoff
beyond. From the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean the Mediterranean is
parted by a space which is now traversed by a canal. The irregularity
of the coast-line is one of the characteristic features of the
European continent. Especially are the northern shores of the
Mediterranean indented by arms of the sea; and this, along with the
numerous islands, marks out the whole region as remarkably adapted to
maritime life and commercial intercourse.

ITS INHABITANTS.--Europe was early inhabited by branches of the
_Aryan_ race. The cradle or primitive seat of the Aryan family
--from which its two main divisions, the European and the Asiatic,
went forth--is not known. It is a matter of theory and debate. We find
the _Graeco-Latin_ peoples on the south, the more central nations
of _Celtic_ speech, the more northern _Teutons_, and in the
north-east the _Slavonians_. But how all these Aryan branches are
mutually related, and of the order and path of their prehistoric
migrations, little is definitely known. The _Celts_ were
evidently preceded by _non-Aryan_ inhabitants, of whom the
_Basques_ in Spain and France are a relic. The
_Celtiberians_ in Spain, as the name implies, were a mixture of
the _Celts_ with the native non-Aryan _Iberians_. The
_Greeks_ and the _Italians_ had a common ancestry, as we
know by their languages; but of that common ancestry neither Greeks
nor Latins in the historic period retained any recollection; nor can
we safely affirm, that, of that earlier stock, they alone were the
offspring.

  "All the known Indo-European languages," writes Professor Whitney,
  "are descended from a single dialect, which must have been spoken at
  some time in the past by a single limited community, by the spread
  and emigration of which--not, certainly, without incorporating also
  bodies of other races than that to which itself belonged by
  origin--it has reached its present wide distribution." "Of course,
  it would be a matter of the highest interest to determine the place
  and period of this important community, were there any means of
  doing so; but that is not the case, at least at present." "The
  condition of these languages is reconcilable with any possible
  theory as to the original site of the family." "One point is
  established, that 'the separation of the five European branches must
  have been later than their common separation from the two Asiatic
  branches,' the Iranians and Indians."  (Whitney's _The Life and
  Growth of Language_, pp. 191, 193.)



SECTION I.  GRECIAN HISTORY.


THE LAND.--"Greeks" is not a name which the people who bore it applied
to themselves. It was a name given them by their kinsfolk, the
Romans. They called themselves _Hellenes_, and their land they
called _Hellas_. Hellas, or Greece proper, included the southern
portion of the peninsula of which it is a part, the portion bounded on
the north by Olympus and the Cambunian Mountains, and extending south
to the Mediterranean. Its shores were washed on the east by the
Aegean, on the west by the Adriatic, or Ionian Gulf. The length of
Hellas was about two hundred and fifty English miles: its greatest
width, measured on the northern frontier, or from Attica on a line
westward, was about a hundred and eighty miles. It is somewhat smaller
than Portugal.

Along its coast are many deep bays. Long and narrow promontories run
out into the sea. Thus a great length is given to the sea-coast, which
abounds in commodious harbors. The tideless waters are safe for
navigators. Scattered within easy distance of the shore are numerous
islands of great fertility and beauty. So high and rugged are the
mountains that communication between different places is commonly
easier by water than by land. A branch of the Alps at the forty-second
parallel of latitude turns to the south-east, and descends to
_Toenarum_, the southern promontory. On either side, lateral
branches are sent off, at short intervals, to the east and the
west. From these in turn, branches, especially on the east, are thrown
out in the same direction as the main ridge; that is, from north to
south. Little room is left for plains of much extent. _Thessaly_,
with its single river, the _Peneus_, was such a plain. There were
no navigable rivers. Most of the streams were nothing more than
winter-torrents, whose beds were nearly or quite dry in the
summer. They often groped their way to the sea through underground
channels, either beneath lakes or in passages which the streams
themselves bored through limestone. The physical features of the
country fitted it for the development of small states, distinct from
one another, yet, owing especially to the relations of the land to the
sea, full of life and movement.

THE GRECIAN STATES.--The territory of Greece included (1) Northern
Greece, comprising all north of the Malian (Zeitoum) and Ambracian
(Arta) gulfs; (2) Central Greece, extending thence to the Gulf of
Corinth; (3) the peninsula of Peloponnesus (Morea) to the south of the
isthmus. The country was occupied, in the flourishing days of Greece,
by not less than seventeen states.

_Northern Greece_ contained two principal countries,
_Thessaly_ and _Epirus_, separated from one another by the
_Pindus_. Thessaly was the largest and most fertile of the
Grecian states. The _Peneus_, into which poured the mountain
streams, passed to the sea through a narrow gorge, the famous _Vale
of Tempe_. In the mountainous region of _Epirus_ were numerous
streams flowing through the valleys. Within it was the ancient
_Dodona_, the seat of the oracle. _Magnesia_, east of
Thessaly, on the coast, comprised within it the two ranges of
_Ossa_ and _Pelion_. _Central Greece_ contained eleven
states. _Malis_ had on its eastern edge the pass of
_Thermopylae_. In _Phocis_, on the southern slope of Mount
Parnassus, was _Delphi_. _Boeotia_ was distinguished for the
number and size of its cities, the chief of which was _Thebes_.
_Attica_ projected from Boeotia to the south-east, its length
being seventy miles, and its greatest width thirty miles. Its area was
only about seven hundred and twenty square miles. It was thus only a
little more than half as large as the State of Rhode Island, which has
an area of thirteen hundred and six square miles. Its only important
town was _Athens_. Its rivers, the _Ilissus_ and the two
_Cephissusses_, were nothing more than torrent courses. In
_Southern Greece_ were eleven countries. The territory of
_Corinth_ embraced most of the isthmus, and a large tract in
Peloponnesus. It had but one considerable city, _Corinth_, which
had two ports,--one on the Corinthian Gulf, _Lechoeum_, and the
other on the Saronic Gulf, _Cenchreae_. _Arcadia_, the
central mountain country, has been called the Switzerland of
Peloponnesus. It comprised numerous important towns, as
_Mantinea_, _Orchomenus_, and, in later times,
_Megalopolis_. In the south-east was _Laconia_, with an area
of about nineteen hundred square miles. It consisted mainly of the
valley of the _Eurotas_, which lay between the lofty mountain
ranges of _Parnon_ and _Taygetus_. "Hollow Lacedaemon" was a
phrase descriptive of its situation. _Sparta_, the capital, was
on the _Eurotas_, twenty miles from the sea. It had no other
important city. _Argolis_, projecting into the sea, eastward of
Arcadia, had within it the ancient towns of _Mycenae_ and
_Argos_.

THE ISLANDS.--It must be remembered that the waters between Europe and
Asia were not a separating barrier, but a close bond of
connection. There is scarcely a single point "where, in clear weather,
a mariner would feel himself left in a solitude between sky and water;
the eye reaches from island to island, and easy voyages of a day lead
from bay to bay." Greek towns, including very ancient places, were
scattered along the western coast of Asia Minor, between the mountains
and the shore. The Aegean was studded with Greek islands. These,
together with the islands in the Ionian Sea, on the west, formed a
part of Greek territory.

The principal island near Greece was _Euboea_, stretching for a
hundred miles along the east coast of Attica, Boeotia, and Locris. On
the opposite side of the peninsula, west of Epirus, was the smaller
but yet large island of _Corcyra_ (Corfu). On the west, besides,
were _Ithaca_, _Cephallenia_, and _Zacynthus_ (Zante);
on the south, the _Oenussae_ Islands and _Cythera_; on the
east, _Aegina_, _Salamis_, etc. From the south-eastern
shores of Euboea and Attica, the _Cyclades_ and _Sporades_
extended in a continuous series, "like a set of stepping-stones,"
across the Aegean Sea to Asia Minor. From Corcyra and the
Acroceraunian promontory, one could descry, in clear weather, the
Italian coast. These were all littoral islands. Besides these, there
were other islands in the northern and central Aegean, such as
_Lemnos_, _Samothrace_, _Delos_, _Naxos_, etc.;
and in the southern Aegean, _Crete_, an island mountainous but
fertile, a hundred and fifty miles in length from east to west, and
about fifteen in breadth, and containing more than two thousand square
miles. The Greek race was still more widely diffused through the
settlements in and about the western Mediterranean.

THE BOND OF RACE.--The Greeks, or Hellenes, were not so much a nation
as a united race. Politically divided, they were conscious of a
fraternal bond that connected them, wherever they might be found, and
parted them from the rest of mankind. Their sense of brotherhood is
implied in the fabulous belief in a common ancestor named
_Hellen_. Together with a fellowship in _blood_, there was a
community in _language_, notwithstanding minor differences in
dialect. Moreover, there was a common religion. They worshiped the
same gods. They had the same ritual, and cherished in common the same
beliefs respecting things supernatural. In connection with these ties
of _blood_, of _language_, and of _religion_, they
celebrated together great national festivals, like the Olympic games,
in which Greeks from all parts of the world might take part, and into
which they entered with a peculiar enthusiasm. As the Jews, following
the impulses of a holier faith, went up to Jerusalem to celebrate as
one family their sacred rites; so the Greeks repaired to hallowed
shrines of Zeus or Apollo, assembling from afar on the plain of
Olympia and at the foot of Parnassus.


DIVISIONS OF GREEK HISTORY.

Greek history embraces _three general periods_. The first is the
formative period, and extends to the Persian wars, 500 B.C. The second
period covers the flourishing era of Greece, from 500 B.C. to 359
B.C. The third is the Macedonian period, when the freedom of Greece
was lost,--the era of Philip and Alexander, and of Alexander's
successors.

PERIOD I. is divided into (1) the mythical or prehistoric age,
extending to 776 B.C.; (2) the age of the formation of the principal
states. PERIOD II. includes (1) the Persian wars, 502-479 B.C.; (2)
the period of Athenian supremacy, 478-431 B.C.; (3) the Peloponnesian
war, 431-404 B.C., with the Spartan, followed by the Theban
ascendency, 404-362 B.C. PERIOD III. includes (1) the reigns of Philip
and Alexander, 359-323 B.C.; (2) the kingdoms into which the empire of
Alexander was divided.



PERIOD I.  GREECE PRIOR TO THE PERSIAN WARS.



CHAPTER I. THE PREHISTORIC AGE.


ORIGIN OF THE GREEKS--Before the Hellenes parted from their Aryan
ancestry, they had words for "father," "mother," "brother," "son," and
"daughter," as well as for certain connections by marriage. They lived
in houses, pastured flocks and herds, possessed dogs and horses. They
had for weapons, the sword and the bow. "They knew how to work gold,
silver, and copper; they could count up to a hundred; they reckoned
time by the lunar month; they spoke of the sky as the
'heaven-father.'" The differences between the Greek and the Latin
languages prove, also, that the Greeks and Italians, after their
common progenitors broke off from the primitive Aryan stock, had long
dwelt apart. The Greeks, when they first become known to us in
historical times, consist of two great branches, the _Dorians_
and _Ionians,_ together with a less distinct branch, the
_Aeolians,_ which differs less, perhaps, from the parent
_Hellenes_ than do the two divisions just named.

It is a probable opinion of scholars, that the halting-place of the
Hellenes, whence, in successive waves, they passed over into Greece,
was _Phrygia,_ in the north-west of Asia Minor. Preceding the
Greeks both in northern Greece and in Peloponnesus, and spread over
the coasts and islands of the Archipelago, was a people of whom they
had an indistinct knowledge, whom they called _Pelasgians._ They
were husbandmen or herdsmen. Their national sanctuary was at
_Dodona,_ in Epirus. The "Cyclopean" ruins, composed of huge
polygonal blocks of stone, which they left behind in various places,
are the remnant of their walls and fortifications. The Greeks looked
back on these Pelasgian predecessors as different from themselves. Yet
no reminiscences existed of any hostility towards them. It is
plausibly conjectured that this prehistoric people were emigrants from
the region of Phrygia at a more ancient date, and that the Hellenes, a
more energetic and gifted branch of the same stock, followed them,
and, without force or conflict, became the founders and leaders of a
new historic movement, in which the Pelasgians disappeared from
view. In this second migration, the ancestors of the _Ionians_
went down from Phrygia to the coast of Asia Minor, and began the
career which made them a maritime and commercial people. The
_Dorians_ crossed over to the highlands of northern Greece, where
they became hardy mountaineers, not addicted to the sea. The one tribe
were to be eventually the founders of _Athens_; the other, of
_Sparta_. Besides these two main tribes, the _Aeolians_
occupied Thessaly, Boeotia, Aetolia, and other districts. To them the
_Achaeans_, who were supreme in Peloponnesus in the days of
Homer, were allied.

FOREIGN INFLUENCES.--Besides Phrygia, the legends of the Greeks bear
traces of a foreign influence from _Phoenicia_ and
_Egypt_. The Phoenicians were unquestionably early connected with
the Greeks, first by commercial visits to Greek ports, to which they
brought foreign merchandise. The story of _Cadmus_, who is said
to have founded _Thebes_, and to have brought in the Phoenician
alphabet, is fabulous. But it is probable, that, as early as the close
of the ninth century B.C., the _alphabet_ was introduced by
Phoenicians, and diffused over Greece. Another legend is that of
_Cecrops_, conceived of later as an Egyptian, who is said to have
built a citadel at Athens, and to have imported the seeds of
civilization and religion. _Danaus_, another emigrant from Egypt,
coming with his fifty daughters, is said to have built the citadel of
_Argos_. In the later times, the Greeks were fond of tracing
their knowledge of the arts to Egyptian sources. It is remarkable that
the agents by whom germs of civilization were said to have been
imported from abroad, though foreign, are nevertheless depicted as
thoroughly Greek in their character. Whatever the Greeks may have owed
to Egypt, it is probable was mainly derived from Ionians who had
previously planted themselves in that country.

THE DORIAN EMIGRATION.--It was in the prehistoric time that the
Dorians left their homes in northern Greece, and migrated into
Peloponnesus, where they proved themselves stronger than the Ionians
and the Achaeans dwelling there. They left the Achaeans on the south
coast of the Corinthian Gulf, in the district called Achaia. Nor did
they conquer Arcadia. But of most of Peloponnesus they became
masters. This is the portion of historic truth contained in the myth
of the _Return of the Heraclidae_, the descendants of Hercules,
to the old kingdom of their ancestor.

MIGRATIONS TO ASIA MINOR.--The Dorian conquest is said to have been
the cause of three distinct migrations to Asia Minor. The Achaeans,
with their Aeolic kinsmen on the north, established themselves on the
north-west coast of Asia Minor, _Lesbos_ and _Cyme_ being
their strongholds, and by degrees got control in _Mysia_ and the
_Troad_. Ionic emigrants from Attica joined their brethren on the
same coast. The Dorians settled on the south-west coast; they also
settled _Cos_ and _Rhodes_, and at length subdued
_Crete_. The Dorian conquest of Peloponnesus, and the migrations
just spoken of, were slow in their progress, and possibly stretched
over centuries.

CHARACTER OF THE GREEKS.--_Originality_ is a distinguishing trait
of the Greeks. Whatever they borrowed from others they made their own,
and reproduced in a form peculiar to themselves. They were never
servile copyists. All the products of the Greek mind, whether in
government, art, literature, or in whatever province of human
activity, wear a peculiar stamp. When we leave Asiatic ground, and
come into contact with the Greeks, we find ourselves in another
atmosphere. A spirit of humanity, in the broad sense of the term,
pervades their life. A regard for reason, a sense of order, a
disposition to keep every thing within measure, is a marked
characteristic. Their sense of form--including a perception of beauty,
and of harmony and proportion--made them in politics and letters the
leaders of mankind. "Do nothing in excess," was their favorite
maxim. They hated every thing that was out of proportion. Their
language, without a rival in flexibility and symmetry and in
perfection of sound, is itself, though a spontaneous creation, a work
of art. "The whole language resembles the body of an artistically
trained athlete, in which every muscle, every sinew, is developed into
full play, where there is no trace of tumidity or of inert matter, and
all is power and life." The great variety of the spiritual gifts of
this people, the severest formulas of science, the loftiest flights of
imagination, the keenest play of wit and humor, were capable of
precise and effective expression in this language "as in ductile
play." The use of the language, so lucid and so nice in its
discriminations, was itself an education for the young who grew up to
hear it and to speak it. In a genial yet invigorating climate, in a
land where breezes from the mountain and the sea were mingled, the
versatile Greeks produced by physical training that vigor and grace of
body which they so much admired; and they developed the civil polity,
the artistic discernment, and the complex social life, which made them
the principal source of modern culture. Their moral traits are not so
admirable. As a race they were less truthful, and less marked for
their courage and loyalty, than some other peoples below them in
intellect.

RELIGION.--In the early days, when Greece was open to foreign
influences, the simple religion of the Aryan fathers was enlarged by
new elements from abroad. The Tyrian deity, Melkart, appears at
Corinth as _Melicertes_. Astarte becomes _Aphrodite_
(Venus), who springs from the sea. The myth of _Dionysus_ and the
worship of _Demeter_ (Ceres) may be of foreign
origin. _Poseidon_ (Neptune), the god of the sea, and
_Apollo_, the god of light and of healing, whose worship carried
in it cheer and comfort, though they were brought into Greece, were
previously known to the lonians. By _Homer_ and _Hesiod_,
the great poets of the prehistoric age, the gods in these successive
dynasties, their offices and mutual relations, were depicted. In
Hesiod they stand in a connected scheme or theogony.

  1. There are the twelve great gods and goddesses of Olympus, who
  were named by the Greeks,--Zeus, Poseidon, Apollo, Arês, Hêphaestos,
  Hermês, Hêrê, Athênê, Artemis, Aphrodite, Hestia,
  Dêmêtêr. 2. Numerous other divinities, not included among the
  Olympic, but some not less important than the twelve. Such are
  Hadês, Hêlíos, Dionysus, the Charites, the Muses, the Nereids, the
  Nymphs, etc. 3. Deities who perform special service to the greater
  gods,--Iris, Hêbe, the Horae;, etc. 4. Deities whose personality is
  less distinct,--Atê, Eris, Thanatos, Hypnos, etc. 5. Monsters,
  progeny of the gods,--the Harpies, the Gorgons, Pegasus, Chimaera,
  Cerberus, Scylla and Charybdis, the Centaurs, the Sphinx. Below the
  gods are the demigods or heroes.

LEGENDS OF HEROES.--The space which precedes the beginning of
authentic records, the Greeks filled up with mythical tales, in which
gods and heroes are the central figures. The heroes are partly of
divine parentage. They are in near intercourse with the deities. Their
deeds are superhuman, and embody those ideals of character and of
achievement which the early Greeks cherished. The production of a
lively imagination, before the dawn of the critical faculty or the
growth of reflection, these tales may yet include a nucleus of
historical incident or vague reminiscences of historical relations and
changes. To attempt to extract these from the fictitious form in which
they are embodied, is for the most part hopeless.

The exploits of _Heracles_ (Hercules) have a prominent place in
the legends. This hero of Argos submitted to serve a cruel tyrant,
but, by prodigious labors (twelve in number), delivered men from
dangerous beasts,--the Lernaean hydra, the Nemean lion, etc.,--and
performed other miraculous services. _Theseus_, the national hero
of Attica, cleared the roads of savage robbers, and delivered his
country from bondage. _Minos_, the mythical legislator of Crete,
cleared the sea of pirates, and founded a maritime state. Of the
legendary stories, three of the most famous are _The Seven against
Thebes The Argonautic Expedition_, and _The Trojan
War_. I. _Laius_, king of Thebes, was told by an oracle that
he should be killed by his son. He exposed him, therefore, as soon as
he was born, on Mount Cithaeron. Saved by a herdsman, Oedipus was
brought up by Polybus, king of Corinth, as his own son. Warned by the
oracle that he should kill his father, and marry his mother, the son
forsook Corinth, and made his abode at Thebes. Meeting Laius in a
narrow pass, and provoked by his attendants, he slew them and him. At
Thebes there was a female monster, the Sphinx, who propounded a
riddle, and each day devoured a man until it should be solved. Oedipus
won the prize which the Queen _Jocaste_ had offered; namely, the
crown and her own hand to whomsoever should free the city. When his
two sons and daughters had grown up, a pestilence broke out; and the
oracle demanded that the murderer of Laius should be
banished. Oedipus, in spite of the warnings of the blind priest,
_Tiresias_, finds out the truth. He puts out his eyes, and is
driven into exile by his sons, whom he curses. Under the guidance of
his daughter _Antigone_, he finds a resting-place at
_Colonus_, a suburb of Athens, in a grove of the
_Eumenides_, whose function it was to avenge such crimes as his.
He received expiation at the hands of _Theseus_, and died in a
calm and peaceful way. This legend was the basis of some of the finest
of the Greek dramas, "Oedipus Tyrannus," and the "Oedipus at Colonus"
of _Sophocles_, and "The Seven against Thebes" of
_Aeschylus_. The curse of Oedipus still rested on his sons. The
story of _Antigone_, defying the tyrant _Creon_, and burying
her slain brother, _Polynices_, is the foundation of the drama of
_Sophocles_, bearing her name. Finally, the _Epigoni_,
descendants of the Seven who had fought Thebes, captured and destroyed
that city.

2. _Argonauts_ were described as a band of heroes, who, through
perilous and unknown seas, sailed from Iolcos in Thessaly, in the ship
"Argo," to Colchis, whence they brought away the golden fleece which
had been stolen, and which they found nailed to an oak, and guarded by
a sleepless dragon. _Jason_, the leader, was accompanied on his
return by the enchantress, _Medea_, who had aided him. She, in
order to delay their pursuers, killed her brother _Absyrtus_, and
threw his body, piece by piece, into the sea. Her subsequent story
involves various other tragic events.

3. The most noted of the legends is the story of the Trojan war. The
deeds of the heroes of this war are the subject of the
_Iliad_. _Paris_, son of Priam, king of _Ilios_ (Troy),
in Asia Minor, carried off _Helen_, the wife of _Menelaus_,
king of Sparta. To recover her, the Greeks united in an expedition
against Troy, which they took after a siege of ten years. Agamemnon,
Achilles, Odysseus (Ulysses), Ajax son of Telamon, and Ajax son of
Oileus, Diomedes, and Nestor were among the chiefs on the Greek
side. Troy had its allies. The "Odyssey" relates to the long journey
of _Odysseus_ on his return to Ithaca, his home. That there was
an ancient city, Troy, is certain. A conflict between the Greeks and a
kindred people there, is probable. Not unlikely, there was a military
expedition of Grecian tribes. Every thing beyond this is either
plainly myth, or incapable of verification.

UNIONS OF TRIBES.--During the period when the Greek population was
dispersing itself in the districts which its different fractions
occupied in the historic ages, there arose unions among tribes near
one another, for religious purposes. They preceded treaties and
alliances of the ordinary kind. Such tribes agreed to celebrate, in
common, certain solemn festivals. Deputies of these tribes met at
stated intervals to look after the temple and the lands pertaining to
it. Out of these unions, there grew stipulations relative to the mode
of conducting war and other matters of common interest. Treaties of
peace and of mutual defense might follow. Thus arose combinations of
states, in which one state, the strongest, would have the
_hegemony_, or lead. This became an established characteristic of
Greek political life. It was a system of federal unions under the
headship of the most powerful member of the confederacy. When such a
union was formed, it established a common worship or festival.

THE DELPHIC AMPHICTYONY.--In the north of Greece, there was formed, in
early times, a great religious union. It was composed of twelve tribes
banded together for the worship of _Apollo_ at _Delphi_, and
to guard his temple. It was called the Delphic Amphictyony, or "League
of Neighbors." The members of this body agreed not to destroy one
another's towns in war, and not to cut off running water from a town
which they were besieging.

THE DELPHIC ORACLE.--The sanctuary at Delphi, where the Amphictyonic
Council met, became the most famous temple in Greece. Here the oracle
of Apollo gave answers to those who came to consult that divinity. The
priests who managed the temple kept themselves well informed in regard
to occurrences in distant places. Their answers were often discreet
and wholesome, but not unfrequently obscure and ambiguous, and thus
misleading. In early times their moral influence in the nation
promoted justice and fraternal feeling. In later times they lost their
reputation for honesty and impartiality. In civil wars the priests
were sometimes bribed to support one of the contending parties.

THE HOMERIC POEMS.--Within the last century, there has been much
discussion about the authorship of the two poems, the _Iliad_ and
the _Odyssey_. The place where they were composed, whether among
the Ionians in Greece proper or in Asia Minor, is still a matter of
debate. It was probably Asia Minor. Seven places contended for the
honor of having given birth to the blind bard. But nothing is known of
Homer's birthplace or history. It is doubtful whether the art of
writing was much, if at all, in use among the Greeks at the time of
the composition of the Iliad and Odyssey. We know that the custom
existed of repeating poems orally by minstrels or _rhapsodists_
at popular festivals. This may have been the mode in which for a time
the Homeric poems were preserved and transmitted. The Odyssey has more
unity than the Iliad, and seems to be of a somewhat later date. The
nucleus of the Iliad is thought by some scholars to be embedded in the
group of poems which, it is supposed, constitute the work at present;
but there is no evidence making it possible to identify any portion as
the work of Homer. Whatever may be the truth on these questions, the
Iliad and Odyssey present an invaluable picture of Greek life in the
period when they were composed, which was probably as early as 900
B.C.

SOCIAL LIFE IN THE HOMERIC AGE.--(1) _Government._ In the Homeric
portraiture of Greek life, there are towns; but the tribe is
predominant over the town. The tribe is ruled by a king, who is not
like an Eastern despot, but has about him a council of chiefs, and is
bound by the _themistes_, the traditional customs. There is,
besides, the _agora_, or popular assembly, where debates take
place among the chiefs, and to which their decisions, or rather the
decision of the king, on whom it devolves finally to determine every
thing, are communicated. Public speaking, it is seen, is practiced in
the infancy of Greek society. (2) _Customs._ People live in
hill-villages, surrounded by walls. Life is patriarchal, and, as
regards the domestic circle, humane. Polygamy, the plague of Oriental
society, does not exist. Women are held in high regard. Slavery is
everywhere established. Side by side with piracy and constant war, and
the supreme honor given to military prowess, there is a fine and
bountiful hospitality which is held to be a religious duty. In the
Homeric poems, there is often exhibited a noble refinement of thought
and sentiment, and a gentle courtesy. (3) _Arts and Industry_. In
war, the chariot is the engine: cavalry are unknown. The useful arts
are in a rudimental stage. Spinning and weaving are the constant
occupation of women. All garments are made at home: noble women join
with their slaves in washing them in the river. The condition of the
common freeman who took one temporary job after another, was
miserable. Of the condition of those who pursued special
occupations,--as the carpenter, the leather-dresser, the fisherman,
etc.,--we have no adequate information. The principal metals were in
use, and the art of forging them. There was no coined money: payment
was made in oxen. But there is hereditary individual property in land,
cultivated vineyards, temples of the gods, and splendid palaces of the
chiefs. (4) _Geographical Knowledge._ In Homer, there is a
knowledge of Greece, of the neighboring islands, and western Asia
Minor. References to other lands are vague. The earth is a sort of
flat oval, with the River Oceanus flowing round it. _Hesiod_ is
better informed about places: he knows something of the Nile and of
the Scythians, and of some places as far west as Syracuse.

RELIGION IN THE HOMERIC AGE.--The Homeric poems give us a full idea of
the early religious ideas and practices, (I) _The Nature of the
Gods_.--The gods in Homer are human beings with greatly magnified
powers. Their dwelling is in the sky above us: their special abode is
Mount Olympus. They experience hunger, but feed on ambrosia and
nectar. They travel with miraculous speed. Their prime blessing is
exemption from mortality. Among themselves they are often discordant
and deceitful. (2) _Relation of the Gods to Men_. They are the
rulers and guides of nations. Though they act often from mere caprice
or favoritism, their sway is, on the whole, promotive of justice. Zeus
is supreme: none can contend with him successfully. The gods hold
communication with men. They also make known their will and intentions
by signs and portents,--such as thunder and lightning, or the sudden
passing of a great bird of prey. They teach men through dreams. (3)
_Service of the Gods_. Sacrifice and supplication are the chief
forms of devotion. There is no dominant hierarchy. The temple has its
priest, but the father is priest in his own household. (4) _Morals
and Religion_. Morality is interwoven with religion. Above all,
_oaths_ are sacred, and oath-breakers abhorred by gods as well as
by men. In the conduct of the divinities, there are found abundant
examples of unbridled anger and savage retaliation. Yet gentle
sentiments, counsels to forbearance and mercy, are not wanting. The
wrath of the gods is most provoked by lawless self-assertion and
insolence. (5) _Propitiation: the Dead_. The sense of sin leads
to the appeasing of the deities by offerings, attended with
prayer. The offerings are gifts to the god, tokens of the honor due to
him. The dead live as flitting shadows in Hades. _Achilles_ is
made to say that he would rather be a miserable laborer on earth than
to reign over all the dead in the abodes below.

GREEK LITERATURE.--The chief types, both of poetry and of prose,
originated with the Greeks. Their writings are the fountainhead of the
literature of Europe. They prized simplicity: they always had an
intense disrelish for obscurity and bombast. The earliest poetry of
the Greeks consisted of _hymns_ to the gods. It was
_lyrical_, an outpouring of personal feeling. The lyrical type
was followed by the _epic_, where heroic deeds, or other events
of thrilling interest, are the theme of song, and the personal emotion
of the bard is out of sight through his absorption in the
subject. Description flows on, the narrator himself being in the
background. This epic poetry culminates in the _Iliad_ and
_Odyssey_ (900-700 B.C.). Their verse is the hexameter. These
poems move on in a swift current, yet without abruptness or
monotony. They are marked by a simplicity and a nobleness, a
refinement and a pathos, which have charmed all subsequent
ages. _Homer_, far more than any other author, was the educator
of the Greeks. There was a class called _Homeridae_, in
_Chios_; but whether they were themselves poets, or reciters of
Homer, or what else may have been their peculiar work, is not
ascertained. There was, however, a class of _Cyclic_ poets, who
took up the legends of Troy, and carried out farther the Homeric
tales. _Hesiod_ was the founder of a more didactic sort of
poetry. He is about a century later than the Iliad. Besides the
_Theogony_, which treats of the origin of the gods and of nature,
his _Works and Days_ relates to the works which a farmer has to
do, and the lucky or unlucky days for doing them. It contains
doctrines and precepts relative to agriculture, navigation, civil and
family life. Hesiod was the first of a Boeotian school of poets. He
lacks the poetic genius of Homer, and the vivacity and cheerfulness
which pervade the Iliad and the Odyssey.



CHAPTER II.  THE FORMATION OF THE PRINCIPAL STATES.


ARISTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT.--The early kings were obeyed as much for
their personal qualities, such as valor and strength of body, as for
their hereditary title. By degrees the noble families about the king
took control, and the kingship thus gave way to the rule of an
aristocracy. The priestly office, which required special knowledge,
remained in particular families, as the _Eumolpidae_e at
Athens,--families to whom was ascribed the gift of the seer, and to
whom were known the _Eleusinian mysteries_. The nobles were
landholders, with dependent farmers who paid rent. The nobles held
sway over tillers of the soil, artisans and seamen, who constituted
the people (the "demos"), and who had no share in political
power. This state of things continued until the lower class gained
more property and more knowledge; and the example of the colonial
settlements, where there was greater equality, re-acted on the parent
state. The struggle of the lower ranks for freedom was of long
continuance. In all Greek cities, there were _Metoeci_, or
resident foreigners without political rights, and also slaves from
abroad. Free-born Greeks busied themselves with occupations connected
with the fine arts, or with trade and commerce on an extended
scale. They commonly eschewed all other employments, and especially
menial labor.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE LYCURGUS.--According to the legend, disorders
in Sparta following the Dorian conquest, and strife between the
victors and the conquered, moved _Lycurgus_, a man of regal
descent, to retire to Crete, where the old Dorian customs were still
observed. On his return he gave to the citizens a constitution, which
was held in reverence by the generations after him. To him, also, laws
and customs which were really of later date, came to be ascribed. The
Spartan population consisted (1) of the _Spartiatæ_, who had full
rights, and those of less means,--both comprising the Dorian
conquerors. They were divided into three Phylæ, or tribes, each
composed of ten divisions (Obæ); (2) the _Periæci_, Achaeans who
paid tribute on the land which they held, were bound to military
service, but had no political rights; (3) the _Helots_, serfs of
the State, who were divided among the Spartiatæ by lot, and cultivated
their lands, paying to them a certain fraction of the harvest. The
form of government established by Lycurgus was an aristocratic
republic. The Council of Elders, twenty-eight in number, chosen for
life by the Phylæ, were presided over by two hereditary kings, who had
little power in time of peace, but unlimited command of the forces in
war. The popular assembly, composed of all Spartiatæ of thirty years
of age or upwards, could only decide questions without debate. Five
_Ephors_, chosen yearly by the Phylæ, acquired more and more
authority. Lycurgus is said to have divided the land into nine
thousand equal lots for the families of the Spartiatæ, and thirty
thousand for the Periceci. To keep down the helots required constant
vigilance, and often occasioned measures of extreme cruelty. The
_Crypteia_ was an organized guard of young Spartans, whose
business it was to prevent insurrection.

LAWS AND CUSTOMS.--The Spartan state was thus aristocratic and
military. It took into its own hands the education of the young. Weak
and deformed children were left to perish in a ravine of Taygetus, or
thrust down among the Periceci. Healthy children at the age of seven
were taken from their homes, to be reared under the supervision of the
State. They had some literary instruction, but their chief training
was in gymnastics. They were exercised in hunting and in drills; took
their meals together in the _syssitia_ (the public mess), where
the fare was rough and scanty; slept in dormitories together; and by
every means were disciplined for a soldier's life. The Spartan men
likewise fed at public tables, and slept in barracks, only making
occasional visits to their own houses. No money was in circulation
except iron: no one was permitted to possess gold or silver. Girls
were separately drilled in gymnastic exercises and made to be as hardy
as boys. Marriage was regulated by the State. There was more purity,
and women had a higher standing, in Sparta than in other parts of
Greece. The strength of the Spartan army was in the _hoplites_,
or heavy-armed infantry. In battle, messmates stood
together. Cowardice was treated with the utmost contempt. The rigorous
subordination of the young to their elders was maintained in war as in
peace. The legend held, that after this constitution of Lycurgus had
been approved by the Delphian oracle, he made the citizens swear to
observe it until he should return from a projected journey. He then
went to Crete, and stayed there until his death.

HEGEMONY OF SPARTA.--Having thus organized the body politic, Sparta
took the steps which gave it the _hegemony_ in Peloponnesus and
over all Greece. First, it conquered the neighboring state of
_Messenia_ in two great wars, the first ending about 725 B.C.,
and the second about 650 B.C. In the first of these wars, the
Messenians submitted to become tributary to Sparta, after their
citadel, _Ithome_, had been captured, and their defeated hero,
_Aristodemus_, had slain himself. Many of the vanquished
Messenians escaped from their country to Arcadia and Argolis. Some of
them fled farther, and founded _Rhegium_ in Lower Italy. In the
second war, the Messenians revolted against the tyrannical rule of
Sparta, and at first, under _Aristomenes_, were successful, but
were afterwards defeated by the Spartans, who were inspirited for the
conflict by the war-songs of the Athenian poet,
_Tyrtaeus_. _Aristomenes_ fled to Rhodes. Most of his people
were made helots. The _Arcadians_, after long resistance,
succumbed, and came under the Spartan hegemony (about 600
B.C.). _Argos_, too, was obliged to renounce its claim to this
position in favor of its Spartan antagonist, after its defeat by
_Cleomenes_, the Lacedaemonian king, at Thyrea (549 B.C.). The
_Argive League_ was dissolved, and Sparta gained the right to
command in every war that should be waged in common by the
Peloponnesian states, the right, also, to determine the contingent of
troops which each should furnish, and to preside in the council of the
confederacy. She now began to spread her power beyond Peloponnesus,
entered into negotiations with _Lydia_ (555 B.C.), and actually
sent an expedition to the coast of Asia (525 B.C.). Moreover as early
as 510 B.C., by interfering in the affairs of the states north of the
Corinthian isthmus, and with _Attica_ in particular, she sowed
among the Athenians the seeds of a lasting enmity.

GOVERNMENT IN ATHENS: DRACO.--According to the legend, _Codrus_,
who died about 1068 B.C., was the last of the Athenian kings. The
_Eupatrids_, the noble families, abolished monarchy, and
substituted for the king an _Archon_, chosen for life by them out
of the family of Codrus. The Eupatrids stood in a sort of patriarchal
relation to the common people. The inhabitants were divided into four
tribes. These were subdivided, first into _Brotherhoods_ and
_Clans_, and secondly, into classes based on consanguinity, and
classes arranged for taxation, military service, etc. The entire
community comprised the _Nobles_,--in whose hands the political
power was lodged,--the _Farmers_, and the _Artisans_. The
farmers and the artisans might gather in the _Agora_, and express
assent to public measures, or dissent. In process of time the archons
came to be chosen not from the family of Codrus exclusively, but from
the _Eupatrids_ generally. From 682 B.C. they were nine in
number, and they served but for one year. The administration of
justice was in the hands of the nobles, who were not restrained by a
body of written laws. The archon _Draco_, about 621 B.C., in
order to check this evil, framed a code which seemed harsh, though
milder than the laws previously enforced. Later it was said of his
laws that they were written in blood. This legislation was a
concession to which the nobles were driven by an uprising. Their hard
treatment of debtors, many of whom were deprived of their liberty, had
stirred up a serious conflict between the people and their masters. A
rebellion, led by _Cylon_, one of the Eupatrids, was put down,
and punished by means involving treachery and sacrilege. The
insurgents were slain clinging to the altars of the gods, where they
had taken refuge. Not long after it became necessary to introduce
other reforms at the advice of _Solon_, one of "the seven wise
men of Greece." He had acquired popularity by recovering
_Salamis_ from the Megarians, and in a sacred war against towns
which had robbed the temple of Apollo at Delphi.

LEGISLATION OF SOLON--The design of Solon was to substitute a better
system for the tyrannical oligarchy, but, at the same time, to keep
power mainly in the hands of the upper class. He divided the people
into four classes, according to the amount of their income. To the
richest of these the archonship, and admission into the
_Areopagus_, were confined. A new council was established, which
had the right to initiate legislation, composed of one hundred from
each of the four old tribes, and annually elected by the body of the
citizens. The _Ecclesia_, or assembly of the whole people, having
the right to choose the archons and councilors, was revived. _Courts
of Appeal_, with jury trials, were instituted. The old council of
the _Areopagus_ was clothed with high judicial and executive
powers. There were laws to relieve a portion of the debtors from their
burdens, and to abolish servitude for debt. Every father was required
to teach his son a handicraft.

PARTIES IN ATHENS.--The legislation of Solon was a measure of
compromise. It satisfied neither party. After journeys abroad, he
passed his old age in Athens, and was a spectator of the rising
contests between the discordant factions, which his constitution was
only able for a time to curb. There were three parties,--a
re-actionary party under _Lycurgus_, a progressive party led by
_Pisistratus_, and a moderate or middle party under
_Megacles_.

THE TYRANTS.--At this time, in almost all of the Grecian states,
monarchy had given place to aristocracy. The reign of an
_oligarchy_, the unbridled sway of a few, was commonly the next
step. Against this the people in different states,--the
_demos_,--rose in revolt. The popular leader, or "demagogue," was
some conspicuous and wealthy noble, who thus acquired supreme
authority. In this way, in the seventh and sixth centuries, most of
the states were ruled by "tyrants,"--a term signifying absolute
rulers, whether their administration was unjust and cruel, or fair and
mild. They endeavored to fortify their rule by collecting poets,
artists, and musicians about them, for their own pleasure and for the
diversion of the populace. Occasionally they gave the people
employment in the erection of costly buildings. They formed alliances
with one another and with foreign kings. Not unfrequently they
practiced violence and extortion. The _oligarchies_ sought to
dethrone them. Their overthrow often had for its result the
introduction of popular sovereignty. Among the most noted tyrants were
Periander of Corinth (625-585 B.C.), _Pittacus_ in Lesbos
(589-579 B.C.), and _Polycrates_ in Samos (535-522 B.C.).

The PISISTRATIDS.--The government of Athens, framed by Solon, was in
effect a "timocracy," or rule of the rich. At the head of the popular
party stood _Pisistratus_, a rich nobleman of high descent. He
succeeded, by means of his armed guard, in making himself master of
the citadel. Twice driven out of the city, he at length returned (538
B.C.), and gained permanent control by force of arms. He managed his
government with shrewdness and energy. Industry and trade
flourished. He decorated Athens with buildings and statues. Religious
festivals he caused to be celebrated with splendor. He ruled under the
legal forms by having _archons_ chosen to suit him. He died 527
B.C. _Hippias_, his son, governed with mildness until his younger
brother and colleague in power, _Hipparchus_, was slain by the
two friends, _Harmodius_ and _Aristogiton_. Then he gave the
rein to revengeful passion, and laid upon the people burdensome
taxes. _Hippias_ was driven out of the city by the
_Alcmaeonidae_ and other exiled nobles, assisted by the Spartan
king, _Cleomenes_ (510 B.C.). He fled to Asia Minor in order to
secure Persian help.

THE ATHENIAN DEMOCRACY.--Clisthenes, a brilliant man, the head of the
Alcmaeonid family, connected himself with the popular party, and
introduced such changes in the constitution as to render him the
founder of the Athenian Democracy. The power of the archons was
reduced. All of the free inhabitants of Attica were admitted to
citizenship. New tribes, ten in number, each comprising ten
_denes_, or hamlets, with their adjacent districts, superseded
the old tribes. A _council of five hundred_, fifty from each
tribe, supplanted Solon's council of four hundred. The courts of law
were newly organized. The _Ostracism_ was introduced; that is,
the prerogative of the popular assembly to decree by secret ballot,
without trial, the banishment of a person who should be deemed to be
dangerous to the public weal. Certain officers were designated by
lot. Ten _Strategi_, one from each tribe, by turns, took the
place of the _archon polemarchus_ in command of the army.

EFFECT OF DEMOCRACY.--Under this system of free government, the
energy of the Athenian people was developed with amazing rapidity. The
spirit of patriotism, of zeal for the honor and welfare of Athens,
rose to a high pitch. The power and resources of the city increased in
a proportionate degree. Culture kept pace with prosperity.

LYRICAL POETRY.--In the eighth century, when monarchy was declining,
and the tendency to democracy began to manifest itself, a new style of
poetry, different from the epic, arose. The narrative poems of
minstrels were heard at the great religious festivals. But there was a
craving for the expression of individual feeling. Hence, lyrical
poetry re-appeared, not in the shape of religious songs, as in the old
time, but in a form to touch all the chords of sentiment. Two new
types of verse appeared,--the _Elegiac_ and the _Iambic_. At
first the elegy was probably a lament for the dead. It was accompanied
by the soft music of the Lydian flute. The instruments which the
Greeks had used were string-instruments. The early Greek elegies
related to a variety of themes,--as war, love, preceptive wisdom. The
iambic meter was first used in satire. Its earliest master of
distinction was _Arckilochus_ of Paros (670 B.C.). It was
employed, however, in fables, and elsewhere when pointed or intense
expression was craved. The earliest of the Greek elegists,
_Callinus_ and _Tyrtaus_, composed war-songs. _Mimnermus,
Solon, Theognis, Simonides_ of _Ceos_, are among the most
famous elegists. Music developed in connection with lyric poetry. The
Greeks at first used the four-stringed lyre. Terpander made an epoch
(660 B.C.) by adding three strings. _Olympus_ and _Thaletas_
made further improvements. Greek lyric poetry flourished, especially
from 670 to 440 B.C. The Aeolian lyrists of _Lesbos_ founded a
school of their own. The two great representatives are _Alcaus_,
who sang of war and of love, and _Sappho_, who sang of
love. "Probably no poet ever surpassed Sappho as an interpreter of
passion in exquisitely subtle harmonies of form and sound."
_Anacreon_, an Ionian, resembled in his style the Aeolian
lyrists. He was most often referred to by the ancients as the poet of
sensuous feeling of every sort. The _Dorian_ lyric poetry was
mostly choral and historic in its topics. Greek lyric poetry reaches
the climax in _Simonides_ and _Pindar_. The latter was a
Boeotian, but of Dorian descent. _Simonides_ was tender and
polished; _Pindar_, fervid and sublime The extant works of Pindar
are the _Epinicia_, or odes of victory.

HISTORICAL WRITING.--This age witnesses the beginnings of historical
writing. But the _logographers_, as they were called, only wrote
prose epics. They told the story of the foundation of families and
cities, reconciling as best they could the myths, so far as they
clashed with one another.

PHILOSOPHY: THE IONIAN SCHOOL.--The Greeks were the first to
investigate rationally the causes of things, and to try to comprehend
the world as a complete system. The earliest phase of this movement
was on the side of physics, or natural philosophy. _Homer_ and
_Hesiod_ had accounted for the operations of nature by referring
them to the direct personal action of different divinities. The
earliest philosophers brought in the conception of some kind of matter
as the foundation and source of all things. The _Ionian School_
led the way in this direction. _Thales_ of Miletus (about 600
B.C.) made this primary substance to be
_water_. _Anaximander_ (611-? B.C.) made all things spring
out of a primitive stuff, without definite qualities, and without
bounds. He taught that the earth is round, invented the sun-dial,
engraved a map on a brass tablet, and made some astronomical
calculations. _Anaximenes_ (first half, 6th C.) derived all
things from _air_, which he made to be eternal and infinite.

THE ELEATIC SCHOOL.--The _Eleatic School_ conceived of the world
as one in substance, and held that the natural phenomena which we
behold, in all their variety and change, are unreal. _Xenophanes_
(who flourished from 572 to 478 B.C.) asserted this. _Parmenides_
(504-460 B.C.) taught that succession, change, the manifold forms of
things, are only _relative_; that is, are only our way of
regarding the one universal essence. _Zeno_ sought to vindicate
this theory logically by disproving the possibility of motion.

OTHER PHILOSOPHERS.--Another set of philosophers attempted definitely
to explain the appearances of things, the changing phenomena, which
had been called unreal. _Heraclitus_ made the world to be nothing
but these: There is no substratum of things: there is only an endless
flux, a cycle. All things begin and end in fire, the symbol of what is
real. _Empedocles_ ascribed all things to fire, air, earth, and
water, which are wrought into different bodies by "love" and "hate;"
or, as we should say, attraction and repulsion. _Democritus_ was
the founder of the _Atomists_, who made all things spring out of
the motions and combinations of primitive atoms. _Anaxagoras_
brought in intelligence, or reason, as giving the start to the
development of matter,--this principle doing nothing more, however,
and being inherent in matter itself.

PYTHAGORAS.--A different spirit in philosophy belonged to
_Pythagoras_ (580-500 B.C.), who was born in Samos, traveled
extensively, and settled in Croton, in southern Italy. His theory was,
that the inner substance of all things is number. Discipline of
character was a prime object. Pythagoras was sparing in his diet,
promoted an earnest culture, in which music was prominent, and gave
rise to a mystical school, in which moral reform and religious fueling
were connected with an ascetic method of living.

COLONIES.--It was during the era of the oligarchies and tyrannies that
the colonizing spirit was most active among the Greeks. Most of the
colonies were established between 800 and 550 B.C. Their names alone
would make a very long catalogue. They were of two classes: first,
_independent communities_, connected, however, with the parent
city by close ties of friendship; and secondly, _kleruchies_,
which were of the nature of garrisons, where the settlers retained
their former rights as citizens, and the mother city its full
authority over them. In _Sicily_, on the eastern side, were the
Ionian communities,--Naxos, Catana, etc. _Syracuse_ (founded by
Corinth 734 B.C.), _Gela_, and _Agrigentum_, which were
among the chief Dorian settlements, lay on the south-eastern and
south-western coasts. The oldest Greek town in _Italy_ was
_Cumae_ (not far from Naples), said to have been founded in 1050
B.C. _Tarentum_ (Dorian), _Sybaris_, and _Croton_
(Aeolic) were settled in the latter part of the eighth
century. _Locri_ (Aeolic) and _Rhegium_ (Ionic) were on the
south. The south-western portion of Italy was termed _Magna
Graecia_. _Massilia_ (Marseilles) was founded by the Phocaean
Ionians (about 600 B.C.). In the western Mediterranean the Greeks were
hindered from making their settlements as numerous as they would have
done, by the fact that Carthage and her colonies stood in the
way. _Cyrene_, on the coast of Africa, was a Dorian colony (630
B.C.), planted from _Thera_, an earlier Spartan
settlement. _Cyrene_ founded _Barca_. _Corcyra_ was
colonized by Corinth (about 700 B.C.). Along the coast of Epirus were
other Corinthian and Corcyrasan settlements. Chalcis planted towns in
the peninsula of Chalcidice, and from thence to _Selymbria_ (or
Byzantium), which was founded by Megara (657 B.C.). The northern
shores of the Ægean and the Propontis, and the whole coast of the
Euxine were strewn with Greek settlements. The Greek towns, especially
_Miletus_, on the western coast of Asia Minor, themselves sent
out colonies,--as _Cyzicus_ and _Sinope_, south of the
Propontis and the Euxine. The foregoing statements give only a general
idea of the wide extent of Greek colonization.

  An exhaustive statement of the Greek colonies is given in
  Rawlinson's _Manual of Ancient History_, p. 148 _seq_. See
  also Abbott, _A History of Greece_, I. 333 _seq_.



PERIOD II.  THE FLOURISHING ERA OF GREECE.



CHAPTER I.  THE PERSIAN WARS.


THE IONIAN REVOLT.--Hardly were the Greeks in possession of liberty
when they were compelled to measure their strength with the mighty
Persian Empire. The cities of Asia Minor groaned under the tyranny of
their Persian rulers, and sighed for freedom. At length, under
propitious circumstances, _Miletus_ rose in revolt under the lead
of _Aristagoras_. Alone of the Grecian cities, Athens, and
Eretria on the island of Euboea, sent help. The insurrection was
extinguished in blood: its leaders perished. Miletus was destroyed by
the enemy 495 B.C.; and the Ionian towns were again brought under the
Persian yoke, which was made heavier than before. The Persian monarch,
_Darius_, swore vengeance upon those who had aided the rebellion.

THE BATTLE OF MARATHON.--_Mardonius_, the son-in-law of Darius,
moved with a fleet and an army along the Ægean coast. A storm
shattered the fleet upon the rocky promontory of Athos, and the land
force was partly destroyed by the Thracians. Mardonius retreated
homeward. The heralds who came to demand, according to the Persian
custom, "water and earth" of Athens and Sparta, were put to
death. Enraged at these events, Darius sent a stronger fleet under
_Datis_ and _Artaphernes_. They forced _Naxos_ and the
other _Cyclades_ to submission, captured and destroyed
_Eretria_, and sent off its inhabitants as slaves to the interior
of Asia. Guided on their path of destruction by the Athenian refugee,
_Hippias_, the Persians landed on the coast of Attica, and
encamped on the shore adjacent to the plain of _Marathon_. The
Athenians sent _Philippides_, one of the swiftest of couriers, to
Sparta for assistance, who reached that city, a hundred and
thirty-five or a hundred and forty miles distant, the next day after
he started. He brought back for answer that the Spartans were deterred
by religious scruples from marching to war before the full moon, which
would be ten days later. There was a Greek, as well as a Judaic,
Pharisaism. Left to themselves, the Athenians were fortunate in having
for their leader _Miltiades_, an able and experienced soldier,
who had been with the Persians in the Scythian campaign. At the head
of the Athenian infantry, ten thousand in number, whose hearts were
cheered before the onset by the arrival of a re-inforcement of one
thousand men, comprising the whole fighting population of the little
town of _Platæa_, Miltiades attacked the Persian army, ten times
as large as his own. The Athenians ran down the gentle slope at
Marathon, shouting their war-cry, or pæan, and, after a fierce
conflict, drove the Persians back to their ships, capturing their camp
with all its treasures (Sept. 12, 490 B.C.). This brilliant victory
was not the end of danger. The Greek watchmen saw a treacherous
signal, a glistening shield, on _Mount Pentelicus_, put there to
signify to the Persians that Athens was open to their attack. In that
direction, round Cape Sunium, the Persian fleet sailed. But
_Miltiades_, by a rapid march of twenty-three miles, reached the
city in season to prevent the landing. _Datis_ and
_Artaphernes_ sailed away. The traitor, _Hippias_, died on
the return voyage. The patriotic exultation of the Athenians was well
warranted. Never did they look back upon that victory without a thrill
of joyful pride. It proved what a united free people were capable of
achieving. More than that, MARATHON was one of the decisive battles
which form turning-points in the world's history. It was a mortal
conflict between the East and the West, between Asia and Europe,--the
coarse despotism under which individual energy is stifled, and the
dawning liberty which was to furnish the atmosphere required for the
full development and culture of the human mind.

ARISTIDES AND THEMISTOCLES.--_Miltiades_ subsequently failed in
an attempt against _Paros_, one of the Ægean islands which had
submitted to the Persians, and which he sought to conquer. Accused of
making false promises to the people, he was fined fifty talents, but
died before the sum could be collected (489 B.C.). His son
_Cimon_ paid the fine. The two leading men in Athens at that time
were _Aristides_ and _Themistocles_. The former, from his
uprightness, was styled "the just." _Themistocles_ was a man of
genius, of an ambitious spirit, whom the laurels of _Miltiades_
robbed of sleep. Devoted to Athens, he was not scrupulous in regard to
the means of advancing her prosperity and glory. Duplicity and
intrigue were weapons in the use of which he was not less willing than
expert.  He aspired to make Athens a great naval and maritime
power. _Aristides_ believed that the strength of the country lay
in the landholders and in the land forces. In the attainment of public
ends, he would not deviate from a straightforward course. Themistocles
was by far the more captivating of the two men; and, in 484 B.C.,
Aristides was ostracised. Themistocles was thus left free to build up
a powerful fleet.

THE WAR WITH XERXES: THERMOPYLÆ.--_Darius_ died while he was
preparing another grand expedition against Greece. He left his
successor, _Xerxes_ (485 B.C.), to complete and carry out the
plan. This proud monarch drew together from his immense dominions an
army which tradition, as given in Herodotus, made to number one
million seven hundred thousand men and a fleet of twelve hundred large
vessels. He had for a counselor, _Demaratus_, a fugitive king of
Sparta. The vast array of troops was assembled near _Sardes_, and
thence marched to the _Hellespont_. Seven days were spent by this
mighty gathering of nations in passing over the two bridges of
boats. They marched through Thrace, Macedonia, and Thessaly, the
Persian fleet proceeding along the coast. _Bæotia_ and several
smaller states yielded without resistance. The most of the other Greek
states, inspired by Themistocles, joined hands for defense under the
hegemony of Sparta. In July, 480, the Persian army arrived at the
narrow pass of _Thermopylæ_. There the Lacedæemonian king,
_Leonidas_, with his three hundred Spartans and some thousands of
allies, had taken his stand, to stem the vast current that was pouring
down to overwhelm Greece. To the Persian command to give up their
weapons, the "laconic" reply was given by Leonidas, "Come and get
them." For several days the band of Spartans defended the pass,
beating back the Persians, thousands of whom were slain, and
repulsing, even, the ten thousand "immortals," who constituted the
royal guard. At length a treacherous Greek showed the enemy a by-path,
which enabled them to fall on the rear of the gallant troops, every
one of whom fell, bravely fighting, with his weapon in his hand. A
lion made of iron was afterwards placed on the spot where the heroes
had died, "obedient to the commands of Sparta."  The Persians pushed
forward to _Athens_, and burned the city. All citizens capable of
bearing arms were on board the fleet: the women, children, and movable
property had been conveyed to _Salamis_, _Ægina_, and
_Træzcne_.

SALAMIS.--The Greek fleet, under the Spartan _Eurybiades_, had
come from victory at Artemisium into the Gulf of Salamis. By means of
a device of Themistocles, the Spartans were prevented from withdrawing
their forces to the Corinthian isthmus, where they had built a wall
for their own protection; and a sea-fight was brought on, of which the
Athenians in Salamis, and Xerxes himself from a hill on the mainland,
were anxious spectators (Sept. 27, 480). Once more the cause of
civilization was staked on the issue of a conflict. The Greeks were
completely victorious, and their land was saved. Xerxes hastily
marched towards home, thousands of his army perishing on the way from
hunger, cold, and fatigue. The _Spartiatæ_ gave to
_Eurybiades_ the prize of valor, to _Themistocles_ an olive
crown for his wisdom and sagacity.

PLATÆA: MYCALE: EURYMEDON.--Xerxes left three hundred thousand men
behind in Thessaly, under the command of _Mardonius_. In the
spring, incensed at the proud rejection of his overtures, he marched
to Athens, whose people again took refuge in Salamis. In the great
battle of _Platæa_ (479 B.C.), the Greeks, led by the Spartan
_Pausanias_, inflicted on him such a defeat that only forty
thousand Persians escaped to the Hellespont. On the same day at
_Mycale_, the Persian fleet was vanquished in a sharp encounter
where a Spartan commanded, but where the Athenians were the most
efficient combatants. Sestos, Lemnos, Imbros, and Byzantium were taken
by the Greeks; and a double victory of _Cimon_, the son of
Miltiades, at the Pamphylian river, _Eurymedon_, over both the
land and naval forces of the Persians, brought the war to an end (467
B.C.).



CHAPTER II.  THE ASCENDENCY OF ATHENS.


PAUSANIAS AND THEMISTOCLES.--Both of the generals by whom the Persians
had been overcome, fell under the displeasure of the states to which
they belonged. _Pausanias_ was so far misled by ambition as to
engage in a negotiation with the Persians for the elevation of
himself, by their aid, to supreme power in Greece. His plots were
discovered, and he was compelled by his countrymen to starve to death
in a temple to which he had fled for refuge. _Themistocles_
caused Athens to be surrounded by a wall, and built long walls from
the city to the _Piræus_. This provoked the hatred of the
Spartans, so jealous were they of the power of Athens. In conjunction
with his Athenian enemies, they contrived to procure his banishment
for ten years (471 B.C.). Themistocles fled to Persia, where he was
treated with honor and favor. _Artaxerxes I._ gave him a princely
domain in Asia Minor where he died (458 B.C.). Grave as his faults
were, Themistocles was the founder of the historical greatness of
Athens.

CONFEDERACY OF DELOS.--It was through the influence of
_Aristides_ that the confederacy of Delos was formed, in which
the Grecian islands and seaports combined with Athens, and under her
leadership, for the further prosecution of the war. By this means, the
Athenians, already so efficient on the sea, were enabled still more to
strengthen their fleet, and gradually to bring the Ægean islands and
smaller maritime states under their sway. _Cimon_ rendered great
service as a naval commander. He drove the Persians out of Thrace
altogether, and he conquered _Scyros_. He wrested the Chersonese
from the Persians, and freed the Greek cities on the coast. In the
single battle on the _Eurymedon_, he sunk or captured two hundred
galleys (467 B.C.).

TO THE PEACE OF PERICLES.--Under the leadership of such men, the
Athenian Republic became more and more powerful. _Ægina_, a rich
and prosperous island, was conquered, and planted with Athenian
colonists. _Megara_ became a dependency of Athens. Sparta, partly
in consequence of a struggle with Argos, a state friendly to the
Persians, and still more on account of an earthquake which laid the
most of the city in ruins (465 B.C.), was so crippled as not to be
able to check the progress of the rival community. She was even
obliged to invoke Athenian help against the revolting Messenians and
helots; but after the troops of Athens had joined them, the Spartans,
jealous and afraid of what they might do, sent them back. This
indignity led to the banishment of _Cimon_, who had favored the
sending of the force, and to the granting of aid to the Spartans. The
Spartans now did their best to reduce the strength and dominion of
Athens by raising _Thebes_ to the hegemony over the Boeotian
cities. Everywhere, in all the conflicts, Sparta was the champion of
the _aristocratic_ form of government; Athens, of the
_democratic_. The Athenians were defeated at _Tanagra_ (457
B.C.). This induced them to recall _Cimon_, a great general and a
worthy citizen. Two months after her victory, Sparta was defeated by
_Myronides_; and the Athenians became masters of Phocis, Locris,
and Boeotia. Cimon brought about a truce between Athens and Sparta. He
left his country on a high pinnacle of power and dominion. Nearly all
the allies in the confederacy of Delos had fallen into the position of
tributaries, whose heavy contributions were carried no longer to the
sanctuary at Delos, but to the temple of Athena on the Acropolis, and
who had no power to decide on questions of peace and war. The nobles,
however, who were driven into exile in all conquered places, were the
mortal enemies of Athens. At _Coronea_ (447 B.C.), the Boeotian
refugees and aristocrats were so strong that the Athenians experienced
a disastrous defeat. The peril of the situation moved _Pericles_
to secure, by astute management, a peace with Sparta, the terms of
which were that each of the two cities was to maintain its hegemony
within its own circle, and the several states were to attach
themselves at their option to either confederacy. In market and
harbor, there was to be a free intercourse of trade (445 B.C.).

THE AGE OF PERICLES.--Pericles belonged to one of the principal
Athenian families, but was democratic in his politics, and made
himself a popular leader. By his influence the _Areopagus_ was
stripped of high prerogatives that had belonged to it. He caused it to
be enacted, that every citizen, when engaged in the public service,
even in attending the popular assembly, should receive a stipend. For
fifteen years, as the first citizen of Athens, with none of the
trappings of power, he virtually ruled the commonwealth. One of his
works was the building the third of the _long walls_ which
protected the _Piræus_ and the neighboring ports on the land
side, and connected them with Athens. His patriotism was as sincere as
his talents were versatile and brilliant. He was at once a soldier, an
orator, a statesman of consummate ability, and a man imbued with the
best appreciation of letters and of art. In his hospitable house,
where _Aspasia_ from Miletus, a beautiful and cultured woman, was
his companion, men of genius found a welcome. Under him, Athens became
the metropolis of literature, philosophy, and art for the whole
Hellenic race, and, considering the influence of Athens, it might
almost be said for mankind in all ages. Magnificent buildings--of
which the _Parthenon_, the temple of Athena that crowned the
Acropolis, whose ruins are the model of architectural perfection, was
one--gave to the city an unrivaled beauty. _Sculpture_ vied with
architecture in this work of adornment. _Phidias_, who wrought
the frieze of the Parthenon, counted among his wonderful creations the
colossal sitting statue of Zeus at Olympia. It was the blossoming
season of the Greek intellect, as regards _literature_ and the
_fine arts_. The _drama_ reached its perfection in the
masterly tragedies of _Aeschylus, Sophocles,_ and
_Euripides_, and in the comedies of _Aristophanes_. The
Athenian community, through its political eminence, its intellectual
character, so original and diversified, its culture,--such that almost
every citizen was qualified for civil office,--has no parallel in
history. It is the elevation, not of a select class of the citizens,
but of the whole society, which gives to Athens its unique
distinction. Public spirit and enterprise, which made her navy
dominant in the Aegean and over the sea-coast of Asia Minor, went hand
in hand with delight in eloquence and in the creations of
genius. There was not, however, as some have affirmed, in the
prevalent absorption in the affairs of state, a neglect of the labors
of agriculture and of mechanical industry.

THE ACROPOLIS--It was customary for a Greek town to be built about an
acropolis,--an eminence by which it was commanded, and on which stood
the citadel. On the acropolis at Athens were the buildings and statues
in which the glory of Athenian art was impressively displayed. There
were three edifices which excelled all the rest in splendor. On the
south side of the elevated area was the _Parthenon_, built of
Pentelic marble, two hundred and twenty-eight feet in length, and of
faultless proportions. On the northern edge was the _Erechtheum_,
an Ionic temple of extraordinary beauty. The _Propylcea_,
approached by sixty marble steps, was a noble gateway: it stood on the
western end of the acropolis, which it magnificently adorned.

ATHENS--No other description of Athens, in the age of Pericles, equals
his own in the _Funeral Oration_ (431 B.C.), as given by
Thucydides, for those who had fallen in the war. It shows how an
Athenian looked upon his city.

  "It is true that we are called a democracy; for the administration
  is in the hands of the many, and not of the few. But while the law
  secures equal justice to all alike in their private disputes, the
  claim of excellence is also recognized; and when a citizen is in any
  way distinguished, he is preferred to the public service, not as a
  matter of privilege, but as the reward of merit. Neither is poverty
  a bar; but a man may benefit his country, whatever be the obscurity
  of his condition. There is no exclusiveness in our public life; and
  in our private intercourse we are not suspicious of one another, nor
  angry with our neighbor if he does what he likes: we do not put on
  sour looks at him, which, though harmless, are not pleasant. While
  we are thus unconstrained in our private intercourse, a spirit of
  reverence pervades our public acts: we are prevented from doing
  wrong by respect for authority and the laws, having an especial
  regard to those which are ordained for the protection of the
  injured, as well as to those unwritten laws which bring upon the
  transgressor of them the reprobation of the general sentiment.

  "And we have not forgotten to provide for our weary spirits many
  relaxations from toil. We have regular games and sacrifices
  throughout the year. At home the style of our life is refined, and
  the delight which we daily feel in all these things helps to banish
  melancholy. Because of the greatness of our city, the fruits of the
  whole earth flow in upon us; so that we enjoy the goods of other
  countries as freely as of our own.

  "Then, again, our military training is in many respects superior to
  that of our adversaries. Our city is thrown open to the world; and
  we never expel a foreigner, or prevent him from seeing or learning
  any thing of which the secret, if revealed to an enemy, might profit
  him. We rely not upon management or trickery, but upon our own
  hearts and hands. And in the matter of education, whereas they from
  early youth are always undergoing laborious exercises which are to
  make them brave, we live at ease, and yet are equally ready to face
  the perils which they face. And here is the proof,--the
  Lacedaemonians come into Attica, not by themselves, but with their
  whole confederacy following; we go alone into a neighbor's country;
  and, although our opponents are fighting for their homes, and we are
  on a foreign soil, we have seldom any difficulty in overcoming
  them. Our enemies have never yet felt our united strength. The care
  of a navy divides our attention, and on land we are obliged to send
  our own citizens everywhere. But they, if they meet and defeat a
  part of our army, are as proud as if they had routed us all; and,
  when defeated, they pretend to have been vanquished by us all.

  "If, then, we prefer to meet danger with a light heart, but without
  laborious training, and with a courage which is gained by habit, and
  not enforced by law, are we not greatly the gainers? since we do not
  anticipate the pain, although, when the hour comes, we can be as
  brave as those who never allow themselves to rest. And thus, too,
  our city is equally admirable in peace and war; for we are lovers of
  the beautiful, yet simple in our tastes, and we cultivate the mind
  without loss of manliness. Wealth we employ, not for talk and
  ostentation, but when there is real use for it. To avow poverty with
  us is no disgrace: the true disgrace is in doing nothing to avoid
  it. An Athenian citizen does not neglect the State because he takes
  care of his own household, and even those of us who are engaged in
  business have a very fair idea of politics. We alone regard a man
  who takes no interest in public affairs, not as harmless, but as a
  useless character; and, if few of us are originators, we are all
  sound judges of policy. The great impediment to action is, in our
  opinion, not discussion, but the want of that knowledge which is
  gained by discussion preparatory to action. For we have a peculiar
  power of thinking before we act, and of acting too; whereas other
  men are courageous from ignorance, but hesitate upon reflection. And
  they are surely to be esteemed the bravest spirits who, having the
  clearest sense both of the pains and pleasures of life, do not on
  that account shrink from danger. In doing good, again, we are unlike
  others: we make our friends by conferring, not by receiving,
  favors. Now, he who confers a favor is the firmer friend, because he
  would fain by kindness keep alive the memory of an obligation; but
  the recipient is colder in his feelings, because he knows that in
  requiting another's generosity he will not be winning gratitude, but
  only paying a debt. We alone do good to our neighbors, not upon a
  calculation of interest, but in the confidence of freedom, and in a
  frank and fearless spirit. To sum up, I say that Athens is the
  school of Hellas, and that the individual Athenian in his own person
  seems to have the power of adapting himself to the most varied forms
  of action with the utmost versatility and grace. This is no passing
  and idle word, but truth and fact; and the assertion is verified by
  the position to which these qualities have raised the State. For in
  the hour of trial Athens alone among her contemporaries is superior
  to the report of her. No enemy who comes against her is indignant at
  the reverses which he sustains at the hands of such a city: no
  subject complains that his masters are unworthy of him. And we shall
  assuredly not be without witnesses; there are mighty monuments of
  our power, which will make us the wonder of this and of succeeding
  ages. We shall not need the praises of Homer or of any other
  panegyrist, whose poetry may please for the moment, although his
  representation of the facts will not bear the light of day; for we
  have compelled every land and every sea to open a path for our
  valor, and have everywhere planted eternal memorials of our
  friendship and of our enmity. Such is the city for whose sake these
  men nobly fought and died: they could not bear the thought that she
  might be taken from them, and every one of us who survive should
  gladly toil on her behalf."

RELIGION.--We find in _Sophocles_ a much purer tone of moral and
religious feeling than in _Homer_. Greek thought upon divine
things is expanded and purified, (i) _Higher Conception of the
Gods_. The gods are still conceived of as in bodily form. Their
images abide in their temples. Take them away, and the god leaves his
abode. The divinities need not be present, as in Homer, in order to
exert their power. The monotheistic tendency is manifest. The "gods"
are referred to as if a single agency were in the writer's mind. The
regal sway of Zeus is emphasized. He is less subject to Fate. (2)
_Divine Government_. The gods, especially _Zeus_, are the
fountain of law. The righteousness of the divine government is
especially evinced in the punishment of evil-doers. Transgressors
generally, and not those of the worst class alone, as in Homer, are
punished in _Hades_. Pride and insolence call down the vengeance
of the gods. Unsleeping justice pursues the criminal. The theory of
_Nemesis_, which pursues the prosperous, if they are proud, to
their hurt and ruin, is held. (3) _Number of the Gods_. The
number of divinities is multiplied as time advances. The worship of
the heroes, children of the gods or goddesses, grows in
importance. (4) _Revelation_. There was direct revelation, it was
believed, by prophecy, uttered now in an ecstatic, and now in a
tranquil, mood. _Oracles_ acquired a new and vast importance. (5)
_Rites_. Visible objects of devotion were multiplied; religious
ceremonies ramified in all directions; sacred processions, festivals,
amusements involving religious observances, abounded. (6)
_Morality_. Moral excellence centered in moderation and
self-government, through which the individual keeps both his own
nature as to its parts, and himself in relation to others, within due
limits. This spirit includes temperance and justice. The stern spirit
of law prevails: the requital of injuries is approved. Yet feelings of
compassion find a beautiful expression. At Athens, there was public
provision for orphans and for the help of the poor. (7) _Domestic
Life: Patriotism_. The wife lived in retirement, and in submission
to her husband. When he entertained friends at his table, she was
absent; yet domestic affection was evidently strong. Every other duty
merged in patriotism. The Greek placed a great gulf between himself
and the "barbarian." He was conscious of higher intellectual gifts,
superior culture, better customs. (8) _Sin. The Future
Life_. There was a deeper sense of sin than in the Homeric
era. There was a pathetic consciousness of the trouble and sorrow that
beset human life. _Hades_ was regarded as a scene of trial and
judgment, and of rewards as well as sufferings. The soul was not so
closely identified with the body. Death was an object of gloomy
anticipation.  _Pericles_, in his funeral oration for the fallen
patriots, is silent as to a future life. In the tragic poets, it is
only the select few whose lot is blessed. As concerns the mass of the
people, it is probable that the Homeric notions respecting the state
of the dead still prevailed. Generally speaking, we are not warranted
in ascribing the more elevated views of religion entertained by the
best minds to the mass of the people.

THE TRAGIC DRAMA.--The songs which were sung in the worship of
Dionysus (dithyrambs) were accompanied with dance and pantomime. The
custom followed of mingling speeches and dramatic action with these
lyrics.  The change is ascribed to _Thespis_ (about 536 B.C.), a
little later than Solon. Thespis is said to have brought in the stage
for the performers. The Greek theaters were large, open to the sky,
and sometimes on sites which commanded fine views. There was the
amphitheater, with graded seats for spectators, and the stage,
together with the orchestra where the choir in song or musical
recitation reflected the sympathies and views of the spectators of the
play. At first there was only one actor, and, of course, a
monologue. _Aeschylus_ is said to have brought in a second actor,
and _Sophocles_ a third. These, with _Euripides_, were the
three great dramatists of Greece. The choral song, which had been the
chief thing, was made secondary to the dialogue. Aeschylus, at the age
of forty-five, fought in the battle of Salamis; Sophocles, then
fifteen years old, took part in the festival in honor of the victory;
and Euripides was born, it was supposed, on the very day of the
battle. These three brought the tragic drama to perfection. Of the
productions of Aeschylus (525-456 B.C.), seven remain. They are
inspired with the heroic and elevated mood which was engendered by the
great struggle against the Persians. Of the numerous plays of
Sophocles (495-406 B.C.), the number of those extant is also
seven. They so combine vigor and force with refinement of thought and
style that they are surpassed, if indeed they are equaled, by the
literary products of no age or country. In Euripides (480-406 B.C.),
while there is an insight into the workings of the heart, and the
antique nobleness of sentiment, there is less simplicity, and there is
manifest the less earnest and believing tone of the later day. In the
dramas, the "unities" of time, place, and action are observed. The
acts together seldom stretch over a single day.

COMEDY--Comedy, in which _Aristophanes_ (452-388 B.C.), a great
poet as well as a great wit, was the principal author, dealt largely
in satire. Conspicuous men, and those active in public affairs, were
represented on the stage in satirical pieces, so that they were at
once identified. The spirit of the "old comedy" was patriotic,
although it might be unjust, as in the case of Socrates, who was a
target for the wit of Aristophanes. The "middle comedy" was nothing
really distinct from the "new comedy." The "new comedy," in which
Menander (342-290 B.C.) was an eminent author, ceased to present
actual persons, and dealt with imaginary characters alone. Among the
Greeks in Lower Italy and Sicily, mimes were much in vogue.

GREEK ART: ARCHITECTURE--The Greeks more and more broke away in a free
and joyous spirit from the stiff and conventional styles of Egyptian
and Oriental art. In the room of the somber, massive edifices of
Egypt, they combined symmetry and beauty with grandeur in the temples
which they erected. The temples were originally colored within and
without. Three styles were developed,--the _Doric_, the
_Ionic_, and the _Corinthian_. In the _Doric_, the
column and entablature have the most solid and simple form. The column
has no other base than the common platform on which the pillars rest,
and the capital that surmounts it is a plain slab.

In the _Ionic_ style, the column has a distinct base, is more
tall and slender, and its capital has two _volutes_, or spiral
moldings. The capital of the _Corinthian_ column is peculiar,
representing flower calices and leaves, "pointing upwards, and curving
like natural plants." The _acanthus_, on account of its graceful
form, was generally copied. The most ancient Doric temples, of a date
prior to the Persian war, of which the ruined temple of Neptune at
Paestum is one, are, in comparison with later edifices, of a severe
and massive style. In the period extending from the Persian war to the
Macedonian rule, the stern simplicity of the Doric is modified by the
softer and more graceful character of the Ionic. The temple of
_Theseus_ at Athens is an example. The _Parthenon_ was the
most beautiful specimen of the Doric, which has appropriated the grace
of the Ionic column without losing its own distinctive character. In
the later period, after freedom was lost, there was much more
ornamentation. It was then that the more decorated Corinthian style
flourished.

SCULPTURE.--Before the Persian wars, in the earliest sculpture the
restraint of Egyptian and Oriental styles is perceptible in the
sculptors, of whom Daedalus is the mythical representative. The oldest
statues were of wood, which was subsequently covered with gold and
ivory, or painted. The lofty style of _Phidias_ (488-432 B.C.),
and of _Polycletus_ of Argos, became prevalent in the flourishing
period of Greek liberty. _Myron_, to whom we owe the
_Discobolus_ (Disk-Thrower), belongs to the school of
Aegina. Statues were now made in brass and marble. They were
everywhere to be seen. The pediments and friezes of the temples were
covered with exquisitely wrought sculptures. The most beautiful
sculptures that have come down from antiquity are the marbles of the
Parthenon. The Greeks appreciated to the full the beauty of
nature. They gave to their gods ideal human forms, in which were
blended every attribute of majesty and grace which are conceived to
belong to perfected humanity. Sculpture in Greece, as elsewhere, was
ally to religion; "but whilst the religion of the Egyptians was a
religion of the tomb, and their ideal world a gloomy spot peopled by
sleeping lions, dreamy sphinxes, or weird unearthly monsters, the
mythology of the Greeks, rightly understood, is an exquisite poem, the
joint creation of the master-minds of infant Greece; and their art is
a translation of that poem into visible forms of beauty." In the
_third period_, which may be made to terminate with the death of
_Alexander the Great_ (323 B.C.), there were masters in
sculpture, among whom _Praxiteles_ and _Scopas_ are at the
head. More and more, as we come down to the Roman period, while
extraordinary technical perfection is still manifested, the loftier
qualities of art tend to disappear.

PAINTING.--In Greece, painting first ceased to be subordinate to
architecture, and became independent. In early days, there was skill
in the ornamentation of vases and in mural painting. Yet, with much
spirit and feeling, there was a conventional treatment. The earliest
artist of whom we know much is _Polygnotus_ (about 420 B.C.),
whose groups of profile figures were described as remarkable for their
life-like character and fine coloring. _Apollodorus_ of Athens
was distinguished, but _Zeuxis_ of Heraclea is said to have been
the first to paint movable pictures. He is famed for his marvelous
power of imitation: the birds pecked at a bunch of grapes which he
painted. But even he was outdone by _Parrhasius_. Zeuxis,
however, had far higher qualities than those of a literal copyist. The
most successful of the Greek painters was _Apelles_. Among his
masterpieces was a painting of Venus rising from the waves, and a
portrait of Alexander the Great. We have not in painting, as in
sculpture, a store of monuments of Greek art; but the skill of the
Greeks in painting fell behind their unequaled genius in molding the
human form in bronze and marble.



CHAPTER III.  THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR.


I. TO THE PEACE OF NICIAS (421 B.C.).

TO THE DEATH OF PERICLES.--Wonderful as was the growth of Athens under
Pericles, it is obvious that she stood exposed to two principal
sources of danger. Her allies and dependants, the stay of that naval
power in which her strength lay, were discontented with her spirit of
domination and of extortion. The _Peloponnesian Alliance_, which
was led by _Sparta_, the bulwark of the aristocratic interest,
comprised, with the Dorian, most of the Aeolian states,--as Boeotia,
Phocis, Locris, etc. Its military strength lay mainly in its
heavy-armed infantry. Thus Sparta had the advantage of strong
allies. The motive at the bottom of this alliance was what Thucydides
tells was the real cause of the Peloponnesian war,--the jealousy which
the growth of Athens excited in other states. This feeling really
involved a conviction of the need of maintaining in Greece that which
in modern times is called a "balance of power." When Greece was no
longer one, as in the best days of the wars with Persia, but was
divided into two opposite camps, watchful and jealous of one another,
an occasion of conflict could not fail to arise. It was complained
that Athens gave help to _Corcyra_ in a war with _Corinth_,
its mother city, made war upon _Potidaea_ in Macedonia, a
Corinthian colony, and also shut out _Megara_ from the harbors of
Attica.

The demands made by Sparta, which included the granting of
independence to _Aegina_, were rejected. Attica was ravaged by
Spartan troops, and the coast of Peloponnesus by the Athenian fleet
(431 B.C.). This desolating warfare was kept up until a frightful
pestilence broke out at Athens,--a plague having its origin in Egypt,
and passing thence over Asia and the Greek islands. Two of the sons of
Pericles died, and an accumulation of public burdens and private
sorrows brought on his own death (Sept., 429).

  THE PESTILENCE.--The horrors of the pestilence are thus described in
  a celebrated passage of the best of the Greek historians,
  _Thucydides:_ "The crowding of the people out of the country
  into the city aggravated the misery, and the newly arrived suffered
  most. For, haying no houses of their own, but inhabiting, in the
  height of summer, stifling huts, the mortality among them was
  dreadful, and they perished in wild disorder. The dead lay as they
  had died, one upon another; while others, hardly alive, wallowed in
  the streets, and crawled about every fountain, craving for
  water. The temples in which they lodged were full of the corpses of
  those who died in them; for the violence of the calamity was such
  that men, not knowing where to turn, grew reckless of all law, human
  and divine. The customs which had hitherto been observed at funerals
  were universally violated, and they buried their dead, each one as
  best he could. Many, having no proper appliances, because the deaths
  in their household had been so frequent, made no scruple of using
  the burial-place of others. When one man had raised a funeral-pile,
  others would come, and, throwing on their dead first, set fire to
  it; or, when some other corpse was already burning, before they
  could be stopped, would throw their own dead upon it, and depart.

  "There were other and worse forms of lawlessness which the plague
  introduced at Athens. Men who had hitherto concealed their
  indulgence in pleasure, now grew bolder. For, seeing the sudden
  change,--how the rich died in a moment, and those who had nothing,
  immediately inherited their property,--they reflected that life and
  riches were alike transitory, and they resolved to enjoy themselves
  while they could, and to think only of pleasure. Who would be
  willing to sacrifice himself to the law of honor when he knew not
  whether he would ever live to be held in honor? The pleasure of the
  moment, and any sort of thing which conduced to it, took the place
  both of honor and of expediency: no fear of God or law of man
  deterred a criminal. Those who saw all perishing alike, thought that
  the worship or neglect of the gods made no difference. For offenses
  against human law, no punishment was to be feared: no one would live
  long enough to be called to account. Already a far heavier sentence
  had been passed, and was hanging over a man's head: before that
  fell, why should he not take a little pleasure?"

TO THE TRUCE WITH SPARTA.--The loss of Pericles, coupled with the
terrible calamities which had befallen Athens, let loose the winds of
party passion. New leaders of the democracy, of whom _Cleon_ was
the most noted, who lacked the refinement and self-restraint of
Pericles, took his place. The Athenians were not able to save
_Plataea_, to which they owed so much, from destruction at the
hands of the _Spartans_ and _Boeotians_ (427 B.C.); but
_Lesbos_ they recovered, and captured _Mytilene_, the bulk
of whose citizens, against the will of Cleon, they spared. To the
cruelties of war, which the revengeful temper of the Spartans
promoted, there was added another plague at Athens, besides an
earthquake, and tremendous rain-storms, alternating with drought.

_Demosthenes_, a brave and enterprising Athenian general, took
possession of Pylos in Messenia. The Spartans, under _Brasidas_,
were on the island of _Sphacteria_ opposite; and their retreat
was cut off by the fleet under _Nicias_, who was the leader of
the more aristocratic faction at Athens. _Cleon_, made strategus
in the room of Nicias, took Sphacteria by storm, contrary to general
expectation, and brought home nearly three hundred Spartan
prisoners. Athens had other successes; but when her forces had been
defeated by the Boeotians at _Delium_, and Brasidas had captured
_Amphipolis_, and when in a battle there (422 B.C.) Brasidas was
victorious over _Cleon_, who fell during the flight, the
aristocratic party, which was desirous of peace, gained the upper
hand. _Nicias_ concluded a truce with Sparta for fifty
years. Each party was to restore its conquests and prisoners.


II. THE INFLUENCE OF ALCIBIADES.

THE SICILIAN EXPEDITION.--From this time, _Alcibiades_, a
relative of Pericles, but lacking his sobriety and disinterested
spirit, plays an active part. Beautiful in person, rich, a graceful
and effective orator, but restless and ambitious, he quickly acquired
great influence. Three years after the peace of Nicias, he persuaded
Athens to join a league of disaffected Peloponnesian allies of Sparta;
but in the battle of _Mantinea_ (418 B.C.) the Spartans regained
their supremacy. It was at the suggestion of Alcibiades that the
Athenians undertook the great _Sicilian Expedition_, which
resulted in the worst disasters they ever suffered. This expedition
was aimed at the Dorian city of _Syracuse_, and the hope was that
all Sicily might be conquered. It consisted of about forty thousand
men, besides the sailors. The commanders were _Alcibiades_,
_Nicias_, and _Lamachus_. Alcibiades was recalled to answer
a charge of sacrilege. At Thurii he managed to escape and went over to
the side of Sparta. _Gylippus_ went with a small Spartan fleet to
aid Syracuse. The Athenians were repulsed in their attack on the
city. Although re-inforced by land and naval forces under a gallant
and worthy general, _Demosthenes_, they fought under great
disadvantages, so that their fleet was destroyed in the Syracusan
harbor. Their retreating forces on land were cut to pieces or
captured.  _Nicias_ and _Demosthenes_ died either at the
hands of the executioner or by a self-inflicted death.

NAVAL CONTESTS.--No such calamity had ever overtaken a Grecian
army. The news of it brought anguish into almost every family in
Athens. The Spartans had fortified the village of _Decelea_ in
Attica, and sought on the sea, with Persian help, to annihilate the
Athenian navy. The allies of Athens, _Chios_, _Miletus_,
etc., revolted. The oligarchs at Athens overthrew the democratic
constitution, and placed the Government in the hands of a _Council
of Four Hundred_. The popular assembly was limited to five thousand
members, and was never called together. The object was to make peace
with Sparta. But the army before Samos, of which _Thrasybulus_, a
patriotic man, was the leader, refused to accept this change of
government. _Alcibiades_, who had left the Spartans out of anger
on account of their treatment of him, was recalled, and assumed
command. The oligarchical rule was overturned in four months after its
establishment, and the democracy restored,--the assembly being still
limited, however, to five thousand citizens. Three brilliant naval
victories, the last at _Cyzicus_ (410 B.C.), were won over the
Spartans by Alcibiades who came back to Athens in triumph (408
B.C.). _Lysander_ was the commander of the Spartan fleet on the
coast of Asia Minor, and (407 B.C.) gained a victory over the Athenian
ships during a temporary absence of Alcibiades. Alcibiades was not
reëlected general. He now withdrew, and, three years later, died. The
new Spartan admiral, _Callicratidas_, surrounded the Athenian
fleet under _Conon_ at Mitylene. By very strenuous exertions of
the Athenians, a new fleet was dispatched to the help of Conon; and in
the battle of _Arginusæ_ (406 B.C.), the Peloponnesians were
completely vanquished. The public spirit of Athens and the resources
of a free people were never more impressively shown than in the
prodigious efforts made by the Athenians to rise from the effect of
the crushing disaster which befell the Sicilian expedition on which
their hopes were centered. But these exertions only availed to furnish
to coming generations an example of the heroic energy and love of
country which are possible under free government.


III. THE FALL OF ATHENS.

_Lysander_ once more took command of the Spartan fleet. Shrewd in
diplomacy, as well as skillful in battle, he strengthened his naval
force by the aid of _Cyrus_ the Younger, the Persian governor in
Asia Minor. Watching his opportunity, he attacked the Athenians at
_Ægospotami_, opposite Lampsacus, when soldiers and sailors were
off their guard (405 B.C.). Three thousand of them, who had not been
slain in the assault, were slaughtered after they had been taken
captive. _Conon_ escaped to Cyprus with only eight ships. One
fast-sailing trireme carried the news of the overwhelming defeat to
Athens. Lysander followed up his success cautiously, but with
energy. Islands and seaports surrendered to him, and in them he
established the aristocratic rule. The Athenians were shut in by land
and by sea. A treacherous aristocratic faction within the walls was
working in the interest of the Spartans. Famine conspired with other
agencies to destroy the multitude of homeless and destitute people who
had crowded into the city. Starvation compelled a surrender to the
Spartan general. The long walls and fortifications were demolished by
the ruthless conqueror, the work of destruction being carried on to
the sound of the flute. All but twelve vessels were given up to the
captors. The democratic system was subverted, and thirty men--the
"_Thirty Tyrants_"--of the oligarchical party were established in
power, with _Critias_, a depraved and passionate, though able,
man, at their head (404-403 B.C.). They put a Spartan garrison in the
citadel, and sought to confirm their authority by murdering or
banishing all whom they suspected of opposition. _Thrasybulus_, a
patriot, collected the democratic fugitives at _Phyle_, defeated
the Thirty, and seized the _Piraeus_. Critias was slain. _Ten
oligarchs_ of a more moderate temper were installed in power. In
co-operation with the Spartan king, _Pausanias_, the two parties
at Athens were reconciled. An amnesty was proclaimed, and democracy in
a moderate form was restored, with a revision of the laws, under the
archonship of _Euclides_ (403 B.C.). It was shortly after this
change that the trial and death of _Socrates_ occurred, the
wisest and most virtuous man of ancient times (399 B.C.).

PHILOSOPHY: SOCRATES.--At the head of the Greek philosophers is the
illustrious name of _Socrates_. He was the son of Sophroniscus, a
sculptor, and was born 469 B.C., just as Pericles was assuming the
leadership at Athens. Socrates was the founder of moral philosophy. He
was original, being indebted for his ideas to no previous school. He
was as sound in body as in mind. His appearance was unique. His
forehead was massive, but his flat nose gave to his countenance an
aspect quite at variance with the Greek ideal of beauty. He looked, it
was said, like a satyr. He taught, in opposition to the
_Sophists_, a class of men (including _Gorgias, Protagoras_,
and others) who instructed young men in logic and grammar, taking
fees,--which was contrary to the custom of the Greek
philosophers,--and cultivating intellectual keenness and dexterity,
often at the expense of depth and sincerity. Their work as thinkers
was negative, being confined mainly to pointing out fallacies in
existing systems, but providing nothing positive in the room of
them. _Socrates_ had been called by the oracle at Delphi the
wisest of men. He could only account for this by the fact, that, in
contrast with others, he did not erroneously deem himself to be
knowing. "Know thyself" was his maxim. His daily occupation was to
converse with different classes, especially young men, on subjects of
highest moment to the individual and to the state. By a method of
quiet cross-examination, the "_Socratic irony_," he made them
aware of their lack of clear ideas and tenable, consistent opinions,
and endeavored to guide them aright. The _soul_ and its moral
improvement was his principal subject. He asserted _Theism_ and
the spiritual nature and obligations of religion, without calling in
question the existence of the various divinities. He taught the
doctrine of a universal _Providence_. Absolute loyalty to
conscience, the preference of virtue to any possible advantage without
it, he solemnly inculcated. He believed, perhaps not without a
mingling of doubt, in the immortality of the soul. Taking no part in
public affairs, he devoted his time to this kind of familiar
instruction,--to teaching by dialogue, in compliance with what he
believed to be an inward call of God. An impulse within him, which he
called a divine "voice," checked him when he was about to take a wrong
step. He was charged with corrupting the youth by his teaching, and
with heresy in religion. His rebukes of the shallow and the
self-seeking had stung them, and had made him many enemies. Such men
as _Alcibiades_ and _Critias_, who had been among his
hearers, but for whose misconduct he was really not in the least
responsible, added to his unpopularity. The _Apology_, as given
by Plato, contains the substance of his most impressive defense before
his judges. He took no pains to placate them or his accusers, or to
escape after he was convicted. Conversing with his disciples in the
same genial, tranquil tone which he had always maintained, he drank
the cup of hemlock, and expired (May, 399 B.C.). An account of his
teaching and of his method of life is given by his loving scholar,
_Xenophon_, in the _Memorabilia_. The dialogues of
_Plato_, in which Socrates is the principal interlocutor, mingle
with the master's doctrine the pupil's own thoughts and speculations.

PLATO.--_Plato_ (427-347 B.C.), the foremost of the disciples of
Socrates, founded the philosophical school known as the _Academy_
from the place where his pupils were wont to meet him. One of his
prominent tenets was the doctrine of _ideas_ which he regarded as
spiritual realities, intermediate between God and the world, of which
all visible things are the manifestation. They are the shadow, so to
speak, of which ideas are the substance. He defined virtue in man to
be resemblance to God according to the measure of our ability. In the
_Republic_, he sets forth his political views, and sketches the
ideal state. More speculative than Socrates, Plato, from the wide
range of his discussions, from their poetic spirit as well as their
depth of thought, not less than their beauty of style, is one of the
most inspiring and instructive of all authors. No other heathen writer
presents so many points of affinity with Christian teaching.

ARISTOTLE.--Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) studied under Plato, but
elaborated a system of his own, which was on some points dissonant
from that of his instructor. His investigations extended over the
field of material nature, as well as over the field of mind and
morals. With less of poetry and of lofty sentiment than Plato, he has
never been excelled in intellectual clearness and grasp. He was
possessed of a wonderful power to observe facts, and an equally
wonderful talent for systemizing them, and reasoning upon them. He is
the founder of the science of _Logic_. His treatises on
_Rhetoric_ and on _Ethics_ have been hardly less important
in their influence. His _Politics_ is a masterly discussion of
political science, based on a diligent examination of the various
systems of government. In truth, in all departments of research he
exhibits the same capacity for scientific observation and
discussion. In religion he was a theist; but he is less spiritual in
his vein of thought, and more reserved in his utterances on this
theme, than Plato. The names of these two philosophers have been very
frequently coupled. Their influence, like their fame, is imperishable.

LATER SCHOOLS: THE CYNICS.--The impulse given by Socrates gave rise to
still other schools of philosophers. _Aristippus_ of Cyrene
(about 380 B.C.)  founded a sect which held that happiness is the
chief end, the goal of rational effort. _Antisthenes_, who was
born 422 B.C., and especially _Diogenes_, went to the opposite
extreme, and founded the school of _Cynics_, who looked with
disdain, not only on luxuries, but on the ordinary comforts of life,
and inured themselves to do without them. Their manners were often as
savage as their mode of living.

HISTORICAL WRITINGS.--The three principal historical writers were
_Herodotus_ (c. 484-0.425 B.C.), the charming but uncritical
chronicler of what he heard and saw, by whom the interference of the
gods in human affairs is devoutly credited; _Thucydides_, who
himself took part in the Peloponnesian war, the history of which he
wrote with a candor, a profound perception of character, an insight
into the causes of events, a skill in arrangement, and a condensation
and eloquence of style, which are truly admirable; and
_Xenophon_, an author characterized by naturalness, simplicity,
and a religious spirit.

  GREEK LIFE.--It will be convenient to bring together here some
  features of Greek life, (1) _Public Buildings and
  Dwellings_. The Greeks almost always preferred to live in
  cities. These grew up about an _Acropolis_, which was a fort on
  a hill, generally a steep crag. This was a place of refuge, and the
  site of the oldest temple. It became often, therefore, a sacred
  place from which private dwellings were excluded. At the nearest
  harbor, there would be a seaport town. The _Piraeus_ was more
  than four miles from Athens,--a mile farther than the nearest shore,
  but was chosen as being an excellent harbor. Sparta, alone, had no
  citadel,--the access from the plain being easily defended,--and no
  walls. The attractive buildings in a Greek town were the public
  edifices. Private houses, as to the exterior, were very plain, with
  flat roofs, with few stories, and low. Towards the street "the house
  looked like a dead wall with a strong door in it," It was built
  round an open court: in the case of the best houses, round two
  courts,--one bordered by apartments for the men, the other with the
  rooms for women. Bedrooms and sitting-rooms were small, admitting
  but little light. Fresco-painting on the walls and ceilings came to
  be common. The furniture of the house was plain and simple, but
  graceful and elegant in form. The poorer classes slept on skins; the
  richer, on woolen mattresses laid on girths. The Greeks lived so
  much in the open air that they took less pains with their
  dwellings. The public buildings were costly and substantially
  built. (2) _Meals, Gymnastics, etc._ The Greeks rose
  early. There are no notices of a morning bath. The first meal was
  light. It was succeeded, as was the custom at Rome, by calls on
  friends. Business might follow until noon, the hour of the
  _dèjeuner_, or breakfast, which, in the case of the rich, was a
  substantial meal. Later in the day, males went to the practice of
  gymnastics, which were followed, in later times, by a warm
  bath. Towards sunset came the principal meal of the
  day. Conversation and music, or the attending of a feast with
  friends, took up the evening; if there was a festal company, often
  the whole night. At the dinner-table, the Greeks reclined on
  couches. Ladies, if allowed to be present, and children, were
  required to sit. Spoons, sometimes knives, but never forks, were
  used. (3) _Costume: Use of Wine._ The dress of the Greeks, both
  of men and women, was simple and graceful. The men were generally
  bareheaded in the streets. In bad weather they wore close-fitting
  caps, and, in traveling, broad-brimmed hats. In Athens and Sparta
  they always carried walking-sticks. The use of wine was
  universal. It was always mixed with water. (4) _Slaves_. Slaves
  were regarded as chattels. No one objected to slavery as
  wrong. Slaves were better treated at Athens than elsewhere, but even
  at Athens they were tortured when their testimony was required. They
  were let out, sometimes by thousands, to work in pestiferous
  mines. (5) _Women and Children_.  In Athens, the wife had
  seldom learned any thing but to spin and to cook. She lived in
  seclusion in her dwelling, and was not present with her husband at
  social entertainments, either at home or elsewhere. She had few if
  any legal rights, although at Athens she might bring a suit against
  her husband for ill-treatment. Concubinage was not condemned by
  public opinion. There was no law against exposing infants whom the
  parents did not wish to bring up,--that is, leaving them where they
  would perish. When found and brought up, they were the slaves of the
  person finding them. This cruelty was frequent in the case of
  daughters, or of offspring weak or deformed. There were toys and
  games for children. _Archytas_, a philosopher, was said to have
  invented the child's rattle. Dolls, hoops, balls, etc., were common
  playthings. Boys and girls played hide and seek, blind man's buff,
  hunt the slipper, etc. Older people played ball, and gambled with
  dice. (6) _Education_. The education of boys was careful; that
  of girls was neglected. The boy went to or from school under the
  care of a slave, called _pedagogue_, or leader. Teachers were
  of different social grades, from the low class which taught small
  children, to the professors of rhetoric and philosophy. It is
  needless to say how much stress was laid on gymnastic and aesthetic
  training. Boys read _Homer_ and other authors at an early age,
  committing much of them to memory. They were taught to play on the
  harp or the flute, and to sing. Lyric poems they learned by
  heart. _Music_ held a very high place in the esteem of the
  Greeks for its general influence on the mind. Running, wrestling,
  throwing the dart, etc., the games practiced at the public contests,
  were early taught. Boys at sixteen or eighteen came of age, and were
  enrolled as citizens. (7) _Musical Instruments: the
  Dance_. Instrumental music was common among the Greeks at games
  and meals, and in battle. They used no bows on the stringed
  instruments, but either the fingers or the _plectrum_,--a stick
  of wood, ivory, or metal. There were three sorts of stringed
  instruments, the lyre, the cithara (or zithern), and the harp. The
  wind-instruments were the pipe, the clarionet, and the
  trumpet. Besides these, there were clanging instruments which were
  used chiefly in religious ceremonies: such were castanets, the
  cymbal, and the tambourine. Dancing was originally connected with
  religious worship. Mimetic dances were a favorite diversion at
  feasts. There were warlike dances by men in armor, who went through
  the movements of attack and defense. In mimetic dances the hands and
  arms played a part. There were peaceful dances or choral dances,
  marked by rhythmic grace. Sometimes these were slow and measured,
  and sometimes more lively. Specially brisk were the dances at the
  festivals of Dionysus (Bacchus). Symbolic dances of a religious
  character, these Bacchic dances were the germ of the
  drama. Recitations were first introduced between hymns that attended
  the choric dances. Then, later, followed the dialogue. (8)
  _Weddings and Funerals_. Marriage was attended by a religious
  ceremonial. There was a solemn sacrifice and a wedding-feast. The
  bride was conveyed to her husband's house, accompanied on the way
  with music and song. When a person died, his body was laid out for
  one day, during which the relatives and hired mourners uttered
  laments round the bier. Burial was at the dawn of day. In later
  times, a coin was put into the mouth of the corpse, with which to
  pay his passage to the world below. There was a funeral procession,
  and at the tomb a solemn farewell was addressed to the deceased by
  name. There was then a funeral-feast. Mourning garments were worn
  for a short period. The dead were buried in the suburbs of the
  cities, generally on both sides of a highway. In the tomb many
  little presents, as trinkets and vases, were deposited. (9)
  _Courts of Law_. At law men pleaded their own causes, but might
  take advice or have their speeches composed for them by others. In
  some cases, friends were allowed to speak in behalf of a
  litigant. Men like _Demosthenes_ received large fees for
  services of this kind. There being no public prosecutor, informers
  were more numerous. They became odious under the name of
  _sycophants_, which is supposed to have been first applied to
  those who informed against breakers of an old law forbidding the
  exportation of figs from Athens.



CHAPTER IV.  RELATIONS WITH PERSIA.--THE SPARTAN AND THEBAN HEGEMONY.


THE RETREAT OF THE TEN THOUSAND.--The _Anabasis_, the principal
work of _Xenophon_, describes the retreat from the Tigris to the
coast of Asia Minor, of a body of ten thousand mercenary Greek
troops,--a retreat effected under his own masterly leadership. The
Persian Empire, now in a process of decay, was torn with civil
strife. _Xerxes_ and his eldest son had been murdered (465 B.C.).
The story of several reigns which follow is full of tales of treason
and fratricide. On the death of _Darius II_. (Darius Nothus)
(423-404 B.C.), the younger _Cyrus_ undertook to dethrone his
brother _Artaxerxes II_., and for that purpose organized, in Asia
Minor, a military expedition, made up largely of hired Greek
troops. At _Cunaxa_, not far from Babylon, Cyrus fell in the
combat with his brother. The Persians enticed the Greek generals to
come into their camp, and slew them. _Xenophon_, an Athenian
volunteer who had accompanied the army, conducted the retreat of his
countrymen, with whom he encountered incredible hardships in the slow
and toilsome journey through _Armenia_ to _Trapezus_
(Trebizond), and thence to _Byzantium_. The story of this march,
through snow, over rugged mountains, and across rapid currents, is
told in the _Anabasis_. A very striking passage is the
description of the joy of the Greeks when from a hilltop they first
descried the Black Sea. The soldiers shouted, "The sea! the sea!" and
embraced one another and their officers.

THE CORINTHIAN WAR AND THE PEACE OF ANTALCIDAS.--_Tissaphernes_,
the antagonist and successor of the younger _Cyrus_, was Persian
governor in Asia Minor, and set out to bring under the yoke the Ionic
cities which had espoused the cause of Cyrus. Sparta came to their
aid, and King _Agesilaus_ defeated the Persians near the
_Pactolus_ (395 B.C.). The Persians stirred up an enemy nearer
home, by the use of gold, and the _Boeotians, Corinthians_, and
_Argives_, jealous of Sparta, and resentful at the tyranny of her
governors (harmosts), and joined by Athens, took up arms against the
Lacedaemonians. _Lysander_ fell in battle with the allies (395
B.C.). The course of the war in which Conon, the Athenian commander,
destroyed the Spartan fleet at _Cnidus_, made it necessary to
recall Agesilaus. His victory at _Coronea_ (394 B.C.) did not
avail to turn the tide in favor of Sparta. Conon rebuilt the long
walls at Athens with the assistance of Persian money. The issue of the
conflict was the _Peace of Antalcidas_ with Persia (387
B.C.). The Grecian cities of Asia Minor were given up to the Persians,
as were the islands of _Clazomenae_ and _Cyprus_. With the
exception of _Lemnos, Imbros_, and _Scyros_, which the
Athenians were to control, all of the other states and islands were to
be free and independent. This was a great concession to Persia. Greek
union was broken up: each state was left to take care of itself as it
best could. Antalcidas cared little for his country: his treaty was
the natural result of Spartan aggressiveness and selfishness.

CONTEST OF THEBES AND SPARTA.--The Spartans had fallen away from the
old rules of life ascribed to Lycurgus. They were possessed by a greed
for gold. There were extremes of wealth and poverty among them. After
the treaty of Antalcidas, they still lorded it over other states, and
were bent on governing in Peloponnesus. At length they were involved
in a contest with _Thebes_. This was caused by the seizure of the
_Cadmeia_, the Theban citadel, by the Spartan _Phoebidas_
acting in conjunction with an aristocratic party in Thebes (383
B.C.). The Theban democrats, who, under _Pelopidas_, made Athens
their place of rendezvous, liberated Thebes, and expelled the Spartans
from the Cadmeia. Hostile attempts of Sparta against Athens induced
the Athenians to form a new confederacy (or symmachy) composed of
seventy communities (378 B.C.); and, after they had gained repeated
successes on the sea, the two states concluded peace. Athens had
become alarmed at the increased power of Thebes, and was ready to go
over to the side of Sparta, her old enemy. It was a feeling in favor
of a balance of power like that which had prompted Sparta at the close
of the Peloponnesian war, to refuse to consent to the destruction of
Athens, which Thebes and Corinth had desired. _Cleombrotus_, king
of Sparta, again invaded Boeotia. The principal Boeotian leader was
_Epaminondas_, one of the noblest patriots in all Grecian
history,--in his disinterested spirit and self-government resembling
Washington. The Spartan king was defeated by him in the great battle
of _Leuctra_ (371 B.C.), and was there slain. At this time the
rage of party knew no bounds. The wholesale massacre of political
antagonists in a city was no uncommon occurrence.

THEBAN HEGEMONY.--The victory of Leuctra gave the hegemony to
Thebes. Three times the Boeotians invaded the Spartan territory. They
founded _Megalopolis_ in Arcadia, to strengthen the Arcadians
against their Lacedæmonian assailants (370 B.C.). They also revived
the _Messenian_ power, recalled the Messenians who had long been
in exile, and founded the city of _Messene_. In the battle of
_Mantinea_ (362 B.C.), _Epaminondas_, though victorious
against the Spartans and their allies, was slain. Peace followed among
the Grecian states, Sparta alone refusing to be a party to it. In the
course of this intestine war, the Thebans had broken up the new
maritime sway gained by them.



PERIOD III.  THE MACEDONIAN ERA.



CHAPTER I.  PHILIP AND ALEXANDER.


THE MACEDONIANS.--The Greeks, exhausted by long-continued war with one
another, were just in a condition to fall under the dominion of
_Macedonia_, the kingdom on the north which had been ambitious to
extend its power. The Macedonians were a mixed race, partly Greek and
partly Illyrian. Although they were not acknowledged to be Greeks,
their kings claimed to be of Greek descent, and were allowed to take
part in the Olympian games. At first an inland community, living in
the country, rough and uncultivated, made up mostly of farmers and
hunters, they had been growing more civilized by the efforts of their
kings to introduce Greek customs. _Archelaus_ (413-399 B.C.) had
even attracted Greek artists and poets to his court. At the same time
they were exerting themselves to extend their power to the sea. The
people were hardy and brave. When _Epaminondas_ died,
_Philip_ (359-336 B.C.) was on the Macedonian throne. He had
lived three years at _Thebes_, and had learned much from
Epaminondas, the best strategist and tactician of his day. The decline
of public spirit in Greece had led the states to rely very much on
mercenary troops, whose trade was war. Philip had a well-drilled
standing army. Every thing was favorable to the gratification of his
wish to make himself master of Greece. First he aimed to get
possession of Greek cities in _Chalcidice_, of which
_Olynthus_ was the chief. The Athenians had towns in that region,
besides _Amphipolis_, which was formerly theirs. Philip contrived
to make the Olynthians his allies; and then, crossing the river
_Strymon_, he conquered the western part of _Thrace_, where
there were rich gold mines. There, for purposes of defense, he founded
the city of _Philippi_.

THE SACRED WAR.--A pretext for interfering in the affairs of Greece,
Philip found in the _Sacred War_ in behalf of the temple of
Delphi, which had been forced to loan money to the _Phocians_
during a war waged by them against Thebes, to throw off the Theban
supremacy. _Athens_ and _Sparta_ joined the Phocians. The
Thessalian nobles sided with Philip. He gained the victory in his
character of champion of the _Amphictyonic Council_, and took
his place in that body, in the room of the Phocians (346 B.C.). But
this was not accomplished until he had made peace with the Athenians,
so that there was no Athenian force at the pass of Thermopylae to
resist his progress.

DEMOSTHENES.--The Athenians had placed themselves at the head of an
_Aegean League_, and, had they managed with more spirit and
prudence, they might have checked Philip. There was one man, worthy of
the best days of Greece, who penetrated the designs of Philip, and
exerted his great powers to stimulate his countrymen to a timely
resistance. This was _Demosthenes_ (385-322 B.C.). He was the
prince of the school of orators who had sprung up in these troublous
times. Overcoming natural obstacles, he had trained himself with such
assiduity that a place at the head of all orators, ancient and modern,
is generally conceded to him. He was a great statesman, moved by a
patriotic spirit: his speeches were for the welfare and salvation of
the state. In 358 B.C., a war broke out between Athens and its
maritime allies, in which Athens was unsuccessful. It was on the
conquest of Thessaly by Philip, that _Demosthenes_ made against
him the first of that series of famous speeches known as
_Philippics_ (351 B.C.). In vain he urged the Athenians to rescue
Olynthus. The inefficiency of the aid rendered, enabled Philip to
conquer and destroy that city, and to sell its inhabitants as slaves
(348 B.C.). Thirty cities he destroyed, and annexed all
_Chalcidice_ to Macedon. A Macedonian party was formed at Athens,
the foremost leader of which was _Aeschines_, not a good citizen,
but an orator only second in rank to Demosthenes. They contended that
it was futile to resist the advance of the Macedonian
power. Demosthenes went at the head of an embassy to the Peloponnesian
states which had taken sides with Philip, but his efforts to dissuade
them from this suicidal policy were unavailing. What he wanted was a
union of all Greeks against the common enemy, who was bent on robbing
them of their liberty. He gathered, at length, a strong party about
him at Athens. The overtures of peace from Philip, who was prosecuting
his conquests in Thrace, were rejected. Athenian forces obliged the
king to give up the siege of _Byzantium_ (341 B.C.). The
consequent enlarged influence of Demosthenes was used by him to secure
an increase of the fund for carrying on the war. But Philip had his
paid supporters in all the Greek states. _Aeschines_ at Athens
proved an efficient helper. A deputy at the _Amphictyonic
Council_, in 338 B.C., he contrived to bring about another "holy
war" against _Amphissa_ in Locris, the end being to give Philip
the command. Philip seized _Elatea_, in the east of Phocis, which
commanded the entrance to Boeotia and Attica. Dismay spread through
Greece. _Demosthenes_ roused the Athenian assembly, where all
were silent through fear, to confront Philip boldly, and himself went
to Thebes, which he induced to form an alliance with Athens. But the
allies were defeated at the fatal battle of _Chaeronea_ (August,
338 B.C.), where _Alexander_, Philip's youthful son, decided the
fortune of the day by vanquishing the Theban "sacred band." Philip
treated the Thebans with great severity. He placed a garrison in the
_Cadmeia_. To Athens he granted favorable terms. Marching into
Peloponnesus, he took from Sparta a large part of its territory, and
apportioned it to the Messenians, Argives, and Arcadians. At a
national assembly at _Corinth_, from which the Spartans were
absent, Philip caused himself to be created leader of the Grecian
forces against Persia, with the powers of a dictator. Each of the
Greek states was to retain its autonomy; and a congress, to meet at
Corinth, was to settle differences among them. Two years after the
battle of Chaeronea, at the marriage festival of his daughter with the
king of Epirus, Philip was assassinated by means of a conspiracy, in
which his queen is thought to have been a partner.

ALEXANDER THE GREAT.--Alexander was twenty years old when his father
died. His bodily health and vigor qualified him for combats and toils
which few soldiers in his army could endure. His energy, rapidity, and
military skill lift him to a level with Hannibal and the foremost
commanders of any age. He was not without a generous appreciation of
art and literature. The great philosopher, _Aristotle_, was one
of his tutors. For the eminent authors and artists of Greece he
cherished a warm admiration. But his temper was passionate and
imperious. _Homer_ was his delight, and in Homer he took
Agamemnon for his model; but the direst act of cruelty done by
Achilles--that of dragging _Hector_ after his chariot--he
exceeded when he dragged _Batis_, a general who had opposed him,
at the tail of his chariot through the streets of
_Gaza_. Especially when his passions were inflamed by strong
drink,--as at banquets, occasions where Macedonian princes before him
had been wont to drink to excess,--he was capable of savage deeds.

ALEXANDER IN GREECE: HIS ARMY.--At a congress in Corinth, Alexander
was recognized as the leader and general of Greece. In the spring of
335 B.C., he made a campaign against the barbarous peoples north of
Macedonia,--the Thracians, the Getae, and the Illyrians. A false
report of his death led to an uprising of the Greeks. Quickly
returning, he took vengeance on the _Thebans_ by razing their
city to the ground, sparing only the temples and _Pindar's_
house, and by selling its thirty thousand inhabitants into
slavery. Athens prayed for pardon, which was granted, even the demand
for the surrender of Demosthenes and other leaders being revoked. All
resistance in Greece was over. Alexander's hands were free to complete
his preparations for the task of conquering the Persian Empire. His
army was strong through its valor and discipline rather than its
numbers. The Macedonian _phalanx_ was the most effective force
which had hitherto been used in war. It was made up of foot soldiers
drawn up in ranks, three feet apart, with spears twenty-one feet in
length, held fifteen feet from the point. The length of the spears and
the projection of so many in front of the first rank, gave to the
phalanx a great advantage, although such a body of troops could be
turned around with difficulty. Alexander began his battles with other
troops, and used the phalanx for the decisive charge. Only native
Macedonians served in the phalanx. This was the case, also, with
_the Guard_, a body of infantry, and with two divisions of
cavalry, one clad in heavy armor, and one in light. With these troops
were Greek and barbarian soldiers, infantry and cavalry, and a
division for hurling stones, which was used not only in sieges, but
also in battles. There was a band of young Macedonian soldiers called
_pages_, also a body-guard selected from these by promotion; and
out of this the king chose his generals. The army consisted of not
more than forty thousand men, but it was so organized as to be
completely under the control of Alexander; and he was a military
genius of the first order.

THE CAMPAIGN OF ALEXANDER: TO THE BATTLE OF ISSUS.--In the spring of
334 B.C., Alexander crossed the _Hellespont_ at _Abydos_. At
_Ilium_ (Troy) he performed various rites in honor of the heroes
of the Trojan war, his romantic sympathy with whom was the principal
tie between him and the Greeks. A Persian army disputed the passage of
the _Granicus_. He was the first to enter the river, and in the
battle displayed the utmost personal valor. His decisive victory
caused nearly the whole of _Asia Minor_ to submit to
him. _Halicarnassus_, and the few other towns that held out, were
taken by storm. At _Tarsus_ he was cured by his physician,
Philip, of a dangerous fever, brought on by a bath in the chilly
waters of the river _Cydnus_. _Darius III_., the king of
Persia, with a large army, approaching from the Euphrates, encountered
him in a valley near _Issus_, in Cilicia. There (333 B.C.) was
fought the memorable battle which settled the fate of the Persian
Empire. The host of Darius was defeated with great slaughter; and his
camp, with his treasures and his family, fell into the hands of the
victor.

TO THE BATTLE OF ARBELA.--After the victory of Issus, _Syria_ and
_Phoenicia_ submitted, except _Tyre_, which was captured
after a siege of seven months. Two thousand of the inhabitants were
hung on the walls, and thirty thousand were sold into slavery. Gaza
resisted, and there Alexander was severely wounded. After it was
taken, he entered _Egypt_, and founded the city of ALEXANDRIA, in
its consequences one of the most memorable acts of his life. He
marched through _Lybia_ to the temple of _Jupiter Ammon_
(331 B.C.). Having thus subdued the lands on the west, he passed
through _Palestine_ and _Syria_ by way of _Damascus_,
crossed the _Euphrates_ and the _Tigris_, and met the
Persian army in the plains of Gaugamela, near _Arbela_,--an army
more than twenty times as large as his own (October, 331 B.C.). After
a hotly contested battle, the Persians were routed, and their empire
destroyed.

TO THE INVASION OF INDIA.--_Babylon_ and _Susa_ with all
their treasures, and, afterwards, _Persepolis_ and
_Pasargadae_, fell into the conqueror's hands. He set fire to
Persepolis, and sold its male inhabitants into slavery. He pursued
_Darius_ into Media, Hyrcania, and Parthia, where the flying king
was murdered by _Bessus_, one of his own nobles, that he might
not give himself up to Alexander. He then marched east and south
through _Persia_ and the modern _Afghanistan_. He tarried at
_Prophthasia_ (Furrah) for two months. Here it was that he
charged _Philotas_, one of his best officers, with a conspiracy
against his life, and put him to death; and after this he ordered the
murder of _Parmenio_, his best general, who had been a companion
in arms of King Philip. Founding cities in different places as he
advanced, he crossed the _Oxus_, marched through _Sogdiana_,
and crossed the _Jaxartes_ (Sir-Daria). While at
_Samarcand_, in a drunken revel, he slew _Clitus_, the
friend who had saved his life in the battle of the Granicus. In a fit
of remorse he went without food or drink for three days. In
_Bactra_, the capital of _Bactria_, he married
_Roxana_, a princess of the country. By this time his head was
turned by his unexampled victories, conquests and power. He began to
demand of his followers the cringing adulation that was paid to
Oriental monarchs, and when it was denied was ready to inflict summary
vengeance.

TO THE DEATH OF ALEXANDER.--Crossing the eastern Caucasus (the
_Hindu-Kush_), Alexander moved down the right bank of the
_Indus_, subduing the tribes whom he met in his path. On the
further side of the _Hydaspes_, he met the Indian prince
_Porus_, whom he defeated and captured, and converted into an
ally. He continued his marches and his line of victories as far as the
river _Hyphasis_. Here the Macedonian troops would go no farther.
Alexander turned back (327 B.C.), and with his army and fleet moved
down the _Hydaspes_ to the _Indus_, and down the
_Indus_ to the sea. _Nearchus_, his admiral, sailed along
the shore to the west, while Alexander conducted the rest of the army
amid infinite hardships through the desert, and finally met him on the
coast. In the beginning of the year 325, he reached _Susa_. Here
he plainly manifested his purpose of combining Macedonia and Greece
with the East in one great empire. He adopted the Persian costume and
ceremonial, and married both the daughter of _Darius III_. and
the sister of _Artaxerxes III_. He prevailed on eighty of his
Macedonian officers and ten thousand Macedonian soldiers to take
Persian wives. For himself he exacted the homage paid to a
divinity. These measures, looking to the amalgamation of Macedon and
Greece with the East on terms of equality, were most offensive to the
old comrades and subjects of Alexander. He was obliged to quell a
mutiny, which he accomplished with consummate address and courage
(July, 324 B.C.). In the marshes about Babylon, a place which he
intended to make his capital, he contracted a fever, which was
aggravated by daily revels, and which terminated his life (323 B.C.),
after a reign of twelve years and eight months.

INFLUENCE OF ALEXANDER.--The Persian Empire, when it was attacked by
Alexander, was a gigantic body without much vitality. Yet to overcome
it, there was requisite not only the wonderful military talents of the
conqueror, but the vigilance and painstaking which equally
characterized him. He has been called "an adventurer."  To fight and
to conquer, and to spread his dominion wherever there were countries
to subdue, seems to have been his absorbing purpose. The most
substantial result of his exploits, which read more like fable than
authentic history, was to spread _Hellenism_,--to diffuse at
least a tincture of Greek civilization, together with some
acquaintance with the Greek language, over the lands of the East. This
was a most important work in its bearing on the subsequent history of
antiquity, and more remotely on the history of all subsequent times.



CHAPTER II.  THE SUCCESSORS OF ALEXANDER.


DIVISIONS OF THE EMPIRE.--Alexander left no legitimate children. The
child of Roxana, _Alexander the Younger_, was born after his
father's death. The empire naturally fell to his principal generals,
of whom _Perdiccas_, having command of the great army of Asia,
had the chief power. He was obliged to content his military
colleagues, which he did by giving to them provinces. The principal
regents, or guardians, were soon reduced to three,--_Antipater_
and _Craterus_ in Europe, and _Perdiccas_. The government
was carried on in the name of Roxana's son, and of _Arrhidaeus_,
the half-brother of Alexander. But _Perdiccas_ soon found that
each general was disposed to be in fact a king in his own dominion. He
formed the plan of seizing the empire for himself. This combined the
satraps against him. Perdiccas was supported by his friend
_Eumenes_, but had against him _Antipater_ and
_Craterus_, the other regents, and the powerful governors,
_Ptolemy Lagi_ in Egypt, and _Antigonus_ in Phrygia, Lycia,
and Pamphilia (322 B.C.). There followed a series of wars lasting for
twenty-two years, involving numerous changes of sovereignty, and fresh
partitions of territory. The rebellious satraps triumphed over the
royalists, whose aim was to keep the empire intact for the family of
Alexander. The ambition of _Antigonus_ to make himself the sole
ruler, led to a league against him (315 B.C.). In a treaty of peace,
_Cassander_, the son of Antipater, was to retain the government
of Macedonia. By him _Roxana_ and the young _Alexander_ were
put to death. In a second war against Antigonus, in which, as before,
he was supported by his son, _Demetrius Poliorcetes_, they were
completely defeated in the battle of _Ipsus_, in Phrygia (301
B.C.). Antigonus was slain: Demetrius fled to Greece. The result of
this protracted contest was, that the Macedonian empire was broken
into three principal states,--Macedonia under the _Antigonidae_,
the descendants of Antigonus; Egypt under the _Ptolemies_; Syria
under the _Seleucidae_. Besides these, there were the smaller
kingdoms of _Pergamon_ and of _Bithynia_. Other states broke
off from the Syrian realm of the Seleucidae.


I. THE KINGDOM OF THE PTOLEMIES.

PTOLEMY LAGI (323-285 B.C.).--When _Alexander_ transferred the
seat of power in Egypt from Memphis to _Alexandria_, he
accomplished results which he could not at all foresee. The Greek
element became predominant in Egyptian affairs. A great stimulus was
given to commerce and to foreign intercourse. The Egyptians themselves
entered zealously into industrial pursuits. _Ptolemy Lagi_
(Soter), the first of the new sovereigns, was wise enough to guard his
own territory, and even to establish his rule in _Palestine_,
_Phoenicia_, and _Coele-Syria_, but to avoid extensive
schemes of conquest.  Cyrenaica, on the west of Egypt, and the
intermediate Lybian tribes, he subdued. Ptolemy was an absolute
monarch, but he retained prominent features in the old Egyptian
administrative system, gave offices to Egyptians, and protected their
religion. The most important civil stations and all military offices
were reserved for Graeco-Macedonians: Alexandria was a Greek
city. From the beginning he fostered learning and science. He set to
work to collect a great library in a building connected with his
palace. He founded the _Museum_, which was a college of
professors. It attracted a great body of students, and became the
university of the eastern world. Under the patronage of
_Ptolemy_, mathematicians, poets, and critics of high repute
flourished. Among the structures raised by him were the lighthouse of
vast height on the island of _Pharos_, which was connected with
the shore by a mole, or causeway, a mile in length; the _Soma_,
or mausoleum, containing the body of _Alexander_; the _Temple
of Serapis_, completed by his son; and the _Hippodrome_.

PTOLEMY PHILADELPHIA.--_Ptolemy II_., surnamed
_Philadelphus_ (285-247 B.C.), with less talent for war than his
father, did much to encourage commerce, and was especially active in
his patronage of learning. In this last province he did a greater work
than his father. He greatly enlarged the library. He drew learned men
to his court from all directions. In his time the Hebrew scriptures
were translated into Greek, in the version called the
_Septuagint_.  Under his auspices _Manetho_ composed his
_History of Egypt_.

PTOLEMY EUERGETES.--_Ptolemy III_. (247-222 B.C.), surnamed
_Euergetes_ (the benefactor), was the most enterprising and
aggressive of this line of monarchs. Most of his conquests were not
permanent, but some of them were. He was a patron of art and of
literature. He raised Egypt to the highest pitch of prosperity that
she ever enjoyed. The first three Ptolemies whose reigns had covered a
century, were followed by a series of incompetent and depraved kings,
nine in number.

  Ptolemy IV. (Philopator) (222-205 B.C.) was a weak and dissolute
  prince. In war with _Antiochus III_. (the Great) of Syria, he
  saved his kingdom; but his own subjects were rebellious and
  disaffected. _Ptolemy VI_. (Philometor) (181-148 B.C.) was a
  boy at his accession. His guardians engaged in war with Syria, which
  would have conquered Egypt but for the interposition of the Romans
  in his behalf (170 B.C.).


II. MACEDON AND GREECE.

When Alexander was in the far East, the Spartan king, _Agis III_.
(330 B.C.), headed a revolt against _Antipater_; but Agis was
vanquished and slain. The death of Alexander kindled the hope of
regaining liberty among patriotic Greeks. Athens, under
_Demosthenes_ and _Hyperides_, led the way. A large
confederacy was formed. _Leosthenes_, the Greek commander,
defeated Antipater, and shut him up within the walls of _Lamia_
(in Thessaly). But the Greeks were finally beaten at
_Crannon_. Favorable terms were granted to their cities, except
Athens and Aetolia. Twenty-one thousand citizens were deported from
Athens to Thrace, Italy, and other places. The nine thousand richest
citizens, with _Phocion_ at their head, the anti-democratic
party, had all power left in their hands. Demosthenes, Hyperides, and
other democratic leaders, were proscribed. _Demosthenes_ took
refuge in the temple of Neptune, on the little island of
_Calaurea_. Finding himself pursued by _Archias_, the
officer of Antipater, he took poison, which he had kept by him in a
quill, and died. Thus closed the life of an intrepid statesman who had
served the cause of liberty and of his country through the direst
perils and trials with unfaltering constancy. The democracy again
acquired power temporarily, and _Phocion_ was condemned to death.

  _Cassander_, excluded from the Macedonian throne by his father,
  Antipater, supplanted _Polysperchon_, the regent (316 B.C.). He
  placed _Demetrius_ of _Phaleron_ in power at Athens over a
  democracy with restricted prerogatives. He was driven out by
  _Demetrius Poliorcetes_, who was helped by Athens to possess
  himself of Macedonia and of the most of Greece, but was compelled
  (287 B.C.) to give up his throne, which, however, was gained by his
  son, _Antigonus Gonatas_ (277 B.C.).

THE ACHAEAN LEAGUE.--In 279 B.C., there occurred an irruption of the
Gauls into Greece, "one of those vast waves of migration which from
time to time sweep over the world." The Macedonian king, _Ptolemy
Ceraunus_, was defeated by them in a great battle, captured, and
put to death. It was two years before these marauders were driven out,
and Macedonia acquired a settled government. This episode in history
favored the growth of two leagues--the _Achaean League_ and the
_Aetolian League_. In these leagues the several cities gave up to
the central council much more power than Greek cities had been in the
habit of granting in former unions. The Achaean League was at first
made up of ten Achaean cities. About 240 B.C. _Aratus_ of Sicyon,
who had brought _Sicyon_ into the league, delivered
_Corinth_ from the Macedonians. To free Greek cities from
subjection to them, was long a great object of the
league. _Peloponnesus_, except Sparta, with _Athens_ and
_Aegina_, joined it.

THE AETOLIAN LEAGUE: WAR OF THE LEAGUES.--The rough Aetolians north of
the Corinthian Gulf, semi-barbarous in their mode of life, formed
another league, and got command of _Phocis_, _Locris_, and
_Boeotia_. A praiseworthy attempt at reform was made in Sparta by
the king, _Agis IV_. (240 B.C.), who was opposed by the rich, and
put to death. _Cleomenes_, his successor, who had the same spirit
as Agis, engaged in conflict with the Achaean League, which then
called in Macedonian help (223 B.C.). It had to give up to Macedon the
Corinthian citadel. _Sparta_ was overthrown. Soon a war between
the two leagues broke out, when the Achaeans again called on the
Macedonians for aid. These conflicts were followed by the interference
of the Romans.

THE EVIL OF FACTION.--The bane of Greece, from the beginning to the
end of its history, was the suicidal spirit of disunion. Her power was
splintered at many crises, when, if united, it might have saved the
land from foreign tyranny. Her resources were drained, generation
after generation, by needless local contests. She owed her downfall to
the desolating influence of faction.



III. THE SYRIAN KINGDOM.

_Seleucus I_. (Nicator) (312-280 B.C.) was the founder of the
Syrian kingdom. From Babylon he extended his dominion to the _Black
Sea_, to the _Jaxartes_, and even to the _Ganges_, so far
as to make the Indian prince, _Sandracottus_, acknowledge him as
suzerain. From Babylon he removed his capital to _Antioch_ on the
Orontes, which he founded,--a city destined to be the rival of
Alexandria among the cities of the East. The effect of this removal,
however, was to loosen his hold upon the Eastern provinces of his
empire. _Seleucia_, on the west bank of the Tigris, he likewise
founded, which became a great commercial city, but was outstripped
later by the Parthian city opposite, _Ctesiphon_. The provinces
beyond the Euphrates he committed to his son, _Antiochus_. With
him (Antiochus I.) begins the decline of the empire through the
influence of Oriental luxury and vice. Under him Syria lost the
eastern part of Asia Minor through the invading Gauls, who converted
northern Phrygia into _Galatia_, while north-western Lydia became
the kingdom of _Pergamon_. _Antiochus II_. (261-246 B.C.)
could not hold the provinces in subjection. The Parthian and Bactrian
kingdoms began under his reign. _Antiochus III_. (the Great)
(223-1876.0.) checked the Parthians and Bactrians, and expelled the
Egyptians from Asia, but prepared for the downfall of the Syrian
Empire by provoking the hostility of the Romans.

  BACTRIA, PARTHIA, PERGAMON, GALATIA.--_Bactria_, after it broke
  off from Syria, was under Greek princes until, having been weakened
  by the Parthians, it was conquered by the Scythians (134 B.C.). The
  _Parthians_ issued, as marauders, from the north border of
  _Iran_ (256 B.C.), under the _Arsacidae_. They gradually
  acquired civilization from contact with Greek culture, especially
  after they established the trading-city of _Ctesiphon_. About
  200 B.C. the rulers of _Pontus_ made the Greek city of
  _Sinope_ their residence, and attained to a high degree of
  strength under _Mithridates VI_. (the Great). _Pergamon_
  became a flourishing state under the Greek rule of _Attalus
  I_. (241 B.C.). It was famed for its wealth and its
  trade. _Eumenes II_. (197-159 B.C.) founded the library at
  Pergamon. For him parchment was improved, if not invented, the
  Egyptians having forbidden the exportation of
  papyrus. _Galatia_ was so named from the swarm of Gallic
  invaders (about 279 B.C.), who, after incursions in the East, which
  were continued for forty years, settled there, and by degrees
  yielded to the influences of Greek culture.

PALESTINE: THE MACCABEES: THE IDUMAEAN PRINCES.--_Palestine_
fared comparatively well in the times when the _Ptolemies_ had
control.  Not so after it fell under the permanent sway of
_Syria_. The Jews were surrounded and invaded by Gentilism. On
three sides, there were Greek cities. The perils to which their
religion was exposed by the heathen without, and by a lukewarm party
within, made earnest Jews, the bulk of the people, more inflexible in
their adherence to their law and customs. The party of the
_Pharisees_ grew out of the intensity of the loyal and patriotic
feeling which was engendered in the periods following the exile. The
synagogues, centers of worship and of instruction scattered over the
land, acted as a bulwark against the intrusion of heathen doctrine and
heathen practices. The resistance to these dreaded evils came to a
head when the Syrian ruler, _Antiochus Epiphanes_, embittered by
his failures in conflict with Egypt, resolved to break down religious
barriers among his subjects, and, for this end, to exterminate Jewish
worship. In 168 B.C. he set up an altar to Jupiter in the temple at
_Jerusalem_, and even compelled Jewish priests to immolate
swine. Then the revolt broke out in which the family of Maccabees were
the heroic leaders. _Judas Maccabees_ recovered the temple, but
fell in battle (160. B.C.). Under his brother _Simon_, victory
was achieved, and the independence of the nation secured. The chief
power remained in the hands of this family, the _Asmonaean_
princes, until their degeneracy paved the way for Roman intervention
under _Pompeius_. His adviser was the _Idumeaean_,
_Antipater_, a Jewish proselyte, whose son _Herod_ was made
king (39 B.C.).

PHILOSOPHY: THE STOICS AND THE EPICUREANS.--In the Greek world the
progress of investigation and reflection tended to produce disbelief
in the old mythological system. Social confusion and degeneracy tended
to undermine all religious faith. _Pyrrho_ (about 330 B.C.)
brought forward the skeptical doctrine, that the highest wisdom is to
doubt every thing. _Euhemrus_ (315 B.C.) interpreted the whole
mythology as an exaggeration, by imagination and invention, of
historical events which form its slender nucleus. With the loss of
liberty and the downfall of the Greek states, philosophy became, so to
speak, more _cosmopolitan_. It no longer exalted, in the same
narrow spirit, the _Greek_ above the _barbarian_. It looked
at mankind more as one community. This was a feature of the first of
the two principal sects, the _Stoics_, of whom _Zeno_ (about
330 B.C.), and Chrysippus (280-207 B.C.) were the founders. They
taught that _virtue_ is the _only good_; that is consists
_in living according to nature_; that reason should be dominant,
and tranquillity of spirit be maintained by the complete subjugation
of feeling. The emotions are to be kept down by the force of and iron
will. This is the Stoic _apathy_. The world is wisely ordered:
whatever is, is right; yet the cause of all things is not
personal. Mankind form on great community, "one city." The
_Epicureans_, the second of the prominent sects,--so called from
_Epicurus_, their founder (342-370 B.C.),--made _pleasure_
the chief good, which is to be secured by _prudence_, or such a
regulation of our desires as will yield, on the whole, the largest
fruit of happiness. They believed that the gods exist, but _denied
Providence_.

CULTURE.--In the Greek cities which were founded by the Macedonians,
the political life and independence which Greece had enjoued did not
exist. The "Hellenistic" literature and culture, as it is called,
which followed, lacked the spontaneous energy and original spirit of
the old time. The civilization was that of people not exclusively
Greek in blood. _Alexandria_ was its chief seat. Poetry
languished. It was _prose_--and prose in the form of _learned
inquiries, criticism_, and _science_--that flourished. The
path was the same as that marked out by Aristotle. _Theocritus_,
born in Syracuse, or Cos, under _Ptolemy I._ (about 320 B.C.),
had distinction as a pastoral or bucolic poet. _Euclid_, under
_Ptolemy Soter_, systemized geometry. _Archimedes_, who died
in 212 B.C., is said to have invented the screw, and was skillful in
mechanics. _Eratosthenes_ founded descriptive astronomy and
scientific chronology. "The Alexandrian age busied itself with
literary or scientific research, and with setting in order what the
Greek mind had done in its creative time." After Greece became subject
to Rome (146 B.C.) the _Graeco Roman period_ in Greek literature
begins. The Greek historian _Polybius_ stands on the border
between the Alexandrian age and this next era. He was born about 210
B.C., and died about 128 B.C.

  LITERATURE.--Works mentioned on p. 16: Histories of Greece by GROTE
  (12 vols.)  (democratic in his sympathies), E. CURTIUS (5 vols.),
  THIRLWALL (8 vols.), W. Smith (1 vol.), G. W. Cox. Busolt,
  _Griechische Geschichte_; Fyffe, _History of Greece_
  (primer); Duncker, _History of Greece_ [separately published];
  Abbott (2 vols.); Holm (4 vols.); Bury; Oman.

  On special periods: The writings of the ancient authors,--Herodotus
  (Rawlinson's translation, 4 vols.), Xenophon, THUCYDIDES (Jowett's
  translation, 2 vols.), Polybius, Plutarch's _Lives_. Schäfer,
  _Demosthenes und seine Zeit_ (3 vols.); DROYSEN, _Geschichte
  des Hellenismus_ (3 vols.); E. A. FREEMAN, _History of Federal
  Government_ (vol. i.); FINLAY, _History of Greece from the
  Conquest of the Romans_ (7 vols.); G. W. Cox, _History of
  Greece from the Earliest Period to the End of the Persian War_ (2
  vols.), and _Lives of Greek Statesmen_ (1 vol.); Freeman,
  _History of Sicily_ (4 vols.).

  On special topics: BOECKH, _The Public Economy of Athens_;
  Coulanges, _The Ancient City_, etc.: Gõll, _Kulturbilder aus
  Hellas und Rom_ (3 vols.); Guhl and Koner, _The Life of the
  Greeks and Romans_, etc.; Green, _Greece and Greek
  Antiquities_ (primer); J. P. Mahaffy, _Social Life in
  Greece_, also _Rambles in Greece, Old Greek Education_, and
  _History of Greek Literature_ (2 vols.); Becker,
  _Charicles_ (a story illustrative of Greek life); F. A. Paley,
  _Greek Wit_ (2 vols.); Church, _Stories from Homer_;
  Black, _The Wise Men of Greece_; Neares, _Greek Anthology_
  [in Ancient Classics for English Readers], _Chief Ancient
  Philosophies_ [Stoicism, etc.] (1 vol., 1880); Müller and
  Donaldson, _History of the Literature of Ancient Greece_ (3
  vols.); Mure, _A Critical History of the Language and Literature
  of Ancient Greece_ (5 vols.); Jebb, _Attic Orators_ (2
  vols.); Symonds, _The Greek Poets_ (2 vols.); G. F. Schömann,
  _The Antiquities of Greece_; Gladstone, _Studies on the
  Homeric Age_ and _Homer_; Lübke, _Outlines of the History
  of Art_; FERGUSSON, _History of Architecture_; D'Anvers,
  _Elementary History of Art_; Botsford, _Development of the
  Athenian Constitution_; W. W. Fowler, _The City-State of the
  Greeks and Romans_; Gilbert, _Constitutional Antiquities of
  Sparta and Athens_; Greenidge, _Handbook of Greek
  Constitutional History_; H. N. Fowler, _History of Greek
  Literature_; Marshall, _Short History of Greek Philosophy_;
  Gardner, _Handbook of Greek Sculpture_; Tarbell, History of
  Greek Art_; Tozer, _Primer of Classical Geography_; Kiepert,
  _Atlas Antiquus_; Cunningham, _Western Civilization_
  (vol. 1); Smith (Wayte & Marindin), _Dictionary of Greek and Roman
  Antiquities_ (2 vols., 1890); Seyffert (Nettleship and Sandys),
  _Dictionary of Classical Antiquities_.


MACEDONIAN ROYAL HOUSES



A.--House of Alexander the Great.

(1) AMYNTAS II.
|
+--(4) PHILIP, _m._
|      1, Olympias;
|      |
|      +--ALEXANDER THE GREAT, _m._
|         1, Roxana;
|         |
|         +--(7) ALEXANDER.
|
|         2, Concubines.
|         |
|         +--Hercules.
|
|      2, Cleopatra;
|
|      3, Concubines.
|      |
|      +--(6) PHILIP ARRHIDAEUS, _m._ Eurydicé.
|      |
|      +--Thessalonica, _m._ Cassander.
|      |
|      +--Cynané _m._ Amyntas.
|
+--(2) ALEXANDER II.
|
+--(3) PERDICCAS III.
   |
   +--Amyntas, _m._ Cynané
      |
      +--Eurydicé, _m._ Philip Arrhidaeus.



B.--House of Antipater.

ANTIPATER.
|
+--(8) CASSANDER, _m._ Thessalonica.
|  |
|  +--(9) PHILIP II.
|  |
|  +--(10) ANTIPATER II.
|  |
|  +--(11) ALEXANDER.
|
|
+--Philip.
|
+--Eurydicé, _m._ Ptolemy Lagi,
|
+--Phila, _m._
|  1, Craterus;
|  2, Demetrius Poliorcetes.
|
+--Nicaea, _m._ Perdiccas.



C.--House of Antigonus.

Antigonus I.
|
|
+--(12) DEMETRIUS I (Poliorcetes), _m._
|   Phila, daughter of Antipater.
|   |
|   +--(13) Antigonus II (Gonatas), _m._
|   |  Phila, daughter of Seleucus Nicator.
|   |  |
|   |  +--(14) Demetrius II, _m._
|   |     1, Stratonice;
|   |     |
|   |     +--(16) PHILIP III.
|   |     |   |
|   |     |   +--(17) PERSEUS, _m._
|   |     |   |  Laodicé, daughter of Seleucus Philopator.
|   |     |   |
|   |     |   +--Demetrius
|   |     |
|   |     +--Apama.
|   |
|   |     2, Phthia.
|   |
|   +--Craterus.
|   |  |
|   |  +--Alexander
|   |
|   +--Demetrius the Handsome.
|   |  |
|   |  +--Antigonus III (Doson), _m._
|   |  |  Phthia, widow of Demetrius II
|   |  |
|   |  +--Echecrates,
|   |     |
|   |     +--Antigonus.
|   |
|   +--Stratonice, _m._
|   |  1, Seleucus Nicator;
|   |  2, Antiochus Theus.
|   |
|   +--Phila.
|
+--Philip.

[From Rawlinson's _Manual of Ancient History_.]



SECTION II.  ROMAN HISTORY.


INTRODUCTION.

PLACE OF ROME IN HISTORY.--Rome is the bridge which unites, while it
separates, the ancient and the modern world. The history of Rome is
the narrative of the building up of a single City, whose dominion
gradually spread until it comprised all the countries about the
Mediterranean, or what were then the civilized nations. "In this great
empire was gathered up the sum total that remained of the religions,
laws, customs, languages, letters, arts, and sciences of all the
nations of antiquity which had successively held sway or
predominance." Under the system of Roman government and Roman law they
were combined in one ordered community. It was out of the wreck of the
ancient Roman Empire that the modern European nations were
formed. Their likeness to one another, their bond of fellowship, is
due to the heritage of laws, customs, letters, religion, which they
have received in common from Rome.

THE INHABITANTS OF ANCIENT ITALY.--Until a late period in Roman
history, the Apennines, and not the Alps, were the northern boundary
of Italy. The most of the region between the Alpine range and the
Apennines, on both sides of the Po, was inhabited by _Gauls_,
akin to the Celts of the same name north of the Alps. On the west of
Gallia were the _Ligurians_, a rough people of unknown
extraction. People thought to be of the same race as the Ligurians
dwelt in _Sardinia_ and in _Corsica_, and in a part of
_Sicily_. On the east of Gallia were the Venetians, whose lineage
is not ascertained. The Apennines branch off from the Alps in a
southeasterly direction until they near the Adriatic, when they turn
to the south, and descend to the extreme point of the peninsula, thus
forming the backbone of Italy. On the west, in the central portion of
the peninsula, is the hilly district called by the ancients,
_Etruria_ (now Tuscany), and the plains of _Latium_ and
_Campania_. What is now termed _Campania_, the district
about Rome, is a part of ancient Latium. The _Etrurians_ differed
widely, both in appearance and in language, from the Romans. They were
not improbably _Aryans_, but nothing more is known of their
descent. In the east, in what is now _Calabria_, and in
_Apulia_, there was another people, the _Iapygians_, whose
origin is not certain, but who were not so far removed from the Greeks
as from the Latins. The southern and south-eastern portions of the
peninsula were the seat of the _Greek_ settlements, and the
country was early designated _Great Greece_. Leaving out the
Etrurians, Iapygians, and Greeks, Italy, south of Gallia, was
inhabited by nations allied to one another, and more remotely akin to
the Greeks. These Italian nations were divided into an eastern and a
western stock. The western stock, the _Latins_, whose home was in
Latium, were much nearer of kin to the Greeks than were the
eastern. The eastern stock comprised the _Umbrians_ and the
_Oscans_. It included the Sabines, Samnites, and Lucanians.

  We are certain, that, "from the common cradle of peoples and
  languages, there issued a stock which embraced in common the
  ancestors of the Greeks and the Italians; that from this, at a
  subsequent period, the Italians branched off; and that these divided
  again into the western and eastern stocks, while, at a still later
  date, the eastern became subdivided into Umbrians and Oscans."
  (Mommsen's _History of Rome_, vol. i., p. 36.)

ITALY AND GREECE.--In two important points, Italy is geographically
distinguished from Greece. The sea-coast of Italy is more uniform, not
being broken by bays and harbors; and it is not cut up, like Greece,
by chains of mountains, into small cantons. The Romans had not the
same inducement to become a sea-faring people; there were fewer
cities; there was an opportunity for closer and more extended
leagues. It is remarkable that the outlets of Greece were towards the
east; those of Italy towards the west. The two nations were thus
averted from one another: they were, so to speak, back to back.

THE GREEKS AND ROMANS.--The Greeks and Romans, although sprung from a
common ancestry, and preserving common features in their language, and
to some extent in their religion, were very diverse in their natural
traits. The Greeks had more genius: the Romans more stability. In art
and letters the Romans had little originality. In these provinces they
were copyists of the Greeks: they lacked ideality. They had, also, far
less delicacy of perception, flexibility, and native refinement of
manners. But they had more sobriety of character and more
endurance. They were a _disciplined_ people; and in their
capacity for discipline lay the secret of their supremacy in arms and
of their ability to give law to the world. If they produced a much
less number of great men than the Greeks, there was more widely
diffused among Roman citizens a conscious dignity and strength. The
Roman was naturally _grave_: the fault of the Greek was
_levity_. _Versatility_ belonged to the Greek:
_virility_ to the Roman. Above all, the sense of right and of
justice was stronger among the Romans. They had, in an eminent degree,
the political instinct, the capacity for governing, and for building
up a political system on a firm basis. This trait was connected with
their innate reverence for authority, and their habit of
obedience. The noblest product of the Latin mind is the _Roman
law_, which is the foundation of almost all modern codes. With all
their discernment of justice and love of order, the Romans, however,
were too often hard and cruel. Their history is stained here and there
with acts of unexampled atrocity. In private life, too, when the rigor
of self-control gave way, they sunk into extremes of vulgar
sensuality. If, compared with the Greeks, they stood morally at a
greater height, they might fall to a lower depth.

THE ROMAN RELIGION.--The difference between the Greek and Roman mind
was manifest in the sphere of religion. Before their separation from
one another they had brought from the common hearthstone elements of
worship which both retained. _Jupiter_, like _Zeus_, was the
old Aryan god of the shining sky. But the Greek conception, even of
the chief deity, differed from the Roman. When the Romans came into
intercourse with the Greeks, they identified the Greek divinities with
their own, and more and more appropriated the tales of the Greek
mythology, linking them to their own deities. Of the early worship
peculiar to the Romans, we know but little. But certain traits always
belonged to the Roman religion. Their mood was too prosaic to invent a
theogony, to originate stories of the births, loves, and romantic
adventures of the gods, such as the Greek fancy devised. The Roman
myths were heroic, not religious: they related to the deeds of valiant
men. Their deities were, in the first place, much more abstract, less
vividly conceived, less endowed with distinct personal
characteristics. And, secondly, their service to the gods was more
punctilious and methodical. It was regulated, down to the minutiæ, by
fixed rules. Worship was according to law, was something due to the
gods, and was discharged, like any other debt, exactly, and at the
proper time. The Roman took advantage of technicalities in dealing
with his gods: he was legal to the core. The word _religion_ had
the same root as _obligation_. It denoted the bondage or service
owed by man to the gods in return for their protection and favor; and
hence the anxiety, or scrupulous watchfulness against the omission of
what is required to avert the displeasure of the powers above.

ORIGIN OF THE ROMANS.--The Romans attributed their origin to the
mythical _Æneas_, who fled, with a band of fugitives, from the
flames of _Troy_, and whose son, _Ascanius_, or
_Iulus_, settled in _Alba Longa_, in Latium. What is known
of the foundation of Rome is, that it was a settlement of Latin
farmers and traders on the group of hills, seven in number, near the
border of Latium, on the _Tiber_. It was the head of navigation
for small vessels, and Rome was at first, it would seem, the
trading-village for the exchange of the products of the
farming-district in which it was placed. Such an outpost would be
useful to guard Latium against the _Etrurians_ across the
river. Of the three townships, or clans, which united to form
Rome,--the _Ramnes_, the _Tities_, and the
_Luceres_,--the first and third were Latin. The second, which was
_Sabine_, blended with the Roman element, as the language
proves. The clans, or tribes, in Latium together formed a league, the
central meeting-place of which was at first _Alba Longa_. There
is some reason to think that the Sabines were from _Cures_ near
Rome. Certain it is that Rome, even at the outset, derived its
strength from a combination of tribes.



PERIOD I.  ROME UNDER THE KINGS AND THE PATRICIANS. (753-304 B.C.)



CHAPTER I.  ROME UNDER THE KINGS (753-509 B.C.).


CHARACTER OF THE LEGENDS.--There is no doubt that the Romans lived for
a time under the rule of kings. These were not like the Greek kings,
hereditary rulers, nor were they chosen from a single family. But the
stories told in later times respecting the kings, their names and
doings, are quite unworthy of credit. They rest upon no contemporary
evidence or sure tradition. To say nothing of the miraculous elements
that enter into the narratives, they are laden with other
improbabilities, which prove them to be the fruit of imagination. They
contain impossibilities in chronology. They ascribe laws,
institutions, and religion, which were of slow growth, to particular
individuals, apportioning to each his own part in an artificial
way. Many of the stories are borrowed from the Greeks, and were
originally told by them about other matters. In short, the Roman
legends, including dates, such as are recorded in this chapter, are
fabrications to fill up a void in regard to which there was no
authentic information, and to account for beliefs and customs the
origin of which no one knew. They are of service, however, in helping
us to ascertain the character of the Roman constitution, and something
about its growth, in the prehistoric age.

THE LEGENDARY TALES.--_Romulus_ and _Remus_, so the legend
runs, were sons of the god _Mars_ by _Rhea Silvia_, a
priestess of Vesta, whose father, _Numitor_, had been slain by
his wicked brother, _Amulius_, who thereby made himself king of
Alba Longa. The twins, by his command, were put into a basket, and
thrown into the Tiber. The cradle was caught by the roots of a
fig-tree: a she-wolf came out, and suckled them, and _Faustulus_,
a shepherd, brought them up as his own children. _Romulus_ grew
up, and slew the usurper, _Amulius_. The two brothers founded a
city on the banks of the Tiber where they had been rescued (753
B.C.). In a quarrel, the elder killed the younger, and called the city
after himself, _Roma_. Romulus, to increase the number of the
people, founded an asylum on the Capitoline Hill, which gave welcome
to robbers and fugitives of all kinds. There was a lack of women; but,
by a cunning trick, the Romans seized on a large number of Sabine
women, who had been decoyed to Rome, with their fathers and brothers,
to see the games. The angry Sabines invaded Rome. _Tarpeia_, the
daughter of the Roman captain, left open for them a gate into the
Capitoline citadel, and so they won the Capitol. In the war that
followed, by the intervention of the Sabine women, the Romans and
Sabines agreed to live peaceably together as citizens of one town,
under _Romulus_ and the Sabine, _Tatius_. After the death of
Tatius, _Romulus_ reigned alone, and framed laws for the two
peoples. During a thunder-storm he was translated to the skies, and
worshiped as the god _Quirinus_ (716 B.C.). After a year _Numa
Pompilius_, a Sabine, was elected king (715-673 B.C.). He stood in
close intercourse with the gods, was full of wisdom and of the spirit
of peace. He framed the religious system, with its various offices and
rites. The gates of the temple of _Janus_, closed only in peace,
were shut during his mild reign. He died of old age, without illness
or pain. The peaceful king was followed by the warlike king, _Tullus
Hostilius_ (673-641 B.C.). War breaks out with _Alba_. The two
armies face each other, and the contest is decided by the single
combat of the three _Horatii_, champions of the Romans, and the
three _Curiatii_, champions of Alba. One Roman, the victor and
sole survivor, is led to Rome in triumph. Thus _Alba_ became
subject to _Rome_. Afterwards Alba was destroyed, but the Albans
became Roman citizens. The fourth king, _Ancus Marcius_ (641-616
B.C.), loved peace, but could not avoid war. He fought against four
Latin towns, brought their inhabitants to Rome, and planted them on
the _Aventine_ hill. He fortified the hill _Janiculum_, on
the right bank of the Tiber, and connected it by a wooden bridge with
the town. The next king was by birth an Etruscan. _Lucumo_ and
his wife, _Tanaquil_, emigrated to Rome. Lucumo took the name of
_Lucius Tarquinius_, was stout, valiant, and wise, a counselor of
_Ancus_, and chosen after him, instead of one of the sons of
Ancus, whose guardian he was. _Tarquinius Priscus_ (616-578
B.C.)--for so he was called--waged successful wars with the Sabines,
Latins, and Etruscans. The _Etruscans_ owned him for their king,
and sent a crown of gold, a scepter, an ivory chair, an embroidered
tunic, a purple toga, and twelve axes in as many bundles of rods. He
made a reform of the laws. He built the temple of Jupiter, or the
Capitol, laid out the forum for a market-place, made a great sewer to
drain the lower valleys of the city, leveled a race-course between the
_Aventine_ and _Palatine_ hills, and introduced games like
those of the Etruscans. Tarquinius was killed by the sons of Ancus;
and _Servius Tullius_ (578-534 B.C.), the son of _Ocrisia_,
a slave-woman, and of a god, was made king through the devices of
_Tanaquil_. He united the seven hills, and built the wall of
Rome. He remodeled the constitution by the census and the division of
the centuries. Under him Rome joined the Latin league. He was murdered
by his flagitious son-in-law, _Tarquinius Superbus_ (534-510
B.C.)--Tarquin the Proud. He ruled as a despot, surrounding himself
with a bodyguard, and, upon false accusation, inflicting death on
citizens whose property he coveted. By a treacherous scheme, he got
possession of the town of _Gabii_. He waged war against the
_Volscians_, a powerful people on the south of Latium. He adorned
Rome with many buildings, and lived in pomp and extravagance, while
the people were impoverished and helpless. The inspired _Sibyl_
of _Cumae_ offered him, through a messenger, nine books of
prophecies. The price required excited his scorn, whereupon the woman
who brought them destroyed three. She came back with the remaining
six, which she offered at the same price. On being refused in the same
manner, she destroyed another three. This led Tarquin to pay the price
when she appeared the third time with the books that were left. They
were carefully preserved to the end, that in times of danger the will
of the gods might be learned. Another story told of the haughty king
was, that, when he had grown old, and was frightened by dreams and
omens, he sent his two sons to consult the oracle at Delphi. With them
went his sister's son, _Junius_, who was called _Brutus_ on
account of his supposed silliness, which was really feigned to deceive
the tyrant. The offering which he brought to the Delphian god was a
simple staff. His cousins, who laughed at him, did not know that it
was stuffed with gold. The god, in answer to a question, said that he
would reign at Rome who should first kiss his mother. _Brutus_
divined the sense of the oracle, pretended to stumble, and kissed the
mother earth. The cruel outrage of _Sextus Tarquinius_, the
king's son, of which _Lucretia_, the wife of their cousin, was
the pure and innocent victim, caused the expulsion of the house of
Tarquin, and the abolishing of regal government. Her father and
husband, with Brutus and the noble _Publius Valerius Poplicola_,
to whom she related "the deed of shame" wrought by Sextus, swore, at
her request, to avenge her wrong. She herself plunged a dagger into
her heart, and expired. _Brutus_ roused the people, and drove out
the _Tarquins_. Two _consuls_ were appointed in the room of
the king, who should rule for one year. _Brutus_ was one. When it
was ascertained that his own sons had taken part in a conspiracy of
the higher class to restore Tarquinius, the stern Roman gave orders to
the lictors to scourge them, and to cut off their heads with the ax.
Now the senate and people decreed that the whole race of Tarquinius
should be banished for ever. Tarquinius went among the Etruscans, and
secured the aid of the people of _Tarquinii_, and of
_Veii_. In a battle, _Aruns_, the son of Tarquinius, and
_Brutus_, both mounted, ran upon one another, and were
slain. Each army marched to its home. Tarquinius then obtained the
help of _Porsena_, king of the Etruscans, with a strong
army. They took _Janiculum_; but _Horatius Cocles_, with two
companions, posted himself at the entrance of the bridge, and kept the
place, Horatius remaining until the bridge had been torn away behind
him. He then, with his armor on, leaped into the river, and swam back
to the shore. The town was hard pressed by the enemy and by
famine. _Mucius Scaevola_ went into _Porsena's_ camp,
resolved to kill him. But he slew another whom he mistook for the
king. When threatened with death, he thrust his right hand into the
fire, to show that he had no fear. _Porsena_, admiring his
courage, gave him his freedom; and, on being informed that three
hundred young Romans were sworn to undertake the same deed which
_Mucius_ had come to perform, _Porsena_ made peace without
requiring the restoration of Tarquinius. _Tarquinius_, not
despairing, persuaded the _Tusculans_ and other _Latins_ to
begin war against Rome. The Romans appointed a dictator to meet the
exigency, _Marcus Valerius_. In a battle near _Lake
Regillus_, when the Romans began to give way, the dictator invoked
_Castor_ and _Pollux_, vowing to dedicate a temple to them
in case he was victorious. Two young men on white chargers appeared at
the head of the Roman troops, and led them to
victory. _Tarquinius_ now gave up his effort, and went to
_Cumae_ to the tyrant _Aristodemus_, where he lived until
his death.

TRUTH IN THE LEGENDS.--There are certain facts which are embedded in
the legends. _Alba_ was at one time the head of the Latin
confederacy. The _Sabines_ invaded Latium, settled on some of the
hills of Rome, allied themselves with the _Romans_, and the two
peoples were resolved into one federal state. This last change was a
very important step. The tradition of a doubling of the senate and of
two kings, _Romulus_ and _Taiius_, although not in literal
form historical, is believed to be a reminiscence of this union. It is
thought that the earliest royalty was priestly in its character, and
that this was superseded by a military kingship. It is probable that
the _Etruscans_ who had made much progress in civilization, in
the arts and in manufactures, gained the upper hand in
_Latium_. The insignia of the Roman kings were Etruscan. The
Etruscan kings were driven out. There were advances in civilization
under them, the division of the people into classes took place, and at
that period structures like the "Servian" wall were built.

PATRICIANS AND PLEBEIANS.--The Romans from the beginning were divided
into the upper class, the _Patricians_, and the common people, or
_Plebeians_, who were free, but, like the _perioeci_ and
_metoeci_ in Greece, had no political rights. The plebeians, as
they included the conquered class, were not all poor. A part of them,
who were under the special protection of citizens, their
_Patrons_, were called _Clients_. The patricians were the
descendants of the first settlers and proprietors. Under the old
constitution, ascribed in the legends to _Romulus_, the
patricians alone formed the military force, and were styled the
_Populus_. They were divided into _curiae_ (districts or
wards), at first ten in number, and, after the union of the Romans
with the _Tities_ and _Luceres_, thirty. Each _curia_
was divided into ten families, or _gentes_. The assembly of the
citizens was called the _Comitia Curiata_. The _Comitia_
chose the _King_. The _Senate_ was a council of elders
representing in some way the gentes.

  The clan, or _gens_, was always of great consequence among the
  Romans. Its name was a part of the proper name of every citizen. The
  particular or individual names in vogue were not numerous. The name
  of the gens was placed between the personal name, or the
  _praenomen_, and the designation of the special family
  (included in the gens). Thus in the case of Caius Julius Caesar,
  "Julius" was the designation of the gens, "Caesar," of the family,
  while "Caius" was the personal name.

THE EARLY CONSTITUTION.--The "Servian constitution" made all
land-owners, whether patrician or plebeian, subject to taxation, and
obliged to do military service. The cavalry--the _Equites_, or
knights,--was made up, by adding to the six patrician companies
already existing, double the number from both classes. The infantry
were organized without reference to rank, but were graded according to
their property. The whole people were divided thus into five classes,
and, when assembled, formed the _Comitia Centuriata_,--as being
made up of the companies called "centuries," or "hundreds." At first
this body was only consulted by the king in regard to offensive
wars. Gradually it drew away more and more power from the _Comitia
Curiata_, which consisted solely of patricians. Those who had no
land were now distinguished from the land-owning plebeians. For the
purposes of conscription, the city was divided into four
_Tribes_, or wards. Every four years a _census_ was to be
taken.

MAGISTRATES.--When the kingship was abolished, and under the system
that followed, the two _Consuls_ were to be patricians. They
exercised regal power during their term of office. They appointed the
senators and the two _Quaestors_, who came to have charge of the
treasury, under consular supervision. The consuls were attended by
twelve _Lictors_, who carried the _fasces_--bundles of rods
fastened around an ax,--which symbolized the power of the magistrate
to flog or to behead offenders. The _Comitia Centuriata_ acquired
the right to elect the consuls, to hear appeals in capital cases from
their verdicts, and to accept or reject bills laid before it. This was
a great gain for the plebeians. Yet the patricians were strong enough
in this assembly to control its action. On occasions of extraordinary
peril, a _Dictator_ might be selected by one of the consuls, who
was to have absolute authority for the time. The Senate commonly had
an important part, however, in the selection of this officer. There
was a _Master of Horse_ to command the knights under him. He was
appointed by the dictator.

RELIGION.--Worship in families was conducted by the head of the
household, the _paterfamilias_, who offered the regular
sacrifices. But, as regards the whole people, worship was under the
direction of the pontiffs, with the chief pontiff, the _Pontifex
Maximus_, at their head, and in the hands of the priests. These
were all officers of the state, elected to their places, and entirely
subordinate to the civil magistrates. The _pontiffs_ were not so
much priests as they were guardians and interpreters of divine
law. They were masters of sacred lore. They looked out that the
numberless and complex rules in respect to religious observances
should be strictly complied with. At the same time they had enough
knowledge of astronomy to enable them to fix the days suitable for the
transaction of business, public or private. They had the control of
the calendar. The _Augurs_ consulted the will of the gods as
disclosed in omens. The augur, his eyes raised to the sky, with his
staff marked off the heavens into four quarters, and then watched for
the passage of birds, from which he took the auspices. In early times,
there was an implicit faith in these supposed indications of the will
of the divinities; but this credulity passed away, and the auguries
became a political instrument for helping forward the schemes of some
person or party. Besides the college of pontiffs and the college of
augurs, there was the college of _Fetiales_, who were the
guardians of the public faith in relation to other peoples, and
performed the rites attending the declaration of war or the conclusion
of peace. The _Soothsayers_ (haruspices) were of Etruscan
origin. They ascertained the will of the gods by inspecting the
entrails of the slaughtered victims. The _Flamens_ were the
priests having charge of the worship of particular divinities. The
_Vestals_ were virgin priestesses of Vesta, who ministered in her
temple, and kept the sacred fire from being extinguished.

  The chief gods worshiped by the Romans were _Jupiter_, god of
  the sky; his wife, _Juno_, the goddess of maternity;
  _Minerva_, the goddess of wisdom; _Apollo_, the god of
  augury and the arts; _Diana_, the goddess of the chase and
  archery; _Mars_, the god of war; _Bellona_, the goddess of
  war; _Vesta_, patron of the Roman state and of the national
  hearthstone; _Ceres_, the goddess of agriculture;
  _Saturnus_, the patron of husbandry; _Hercules_, the Greek
  god, early naturalized in Italy as the god of gain and of mercantile
  contracts; _Mercury_, the god of trade; _Neptune_ god of
  the sea. _Venus_ was an old Roman goddess, who presided over
  gardens, but gradually was identified with the Grecian
  _Aphrodite_. _Lares_ and _Penates_ were household
  divinities, guardians of the family.

The Romans assigned a spirit to almost every thing. Each individual
had his own protecting _genius_. _Janus_ was the god of
beginnings, _Terminus_ was the god of the boundary,
_Silvanus_ of the forest, _Vertumnus_ of the circling
year. The farmer, in each part of his labor,--in harrowing, plowing,
sowing, etc.,--invoked a spirit. So marriage, birth, and every natural
event had each a sacred life of its own. Not less than forty-three
distinct divinities are spoken of by name as having to do with the
actions of a child. Thus the number of divinities was countless. Gods
were great or small, according to the department of nature or of life
where they severally were present and active.



CHAPTER II.  ROME UNDER THE PATRICIANS (509-304 B.C.).


RIVALRY OF CLASSES.--The abolishing of royalty left Rome as "a house
divided against itself." The power granted to the _Comitia
Centuriata_ did not suffice to produce contentment. The patricians
still decided every thing, and used their strength in an oppressive
way. Besides the standing contest between the patricians and
plebeians, there was great suffering on the side of the poorer class
of plebeians. Many were obliged to incur debts; and their creditors
enforced the rigorous law against them, loading them with chains, and
driving their families from their homes. A great and constant
grievance was the taking by the patricians of the public lands which
had been obtained by conquest, for a moderate rent, which might not be
paid at all. If they granted a share in this privilege to some rich
plebeian houses, this afforded no help to the mass of the people, who
were more and more deprived of the opportunity to till the smaller
holdings in consequence of the employment of slaves. Yet the plebeians
had to bear the burden of military service. At length they rose in a
body, probably in returning from some victory, and encamped on a hill,
the _Sacred Mount_, three miles from Rome, where they threatened
to stay, and found another town. This bold movement led to an
agreement. It was stipulated that they should elect magistrates from
their own class, to be called _Tribunes of the People_, who
should have the right to interpose an absolute veto upon any legal or
administrative measure. This right each consul already had in relation
to his colleague. To secure the commons in this new right, the
tribunes were declared to be inviolable. Whoever used violence against
them was to be an outlaw. The power of the tribunes at first was
merely protective. But their power grew until it became
controlling. One point where their authority was apt to be exerted was
in the conscription, or military enrollment. This, if it were
undertaken in an unfair way, they could stop altogether, and thus
compel a change.

THE PLEBEIAN ASSEMBLY.--Not far from this time, there was instituted a
new assembly, the _Comitia of Tribes, or Comitia Tributa_. There
was a new division of the people into tribes or wards,--first twenty,
then twenty-one, and, later, thirty-five. In this comitia, the
plebeians were at the outset, if not always, the exclusive voters. The
patricians had their assembly, the _Comitia Curiata_. The Comitia
of the Tribes, which was then controlled by the plebeians, chose the
tribunes. By degrees, both the other assemblies lost their
importance. The plebeian body more and more extended its
prerogatives. Besides the tribunes, the _Aediles_, two in number,
who were assistants of the tribunes, and superintended the business of
the markets, were chosen by the _Comitia Tributa_.

THE LAW OF CASSIUS.--The anxiety of the plebeians to be rid of the
restrictions upon the holding and enjoyment of land, led to the
proposal of a law for their relief by the consul _Spurius
Cassius_ (486 B.C.). Of the terms of the law, we have no precise
knowledge. We only know, that, when he retired from office, he was
condemned and put to death by the ruling class.

WAR WITH THE AEQUIANS AND THE VOLSCIANS.--About this time Rome
concluded a league with the _Latins_, and soon after with another
people, the _Hernicans_, who lived farther eastward, between the,
Aequians and Volscians. It was a defensive alliance, in which Rome had
the leading place. Then follow the wars with the _Aequians_ and
_Volscians_, where the traditional accounts are mingled with many
fictitious occurrences. There are two stories of special note,--the
story of Coriolanus, and the story of Cincinnatus. It is related that
a brave patrician, _Caius Marcius Coriolanus_, at a time when
grain was scarce, and was procured with difficulty from Etruria and
Sicily for the relief of the famishing, proposed that it should be
withheld from the plebeians unless they would give up the
tribunate. The anger of this class, and the contempt which he showed
for it, caused him to be banished. Thereupon he went to the
_Volscians_, and led an army against Rome,--an army too strong to
be resisted. One deputation after another went out of the city to
placate him, but in vain. At length _Veturia_, his mother, and
_Volumnia_, his wife, at the head of a company of matrons, went
to his camp, and entreated him. Their prayer he could not deny, but
exclaimed, "O my mother!  Rome thou hast saved, but thou hast lost thy
son." He died among the Volscians (491 B.C.). The tale, certainly in
most of its parts, is fictitious. For example, he is said to have been
called _Coriolanus_, from having previously conquered
_Corioli_; but such designations were not given among the Romans
until centuries later. The story of _Cincinnatus_ in essential
particulars is probably true. At a time when the Romans were hard
pressed by the _Æquians_, the messengers of the Senate waited on
Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus, formerly a senator and a consul of
renown in peace and war, and asked him to become dictator. They found
him plowing in his field. He accepted the post, by his prudence and
vigor delivered the state, and on the sixteenth day laid down his
office, and went back to his farm. The time required by the hero for
his task was doubtless much longer than the legend allows.

  There is an authentic tradition of a war with the _Etruscans_,
  who had retained certain towns on the Roman side of the Tiber. The
  Romans established a fort on the _Cremera_, not far from
  _Veii_, which was one of them. In the course of this struggle,
  it is said that all the _Fabii_,--a distinguished Roman
  family,--except one boy, were perfidiously slain. This is an
  exaggerated tale. A truce was concluded with _Veii_-in 474
  B.C. for forty years, which left Rome free to fight her enemies on
  the east and south.

THE DECEMVIRS.--The internal conflict of the patricians against the
commons in Rome went on. In 471 B.C. the _Publilian Law_ was
passed to establish fully the right of the plebeians alone to elect
their tribunes, or to exclude the upper class from their comitia. The
claims of the plebeians, who formed the greater part of the fighting
men, rose. They demanded first, however, that they should have the
same _private_ rights as the patricians, and that the laws should
be made more efficient for their protection by being reduced to a
code. This was the object of the _Terentilian Law_, proposed in
462. The result was a great dispute. Some concessions failed to
satisfy the plebeians. Finally it was agreed that ten men,
_Decemvirs_, should be chosen indiscriminately from both classes
to frame a code, they, meantime, to supersede the consuls and tribunes
in the exercise of the government (451 B.C.). They were to equalize
the laws, and to write them down. The story of the mission to Athens
for the study of the laws of _Solon_, is not worthy of
credit. There is no doubt, however, that many obstacles were put in
the way of the project by the conservative patricians, and that one of
their order, _Appius Claudius_, took a prominent part, probably
on the side of the people.

  VIRGINIUS.--Here comes in the story of _Virginia_. It is
  related that _Appius Claudius_ was an ambitious and bad man,
  who, being one of the decemvirs, wished to hold on to power. He
  conceived a base passion for the daughter of _Virginius_, a
  brave plebeian centurion, and claimed her on the pretense that she
  was the daughter of one of his slaves. Standing at his
  judgment-seat, _Virginius_, seeing that he could do nothing to
  save his child from the clutch of the villainous judge, plunged his
  dagger in her heart. This was the signal for another revolt of the
  people, which extorted the consent of the upper class to the sacred
  laws and the restoration of the tribuneship. It is a plausible
  theory that _Appius Claudius_ favored the plebeian claims, and
  that the tale told above is a later invention to his discredit.

POLITICAL EQUALITY.--The laws of the twelve tables lay at the basis of
all subsequent legislation in Rome, and were always held in
reverence. The plebeians soon gained further advantages. In 449 B.C.,
it was ordained, under the consuls _Horatius_ and
_Valerius_, that the plebeian assembly of tribes should be a
sovereign assembly, whose enactments should be binding on the whole
Roman people. In 445 B.C., the law of _Canuleius_ legalized
marriage between the plebeians and patricians. This was an important
step towards the closer union of the two classes. The executive power
was still in the hands of the patricians. But in 444 a new office,
that of _military tribunes_ with consular power, to be chosen
from the plebeians, was established. By way of offset to this great
concession, a new patrician office, that of _Censor_, was
created. The function of the two censors, who were to be chosen by the
_Comitia Centuriata_, was to take the census at short intervals,
to make out the tax-lists, to appoint senators and knights, to manage
the collection of taxes, to superintend public buildings, and,
finally, to exercise an indefinite supervision over public manners and
morals. These were very great powers. We find that considerable time
elapsed before the plebeians actually realized the advantage which
they had legally won in this compromise. About the year 400, they
succeeded in electing several military tribunes. As early as 410
B.C. three out of the four treasurers, or paymasters
(_quæstors_), were plebeians. About forty years after (367 B.C.),
they obtained, by the _Licinian Laws_, the political equality for
which they had so long contended.

WAR WITH THE ETRUSCANS.--But before this result should be reached,
other events of much consequence were to occur. The _Etruscans_,
who were not only proficients in the arts, but were also active in
trade and commerce, had been defeated at sea by the Greeks, in 474
B.C. But on the north they had a more formidable foe in the
_Gauls_, by whom their power was weakened. The Romans took
advantage of the situation to lay siege to _Veii_, which, after
ten years, was captured by their general, _Marcus Furius
Camillus_. The capture of other towns followed.

  It was told of _Camillus_ that _Falerii_ surrendered to
  him of its own accord, for his magnanimity in sending back a
  treacherous schoolmaster who had taken out to his camp the sons of
  the chief citizens. Camillas tied his hands behind him, and ordered
  the boys to flog him back into the city. Camillus was sent into
  exile, it was related, on a charge of injustice in dividing the
  booty obtained at Veii.

INVASION OF THE GAULS.--But the Romans joined with the Etruscans in
the attempt to drive back a dreaded enemy of both, the
_Gauls_. In the battle of the _Allia_, a brook eleven miles
north of Rome, on the 18th of July, 390 B.C., the Roman army was
routed by them, and Rome left without the means of defense. All the
people fled, except a few brave men, who shut themselves up in the
Capitol, and, according to the tradition, some aged patricians, who,
in their robes of state, waited for the enemy. The Gauls, under
_Brennus_, rushed in, and plundered and burned the city. In later
times the story was told, that, when the Gauls were climbing up to the
Capitol secretly by night, the cackling of the geese awoke _Marcus
Manlius_, and so the enemy was repulsed. There was another story,
that, when the Romans were paying the ransom required by
_Brennus_, and complained of false weight, the insolent Gaul
threw his sword into the scale, exclaiming, "Woe to the conquered!"
and that just then _Camillus_ appeared, and drove the Gauls out
of the city. This is certain, that the Gauls retired of their own free
will from their occupation of the city. The destruction of the temples
involved the loss of early chronicles, which would have given us
better information as to the times preceding. The city was rebuilt
without much delay.

THE LICINIAN LAWS.--The agitation for political reform soon commenced
again. The _Licinian Laws_, which make an epoch in the
controversy of parties, were proposed in 376, but were not passed
until 367. Besides provisions for the relief of debtors and for
limiting the number of acres of public lands to be held by an
individual, it was enacted that the military tribuneship should be
given up, and that at least one of the two consuls must be chosen from
the plebeians. A new patrician office, the _praetorship_, was
founded, the holders of which were to govern in the absence of the
consuls. The patricians did not at once cease from the effort to keep
the reins in their hands. Several times they broke the law, and put in
two patrician consuls. They yielded at last, however; and, as early as
the year 300, all Roman offices were open to all Roman citizens. The
patrician order became a social, not a legal, distinction. A new sort
of nobility, made up of both patricians and plebeians, whose families
had longest held public offices, gradually arose. These were the
_optimates_. The Senate became the principal executive body. It
was recruited by the _censors_, principally from those who had
held high stations and were upwards of thirty years old. One
_censor_ was required to be a plebeian. The condition of the
people was improved by other enactments, one of which (in 326 or 313)
secured to the debtor his personal freedom in case he should transfer
his property to the creditor. At about this time, there was a change
in the constitution of the army. The sort of arms assigned was no
longer to depend on property qualifications. There were to be three
lines in battle,--the first two to carry a short spear (_pilum_),
and the third the long lance (_hasta_).

INFULENCE OF PARTY CONFLICTS.--The long contest of parties in Rome was
an invaluable political education. It was attended with little
bloodshed. It involved discussion on questions of justice and right,
and on the best civil constitution. It was not unlike party conflicts
in English history. It trained the Romans in a habit of judicious
compromise, of perseverance in asserting just claims, and of yielding
to just demands.



PERIOD II.  TO THE UNION OF ITALY.  (304-264 B.C.)



CHAPTER I.  CONQUEST OF THE LATINS AND ITALIANS (304-282 B.C.).


WARS WITH THE GAULS.--The increased vigor produced by the adjustment
of the conflict of classes manifested itself in a series of minor
wars. The Romans were now able to face the Gauls, who had permanently
planted themselves in Northern Italy. Against them they waged four
wars in succession, the last of which ended in a signal victory for
the Roman side (367-349). Wars with the Etruscan cities brought the
whole of Southern _Etruria_ under Roman rule (358-351).

FIRST SAMNITE WAR.--The neighbor that was the hardest for the Romans
to conquer was the nation of _Samnites_, who lived among the
Apennines of Central Italy, east of Latium. The conflict with this
tough tribe lasted, with intermissions, for fifty years.

The immediate occasion of the struggle was the appeal of
_Capua_--a Greek city in Campania in which Samnites had before
settled--for help against their kinsmen in the mountains (343). This
prayer the Romans granted when Capua had placed itself under their
sway. In the first battle, the Romans under _Valerius Corvus_ won
the day. A second Roman army was rescued from imminent danger by the
heroism of the elder _Decius Mus_, and a Roman victory
followed. After a third victory at _Suessula_, the Romans, on
account of the threatening attitude of their Latin confederates, made
peace. The Samnites, too, were involved in a war with _Tarentum_,
a Greek city on the eastern coast.

WAR WITH THE LATINS.--The Latins were not disposed to recognize Rome
any longer as the head of the league. They demanded perfect equality
and an equal share of the Roman public offices (340). In a battle near
_Vesuvius_, the plebeian consul, _Decius Mus_, having
devoted himself to death for his country, rode into the thickest ranks
of the enemy, and perished, having secured victory for the Roman
army. Before the battle, the patrician consul, _Titus Manlius_,
punished his son with death for presuming to undertake, without
orders, a military exploit, in which, however, he had succeeded. After
a second victory of Manlius at _Trifanum_, the Latins were
subdued (340), the league was broken up, and most of the cities were
made subject to Rome, acquiring citizenship without the right of
suffrage; but they were forbidden to trade or to intermarry with one
another. Some became Roman colonies.

Several had to cede lands, which were apportioned among Roman
citizens.  The beaks (_rostra_) of the old ships of _Antium_
ornamented the Roman forum. Colonies of Roman citizens were settled in
the district of the _Volscii_ and in _Campania_. This was an
example of the Roman method of separating vanquished places from one
another, and of inclosing as in a net conquered territories.


SECOND SAMNITE WAR.--The establishment by the Romans of the military
colony of _Fregellae_, in connection with other encroachments,
brought on the second Samnite war, which lasted for twenty-two
years. The prize of the contest was really the dominion over Italy. A
great misfortune befell the Roman arms in 321. The incautious consuls,
_Veturinus_ and _Postumius_, allowed themselves to be
surrounded in the _Caudine Pass_, where they were compelled to
capitulate, swear to a treaty of peace, and give up six hundred Roman
knights as hostages. The whole Roman army was compelled to pass under
the yoke. The Roman Senate refused to sanction the treaty, and gave up
the consuls, at their own request, in fetters to the Samnites. The
Samnites refused to receive them, spared the hostages, and began the
war anew. The Roman consuls, _Papirius Cursor_ and _Fabius
Maximus_, gained a victory at _Capua_, drove the Samnites out
of Campania, and reconquered _Fregellae_. A great military road,
the _Appian Way_, the remains of which may still be seen, was
built from _Rome_ to _Capua_ (312).

The _Etruscan_ cities joined in the war against Rome. All Etruria
was in arms to overcome the advancing power of the Romans. The
coalition was broken by the great defeat of the Etrurians at the
_Vadimonian Lake_, in 310. The Samnites had their numerous
allies; but the obstinate valor of the Romans, who were discouraged by
no reverses, triumphed. The capture of _Bovianum_, the capital of
the Samnite league (305), ended the war. The Samnites sued for
peace. The old treaties were renewed. In the course of this protracted
struggle, various Roman colonies were established, and military roads
were constructed.

THIRD SAMNITE WAR.--Peace was not of long continuance. The Samnites
once more armed themselves for a desperate conflict, having on their
side the _Etruscans_, the _Umbrians_, and the _Gauls_
(300). The Italian peoples, which had been at war with one another,
joined hands in this contest against the common enemy. A decisive
battle was fought at _Sentinum_,--where _Decius Mus_ the
younger, following his father's example, devoted himself to
death,--resulting in the defeat of the Samnites, and of their allies
(295). Soon after, the Samnite general, _Pontius_, fell into the
hands of the Romans. The Samnites kept up the contest for several
years. But in 290 they found that they could hold out no longer. The
Romans secured themselves by fortresses and by colonies, the most
important of which was that of _Venusia_, at the boundary of
Samnium, Apulia, and Lucania, where they placed twenty thousand
colonists.



CHAPTER II.


WAR WITH PYRRHUS AND UNION OF ITALY (282-264 B.C.).

TARENTUM AND PYRRHUS.--The Samnites were overcome. The Greeks and
Romans were now to come into closer intercourse with one another,--an
intercourse destined to be so momentous in its effect on each of the
two kindred races, and, through their joint influence, on the whole
subsequent course of European history. _Alexander the Great_ had
died too soon to permit him to engage in any plan of conquest in the
West. In the wars of his successors the Romans had stood aloof. Now
they were brought into conflict with a Greek monarch, _Pyrrhus_,
king of Epirus, who was a relative of Alexander, and had married into
the royal family of Egypt. He was a man of fascinating person and
address, a brilliant and famous soldier, but adventurous, and lacking
the coolness and prudence requisite to carry out his project of
building up an Hellenic Empire in the western Mediterranean. In the
war against the Samnite coalition, the _Lucanians_ had rendered
decisive support to the Romans. This was one reason why
_Tarentum_, the rich and prosperous Dorian city on the Tarentine
Gulf, had been a spectator of the contest in which it had abundant
occasion to feel a deep interest. Rome had given up to the Lucanians
the non-Dorian Greek cities in that region. But when they sought to
subdue _Thurii_, and the Thurines besought the help of Rome,
offering to submit themselves to her, the Romans warned the Lucanians
to desist. This led to another combination against Rome, in which they
took part. A Roman army was destroyed by the _Senonian Gauls_. In
consequence of this, the Romans slaughtered, or drove out of Umbria,
this people, and, gaining other decisive victories, put their
garrisons into _Locri_, _Crotona_, and _Thurii_. The
Romans were already masters of Central Italy. Only the Greek cities on
the south remained for them to conquer. It was high time for
_Tarentum_ to bestir itself. It was from the side of Tarentum
that the immediate provocation came. The Tarentines were listening to
a play in the theater as ten Roman ships came into the harbor. Under a
sudden impulse of wrath, a mob attacked them, and destroyed five of
them. Even then the Romans were in no haste to engage in
hostilities. The Tarentines themselves were divided as to the policy
best to be pursued. But the war-party had the more voices. An embassy
was dispatched to solicit the help of _Pyrrhus_. At Tarentum an
embassy from Rome was treated with contempt. _Pyrrhus_ came over
with a large army. He obliged the Tarentines themselves to arm, and to
join his forces.

EVENTS OF THE WAR.--The Romans were fully alive to the peril, and
prepared to meet it. Even the proletarians, who were not liable to
military service, were enrolled. The first great battle took place at
_Heraclea_, near the little river Siris (280 B.C.). Then the
Roman cohort and the Macedonian phalanx met for the first time. It was
a collision of trained mercenary troops with the citizen soldiery of
Rome. It was a struggle between the Greek and the Roman for the
ascendency. The confusion caused by the elephants of _Pyrrhus_,
an encounter with which was something new and strange to the Romans,
turned the tide in his favor. "A few more such victories," said
Pyrrhus, "and I am ruined." He desired peace, and sent _Cineas_
as a messenger to the Senate. But _Appius Claudius_, who had been
consul and censor, and was now old and blind, begged them not to make
peace as long as there was an enemy in Italy. _Cineas_ reported
that he found the Senate "an assembly of kings." In the next year, the
two armies, each with its allies numbering seventy thousand men, met
at _Asculum_ (279). After a bloody conflict, _Pyrrhus_
remained in possession of the field, but with an enormous loss of
men. The _Syracusans_ in Sicily, who had been hard pressed by the
_Carthaginians_, now called upon him to aid them. He was not
reluctant to leave Italy. The Romans captured all the cities on the
south coast, except _Tarentum_ and _Rhegium_. After two
years' absence, _Pyrrhus_ returned to Italy. His fleet, on the
passage from Sicily, was defeated by the Carthaginians. At
_Beneventum_, he was completely vanquished by the Romans, who
captured thirteen hundred prisoners and four elephants. Pyrrhus
returned to Epirus; and, after his death (272), _Milon_, who
commanded the garrison left by him in _Tarentum_, surrendered the
city and fortress. The Tarentines agreed to deliver up their ships and
arms, and to demolish their walls.  One after another of the resisting
tribes yielded to the Romans, ceding portions of their territory, and
receiving Roman colonies. In 266, the Roman sway was established over
the whole peninsula proper, from the _Rubicon_ and the
_Macra_ to the southern extremity of _Calabria_.

CITIZENSHIP.--In order to understand Roman history, it is necessary to
have a clear idea of the Roman system in respect to citizenship. All
burgesses of Rome enjoyed the same rights. These were both
_Public_ and _Private_. The private rights of a Roman
citizen were (1) the power of legal marriage with the families of all
other citizens; (2) the power of making legal purchases and sales, and
of holding property; and (3) the right to bequeath and inherit
property. The public rights were, (1) the power of voting wherever a
citizen was permitted to vote; (2) the power of being elected to all
offices.

CONQUERED TOWNS.--"The Roman dominion in Italy was a dominion of a
city over cities." With regard to conquered towns, there were, (i)
Municipal cities (_municipia_) the inhabitants of which, when
they visited Rome, could exercise all the rights of citizens. (2)
Municipal cities which had the private, but not the public, rights of
citizenship. Some of them chose their own municipal officers, and some
did not. (3) _Latin Colonies_, as they were called. Lands ceded
by conquered places were divided among poor Roman citizens, who
constituted the ruling class in the communities to which they were
transplanted. In the Latin colonies, the citizens had given up their
_public_ rights as citizens. (4) Towns of a lower class, called
_Praefectures_. In these, the principal magistrate was the
_Prefect_, who was appointed by the _Praetor_ (_Praeter
Urbanus_) at Rome.

THE ALLIES (_Socii_).--These were a more favored class of cities.
They had their relation to Rome defined by treaty. Generally they
appointed their own magistrates, but were bound, as were all subject
cities, to furnish auxiliary troops for Rome.

THE LATIN FRANCHISE.--This was the privilege which was first given to
the cities of _Latium_ and then to inhabitants of other
places. It was the power, on complying with certain conditions, of
gaining full citizenship, and thus of taking part in elections at
Rome.

ROMAN COLONIES.--The _Roman Colony_ (which is not to be
confounded with the _Latin Colony_ referred to above) was a small
body of Roman citizens, transplanted, with their families, to a spot
selected by the government. They formed a military station. To them
lands taken from the native inhabitants were given. They constituted
the ruling class in the community where they were established. Their
government was modeled after the government at Rome. They retained
their rights as Roman burgesses, which they could exercise whenever
they were in that city. By means of these colonies, planted in places
wisely chosen, Italy was kept in subjection. The colonies were
connected together by roads. The _Appian Way_, from _Rome_
to _Capua_, was built in the midst of the conflict with
_Samnium_. It was made of large, square stones, laid on a
platform of sand and mortar. In later times the Roman Empire was
traversed in all directions by similar roads.



PERIOD III.  THE PUNIC WARS: TO THE CONQUEST OF CARTHAGE AND OF THE
GREEK STATES.  (264-146 B.C.)



CHAPTER I.  THE FIRST AND SECOND PUNIC WABS (264-202 B.C.).


THE FIRST PUNIC WAR.--By dint of obstinacy, and hard fighting through
long centuries, the Romans had united under them all Italy, or all of
what was then known as Italy. It was natural that they should look
abroad. The rival power in the West was the great commercial city of
_Carthage_. The jealousy between Rome and Carthage had slumbered
so long as they were threatened by the invasion of _Pyrrhus_,
which was dangerous to both. _Sicily_, from its situation, could
hardly fail to furnish the occasion of a conflict. The
_Mamertines_, a set of Campanian pirates, had captured
_Messana_. They were attacked by _Hiero II_., king of
Syracuse. A part of them besought help of the Romans, and a part
applied to the Carthaginians. The gravity of the question, whether
Rome should enter on an untried path, the end of which no man could
foresee, caused hesitation. The assemblies voted to grant the
request. The Romans had begun as early as 311 to create a fleet. The
ships which they now used, however, were mostly furnished by their
South Italian allies. They crossed the channel, and drove out the
Carthaginian garrison from _Messana_. The Carthaginians declared
war (264). _Hiero_ was gained over to the side of the Romans; and
after a bloody conflict, with heavy losses to both armies, the city of
_Agrigentum_ was captured by the Romans. The Romans were novices
on the sea, where the Carthaginians were supreme. Successful on the
land, the former were beaten in naval encounters. One of the most
characteristic proofs of the energy of the Romans is their creation of
a fleet, at this epoch, to match that of their sea-faring
enemies. Using, it is said, for a model, a Carthaginian vessel wrecked
on the shore of Italy, they constructed quinqueremes, vessels with
five banks of oars, furnished with bridges to drop on the decks of the
hostile ships,--thus giving to a sea-fight a resemblance to a combat
on land. At first, as might be expected, the Romans were defeated; but
in 260, under the consul _Caius Duilius_, they won their first
naval victory at _Mylae_, west of Messana. The Roman Senate
decided to invade Africa. A fleet of three hundred and thirty vessels
sailed under the command of the consul _M. Atilius Regulus_,
which was met by a Carthaginian fleet at _Ecnomus_, on the south
coast of Sicily. The Carthaginians were completely vanquished. The
Romans landed at _Clupea_, to the east of Carthage, and ravaged
the adjacent district. There _Regulus_ remained with half the
army, fifteen thousand men. The Carthaginians sued for peace; but when
he required them to surrender all their ships of war except one, and
to come into a dependent relation to Rome, they spurned the
proposal. Re-enforcing themselves with mercenaries from Greece under
the command of the Spartan, _Xanthippus_, they overpowered and
captured _Regulus_ in a battle at _Tunis_ (255). A Roman
fleet, sent to _Clupea_ for the rescue of the troops, on the
return voyage lost three-fourths of its ships in a storm. The
Carthaginians, under _Hasdrubal_, resumed hostilities in
Sicily. He was defeated by the consul _Caecilius Metellus_, at
_Panormus_, who included among his captures one hundred elephants
(251). The story of the embassy of _Regulus_ to Rome with the
Carthaginian offer of peace, of his advising the Senate not to accept
it, of his voluntary return according to a promise, and of his cruel
death at the hands of his captors, is probably an invention of a later
time. The hopes of the Romans, in consequence of their success at
_Panormus_, revived; but two years later, under _Appius
Claudius_ at _Drepanum_, they were defeated on sea and on
land. Once more their naval force was prostrated. Warfare was now
carried forward on land, where, in the south of Sicily, the
Carthaginian leader, _Hamilcar Barca_, maintained himself against
Roman attacks for six years, and sent out privateers to harass the
coasts of Italy.  Finally, at Rome, there was an outburst of patriotic
enthusiasm. Rich men gave liberally, and treasures of the temples were
devoted to the building of a new fleet. This fleet, under command of
_C. Lutatius Catulus_, gained a decisive victory over the
Carthaginian _Hanno_, at the Aegatian Islands, opposite
_Lilybaeum_ (241). The Carthaginians were forced to conclude
peace, and to make large concessions. They gave up all claim to Italy
and to the neighboring small islands. They were to pay an indemnity,
equal to four million dollars, in ten years. The western part of
Sicily was now constituted a _province_, the _first_ of the
Roman provinces.

CONQUEST OF CISALPINE GUAL.--The Carthaginians were for some time busy
at home in putting down a revolt of mercenary troops, whose wages they
refused to pay in full. The Romans snatched the occasion to extort a
cession of the island of _Sardinia_ (238), which they
subsequently united with _Corsica_ in one province. They entered,
about ten years later (229-228), upon an important and successful war
against the _Illyrian pirates_, whose depredations on the coasts
of the Adriatic and Ionian seas were very daring and destructive. The
Greek cities which the pirates held were surrendered. The sway of the
Romans in the Adriatic was secured, and their supremacy in
_Corcyra_, _Epidamnus_, and other important places. The next
contest was a terrific one with the _Cisalpine Gauls_, who were
stirred up by the founding of Roman military colonies on the Adriatic,
and by other proceedings of Rome. They called in the help of
transalpine Gauls, and entered _Etruria_, on their way to Rome,
with an army of seventy thousand men. They met the Roman armies near
_Telamon_, south of the mouth of the Umbro, but were routed, with
a loss of forty thousand men slain, and ten thousand men prisoners
(225). The Romans marched northward, crossed the _Po_, and
subdued the most powerful of the Gallic tribes, the _Insubrians_
(223). Other victories in the following year reduced the whole of
upper Italy, with _Mediolanum_ (Milan) the capital of the
_Insubrians_, under Roman rule. Fortresses were founded as usual,
and the great _Flaminian_ and _Aemilian_ roads connected
that region with the capital. Later, _Cisalpine Gaul_ became a
Roman province.

CARTHAGINIANS IN SPAIN.--Meantime Carthage endeavored in Southern
Spain to make up for its losses. The old tribes, the
_Celtiberians_ and _Lusitanians_ in the central and western
districts, and the _Cantabrians_ and _Basques_ in the north,
brave as they were, were too much divided by tribal feuds to make an
effectual resistance.  The national party at Carthage, which wished
for war, had able leaders in _Hamilcar_ and his three sons. By
the military skill of _Hamilcar_, and of _Hasdrubal_ his
son-in-law, the Carthaginians built up a flourishing dominion on the
south and east coasts. The Romans watched the growth of the
Carthaginian power there with discontent, and compelled
_Hasdrubal_ to declare in a treaty that the _Ebro_ should be
the limit of Carthaginian conquests (226). At the same time Rome made
a protective alliance with _Saguntum_, a rich and powerful
trading-city on the south of that river. _Hasdrubal_ was murdered
in 221; and the son of Hamilcar Barca, _Hannibal_, who was then
only twenty-eight years old, was chosen by the army to be their
general. He laid hold of a pretext for beginning an attack upon
_Saguntum_, which he took after a stout resistance, prolonged for
eight months (219). The demand of a Roman embassy at Carthage--that
_Hannibal_ should be delivered up--being refused, Rome declared
war.

When the Carthaginian Council hesitated at the proposal of the Roman
embassy, their spokesman, _Quintus Fabius_, said that he carried
in his bosom peace or war: they might chose either. They answered, "We
take what you give us;" whereupon the Roman opened his toga, saying,
"I give you war!"  The Carthaginians shouted, "So let it be!"

THE SECOND PUNIC WAR.--When the treaty of _Catulus_ was made
(241), all patriots at Carthage felt that it was only a truce. They
must have seen that Rome would never be satisfied with any thing short
of the abject submission of so detested and dangerous a rival. There
was a peace party, an oligarchy, at Carthage; and it was their
selfishness which ultimately brought ruin upon the state. But the
party which saw that the only safety was in aggressive action found a
military leader in _Hannibal_,--a leader not surpassed, and
perhaps not equaled, by any other general of ancient or modern
times. He combined skill with daring, and had such a command over men,
that under the heaviest reverses his influence was not broken. If he
was cruel, it is doubtful whether he went beyond the practices
sanctioned by the international law of the time and by Roman
example. When a boy nine years old, at his father's request he had
sworn upon the altar never to be the friend of the Roman people. That
father he saw fall in battle at his side. The oath he kept, for Rome
never had a more unyielding or a more powerful enemy.

HANNIBAL IN ITALY.--In the summer of 218, _Hannibal_ crossed the
_Ebro_, conquered the peoples between the _Ebro_ and the
_Pyrenees_, and, leaving his brother _Hasdrubal_ in Spain,
pushed into _Gaul_ with an army of fifty thousand foot, twelve
thousand horse, and thirty-seven elephants. He crossed the swift
_Rhone_ in the face of the Gauls who disputed the passage, and
then made his memorable march over the _Alps_, probably by the
way now known as the _Little St. Bernard_ pass. Through ice and
snow, climbing over crags and circling abysses, amid perpetual
conflicts with the rough mountaineers who rolled stones down on the
toiling soldiers, the army made its terrible journey into Northern
Italy. Fifteen days were occupied in the passage. Half the troops,
with all the draught-animals and beasts of burden, perished on the
way. The _Cisalpine Gauls_ welcomed Hannibal as a deliverer. No
sooner had the valiant consul, _Cornelius Scipio_, been defeated
in a cavalry battle on the _Ticinus_, a northern branch of the
_Po_ (218), and, severely wounded, retreated to _Placentia_,
and his rash colleague, _Sempronius_, been defeated with great
loss in a second battle on the _Trebia_, than the Gauls joined
_Hannibal_, and reinforced him with sixty thousand troops inured
to war. Hannibal, by marching through the swampy district of the
_Arno_, where he himself lost an eye, flanked the defensive
position of the Romans. The consul _Flaminius_ was decoyed into a
narrow pass; and, in the battle of _Lake Trasumenus_ (217), his
army of thirty thousand men was slaughtered or made prisoners. The
consul himself was killed. All _Etruria_ was lost. The way seemed
open to Rome; but, supported by the Latins and Italians, the Romans
did not quail, or lower their mien of stern defiance. They appointed a
leading patrician, _Quintus Fabius Maximus_,
dictator. _Hannibal_, not being able to surprise and capture the
fortress of _Spoletium_, preferred to march towards the
sea-coast, and thence south into _Apulia_. His purpose was to
open communication with _Carthage_, and to gain over to his
support the eastern tribes of Italy. _Fabius, the Delayer
(Cunctator)_, as he was called, followed and watched his enemy,
inflicting what injuries he could, but avoiding a pitched battle. The
Roman populace were impatient of the cautious, but wise and effective,
policy of _Fabius_. In the following year (216) the consulship
was given to _L. Aemilius Paulus_--who was chosen by the upper
class, the _Optimates_--and _C. Terentius Varro_, who was
elected by the popular party for the purpose of taking the
offensive. _Varro_ precipitated a battle at _Cannae_, in
Apulia, where the Romans suffered the most terrible defeat they had
ever experienced. At the lowest computation, they lost forty thousand
foot and three thousand horse, with the consul _Aemilius Paulus_,
and eighty men of senatorial rank. No such calamity since the capture
of Rome by the Gauls had ever occurred. The Roman Senate did not lose
heart. They limited the time of mourning for the dead to thirty
days. They refused to admit to the city the ambassadors of
_Hannibal_, who came for the exchange of prisoners. With lofty
resolve they ordered a levy of all who could bear arms, including boys
and even slaves. They put into their hands weapons from the temples,
spoils of former victories. They thanked _Varro_ that he had not
despaired of the Republic. Some of the Italian allies went over to
Hannibal. But all the Latin cities and all the Roman colonies remained
loyal. The allies of Rome did not fall away as did the allies of
Athens after the Syracusan disaster. It has been thought, that, if
_Hannibal_ had followed up the victory at _Cannae_ by
marching at once on the capital, the Roman power might have been
overthrown. What might then have been the subsequent course of
European history? Even the Roman school-boys, according to Juvenal,
discussed the question whether he did not make a mistake in not
attacking Rome. But it is quite doubtful whether he could have taken
the city, or, even if he had taken it, whether his success would then
have been complete. He took the wiser step of getting into his hands
_Capua_, the second city in Italy. He may have hoped to seize a
Campanian port, where he could disembark reinforcements "which his
great victories had wrung from the opposition at home."
_Hannibal_ judged it best to go into winter-quarters at
_Capua_, where his army was in a measure enervated by pleasure
and vice. _Carthage_ made an alliance with _Philip V_. of
Macedonia, and with _Hiero_ of Syracuse. But fortune turned in
favor of the Romans. At _Nola_, _Hannibal_ was repulsed by
_Marcellus_ (215); and, since he could obtain no substantial help
from home, he was obliged to act on the defensive. _Marcellus_
crossed into Sicily, and, after a siege of three years, captured
_Syracuse_, which had been aided in its defense by the
philosopher _Archimedes_. _Capua_, in 211, surrendered to
the Romans, and was visited with a fearful chastisement. Hannibal's
Italian allies forsook him, and his only reliance was on his brother
in Spain. For a long time, the two brothers, _Publius_ and
_Cnaeus Scipio_, maintained there the Roman cause successfully;
but they were defeated and slain (212).

SCIPIO: ZAMA.--_Publius Cornelius Scipio_, son of one and nephew
of the other Scipio just named, a young man twenty-five years old, and
a popular favorite, took the command, and gained important successes;
but he could not keep _Hasdrubal_ from going to his brother's
assistance in Italy. The Romans, however, were able to prevent a
junction of his force with that of _Hannibal_; and
_Hasdrubal_ was vanquished and slain by them in the battle of
_Sena Gallica_, near the little river _Metaurus_
(207). _Scipio_ expelled the Carthaginians from Spain, and,
having returned to Rome, was made consul (205). His plan was to invade
Africa. He landed on the coast, and was joined by _Masinissa_,
the king of Numidia, who had been driven from his throne by
_Syphax_, the ally of Carthage. The defeat of the Carthaginians,
and the danger of Carthage itself, led to the recall of
_Hannibal_, who was defeated, in 202, by _Scipio_ in the
decisive battle of _Zama_. Carthage made peace, giving up all her
Spanish possessions and islands in the Mediterranean, handing over the
kingdom of _Syphax_ to _Masinissa_, and agreeing to pay a
yearly tribute equal to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, for
fifty years, to destroy all their ships of war but ten, and to make no
war without the consent of the Romans (201). _Scipio Africanus_,
as he was termed, came back in triumph to Rome. The complete
subjugation of _Upper Italy_ followed (200-191).



CHAPTER II.  CONQUEST OF MACEDONIA: THE THIRD PUNIC WAR:
THE DESTRUCTION OF CORINTH (202-146 B.C.).


PHILIP V.: ANTIOCHUS III.--The Romans were now dominant in the
West. They were strong on the sea, as on the land. Within fifty years
Rome likewise became the dominant power in the East. Philip V. of
Macedon had made an alliance with Hannibal, but had furnished him no
valuable aid. The Senate maintained that a body of Macedonian
mercenaries had fought against the Romans at
_Zama_. _Rhodes_ and _Athens_, together with _King
Attalus_ of Pergamon, sought for help against _Philip_. The
Romans were joined by the _Ætolians_, and afterwards by the
_Achaians_. In 197, the consul _T. Quintius Flamininus_
defeated him at the battle of _Cynoscephalæ_ in Thessaly, and
imposed upon him such conditions of peace as left him powerless
against the interests of Rome. At the Isthmian games, amid great
rejoicing, _Flamininus_ declared the Greek states
independent. When they found that their freedom was more nominal than
real, and involved a virtual subjection to Rome, the _Ætolians_
took up arms, and obtained the support of _Antiochus III_., king
of Syria. Another grievance laid at the door of this king was the
reception by him of _Hannibal_, a fugitive from Carthage, whose
advice, however, as to the conduct of the war, _Antiochus_ had
not the wisdom to follow. In 190 he was vanquished by a Roman army at
_Magnesia_, under _L. Cornelius Scipio_, with whom was
present, as an adviser, _Scipio Africanus_. He was forced to give
up all his Asiatic possessions as far as the _Taurus_
mountains. The territory thus obtained, the Romans divided among their
allies, _Pergamon_ and _Rhodes_. About seven years later
(183), _Hannibal_, who had taken refuge at the court of
_Prusias_, king of Bithynia, finding that he was to be betrayed,
took poison and died. The ingratitude of his country, or of the ruling
party in it, did not move him to relax his exertions against Rome. He
continued until his death to be her most formidable antagonist,
exerting in exile an effective influence in the East to create
combinations against her.

PERSEUS.--_Philip V_. laid a plan to avenge himself on the
Romans, and regain his lost Macedonian territory. _Perseus_, his
son, followed in the same path, having slain his brother
_Demetrius_, who was a friend of Rome. The war broke out in
171. For several campaigns the management of the Roman generals was
ill-judged; but at last _L. Æmilius Paulus_, son of the consul
who fell at _Cannæ_, routed the Macedonians at the battle of
_Pydna_.  Immense spoils were brought to Rome by the
conqueror. _Perseus_ himself, who had sat on the throne of
Alexander, adorned the consul's triumphal procession through the
streets of Rome. The cantons of Greece, where there was nothing but
continual strife and endless confusion, were subjected to Roman
influence. One thousand Achaians of distinction, among them the
historian _Polybius_, were carried to Italy, and kept under
surveillance for many years. The imperious spirit of Rome, and the
deference accorded to her, is illustrated in the interview of
_C. Popilius Lænas_, who delivered to _Antiochus IV_. of
Syria a letter of the Senate, directing him to retire from before
Alexandria. When that monarch replied that he would confer with his
counselors on the matter, the haughty Roman drew a circle round him on
the ground, and bade him decide before he should cross that
line. _Antiochus_ said that he would do as the Senate ordered.

THE THIRD PUNIC WAR.--The treaty with Carthage had bound that city
hand and foot. Against the encroachments of _Masinissa_, the
Carthaginians could do nothing; but at length they were driven to take
up arms to repel them. This act the Romans pronounced a breach of the
treaty (149). That stern old Roman, who in his youth had served
against Hannibal, _M. Porcius Cato_, had been unceasing in his
exhortation to destroy Carthage. He was in the habit of ending his
speeches with the saying, "But I am of opinion that Carthage should be
destroyed." The Roman armies landed at _Utica_. Their hard
demands, which included the surrender of war-ships and weapons, were
complied with. But when the Carthaginians were required to abandon
their city, and to make a new settlement ten miles distant, they rose
in a fury of patriotic wrath. The women cut off their hair to make
bowstrings. Day and night the people worked, in forging weapons and in
building a new fleet in the inner harbor. The Romans were repulsed;
but _P. Scipio Æmilianus_, the adopted son of the first Scipio
Africanus, shut in the city by land and by sea, and, in 146, captured
and destroyed it. Its defenders fought from street to street, and from
house to house. Only a tenth part of the inhabitants were left
alive. These were sold into slavery. Carthage was set on fire, and
almost entirely consumed. The fire burned for seventeen days. The
remains of the Carthaginian wall, when excavated in recent times,
"were found to be covered with a layer of ashes from four to five feet
deep, filled with half-charred pieces of wood, fragments of iron, and
projectiles."  _Scipio_ would have preserved the city, but the
Senate was inexorable. With the historian Polybius at his side, the
Roman commander, as he looked down on the horrors of the
conflagration, sorrowfully repeated the lines of Homer,--

  "The day shall come when sacred Troy shall be leveled with the
  plain, And Priam and the people of that good warrior slain."

"Assyria," he is said to have exclaimed, "had fallen, and Persia and
Macedon. Carthage was burning: Rome's day might come next." Carthage
was converted into a Roman province under the name of _Africa_.

DESTRUCTION OF CORINTH.--The atrocious crime of the destruction of
Carthage was more than matched by the contemporaneous destruction of
_Corinth_. Another rising in Macedonia resulted, in 146, in the
conversion of that ancient kingdom into a Roman province. The return
to Greece of three hundred Achaian exiles who had been detained in
Italy for sixteen years, strengthened the anti-Roman party in Greece,
and helped to bring on war with the Achaian league. In 146, after the
battle of _Leucopetra_, Corinth was occupied by the consul
_L. Mummius_. The men were put to the sword; the women and
children were sold at auction into slavery; all treasures, all
pictures, and other works of art, were carried off to Rome, and the
city was consigned to the flames. The other Greek cities were mildly
treated, but placed under the governor of Macedonia, and obliged to
pay tribute to Rome. At a later date Greece became a Roman province
under the name of _Achaia_.

THE PROVINCES.--At this epoch, there were eight
provinces,--_Sicily_ (241), _Sardinia_ (238) and
_Corsica_, two provinces in _Spain_ (205), _Cisalpine
Gaul, Illyricum_ (168), _Africa_ (146), _Macedonia_
(146), and _Achaia_. The first four were governed by
_Prætors_. Later, however, the judicial functions of the praetors
kept them in Rome. At the end of the year, the prætor, on laying down
his office at home, went as _proprætor_ to rule a province. But
where there was war or other grave disturbances, the province was
assigned to a _consul_ in office, or to a _proconsul_, who
was either the consul of the preceding year, or an ex-consul, or an
ex-prætor who was appointed proconsul. The provinces were generally
organized by the conquering general and a senatorial commission. Some
cities retained their municipal government. These were the "free
cities." The taxes were farmed out to collectors called
_publicans_, who were commonly of the equestrian order. The last
military dictator was appointed in 216. In times of great danger,
dictatorial power was given to a consul.

LITERATURE AND PHILOSOPHY.--The intercourse of the Romans with the
Greeks opened to the former a new world of art, literature, and
philosophy, and a knowledge of other habits and modes of life. There
were those who regarded the Greek authors and artists with sympathy,
and showed an intelligent enthusiasm for the products of Greek
genius. Under the patronage of the _Scipios_, Roman poets wrote
in imitation of Greek models. Such were _Plautus_ (who died in
184), and the less original, but more refined, _Terence_
(185-159), who had been the slave of a senator. _Ennius_
(239-169), a Calabrian Greek, wrote epics, and also tragedies and
comedies. Him the later Romans regarded as the father of their
literature. The beginnings of historical writing--which go beyond mere
chronicles and family histories--appear, as in the lost work on Roman
history by _M. Portias Cato_ (Cato the Censor, 234-149). The
great historian of this period, however, was the Greek
_Polybius_. The Greek philosophy was introduced, in spite of the
vigorous opposition of such austere conservatives as
Cato. _Panaetius_ (185-112), the Stoic from _Rhodes_, had a
cordial reception at Rome. The Stoic teaching was adapted to the Roman
mind. The Platonic philosophy was brought in by _Carneades_. This
was frequently more acceptable to orators and statesmen. Along with
the _Stoic_, the _Epicurean_ school found
adherents. Cato--who, although a historian and an orator, was, in
theory and practice, a rigid man, with the simple ways of the old
time--procured the banishment of_ Carneades_, together with
_Critolaus_ the Peripatetic, and the Stoic _Diogenes_. The
schools of oratory he caused to be shut up. He did what he could to
prevent the introduction of the healing art, as it was practiced by
the Greeks. He preferred the old-fashioned domestic remedies.

THE STATE OF MORALS.--If the opposition of the Conservatives to Greek
letters and philosophy was unreasonable, as it certainly proved
futile, there was abundant ground for alarm and regret at the changes
that were going on in morals and in ways of living. The conquest of
Greece and of the East brought an amazing increase of wealth. Rome
plundered the countries which she conquered. The _optimates_, the
leading families, who held the chief offices in the state and in the
army, grew very rich from the booty which they gained. They left their
small dwellings for stately palaces, which they decorated with works
of art, gained by the pillage of nations. They built villas in the
country, with extensive grounds and beautiful gardens. Even women,
released from the former strict subordination of the wife to her
husband, indulged lavishly in finery, and plunged into gaieties
inconsistent with the household virtues. The _optimates_, in
order to enrich themselves further, often resorted to extortion of
various sorts. In order to curry favor with the people, and thereby to
get their votes, they stooped to flattery, and to demagogical arts
which the earlier Romans would have despised. They provided games, at
great expense, for the entertainment of the populace. In the room of
the invigorating and of the intellectual contests, which had been in
vogue among the Greeks, the Romans acquired an increasing relish for
bloody gladiatorial fights of men with wild beasts, and of men against
one another. Slaves multiplied to an enormous extent: "as cheap as a
Sardinian" was a proverb. The race of plain farmers dwindled away. The
trade in slaves became a flourishing branch of business. Field-hands
toiled in fetters, and were often branded to prevent escape. If slaves
ran away, and were caught, they might be crucified. If a householder
were killed by a slave, all the slaves in his house might be put to
death. As at Athens, the testimony of slaves was given under
torture. Hatred to the master on the part of the slave was a thing of
course. "As many enemies as slaves," was a common saying.

NUMANTIAN WAR.--The intolerable oppression of the provinces
occasionally provoked resistance. It was in _Spain_ that the
Romans found it most difficult to quell the spirit of freedom. The
_Lusitanians_ in the territory now called Portugal, under a
gallant chieftain, _Viriathus_, maintained for nine years a war
in which they were mostly successful, and were finally worsted only in
consequence of the perfidious assassination of their leader
(149-140). The _Celtiberians_, whose principal city,
_Numantia_, was on the upper _Douro_, kept up their
resistance with equal valor for ten years (143-133). On one occasion a
Roman army of twenty thousand men was saved from destruction by
engagements which the Senate, as after the surrender at the Caudine
Forks, repudiated. In 133, after a siege of eighteen months, Numantia
was taken by _Scipio Africanus Æmilianus_. It was hunger that
compelled the surrender; and the noblest inhabitants set fire to the
town, and slew themselves, to avoid falling into the hands of the
enemy.

PERGAMON.--More subservience the Romans found in the East. In the same
year that the desperate resistance of the _Numantians_ was
overcome, _Attalus III_., king of _Pergamon_, an ally of
Rome, whose sovereignty extended over the greater part of _Asia
Minor_, left his kingdom and all his treasures, by will, to the
Roman people. There was a feeble struggle on the part of the expectant
heir, but the Romans formed the larger part of the kingdom into a
province. _Phrygia Major_ they detached, and gave to
_Mithridates IV_., king of _Pontus_, who had helped them in
this last brief contest.



PERIOD IV.  THE ERA OF REVOLUTION AND OF THE CIVIL WARS. (_146-31
B.C_.)



CHAPTER I.  THE GRACCHI: THE FIRST MITHRIDATIC WAR: MARIUS
            AND SULLA (146-78 B.C.).


CONDITION OF ROME.--We come now to an era of internal strife. The
Romans were to turn their arms against one another: Yet it is
remarkable that the march of foreign conquest still went on. It was by
conquests abroad that the foremost leaders in the civil wars rose to
the position which enabled them to get control in the government at
home. The power of the _Senate_ had been more and more
exalted. Foreign affairs were mainly at its disposal. The increase in
the number of voters in the _comitia_, and their motley
character, made it more easy for the aristocracy to manage
them. Elections were carried by the influence of largesses and by the
exhibition of games. Practically the chief officers were limited to a
clique, composed of rich families of both patrician and plebeian
origin, which was diminishing in number, while the numbers of the
lower class were rapidly growing larger. The gulf between the poor and
the rich was constantly widening. The last Italian colony was sent out
in 177 B.C., and the lands of Italy were all taken up. Slaves
furnished labor at the cost of their bare subsistence. It was hard for
a poor man to gain a living. Had the _Licinian Laws_ (p. 137)
been carried out, the situation would have been different. The public
lands were occupied by the members of some forty or fifty aristocratic
families, and by a certain number of wealthy Italians. A great
proletariate--a needy and disaffected lower class--was growing up,
which boded no good to the state.

TIBERIUS GRACCHUS.--This condition of things moved _Tiberius
Gracchus_, the son of _Cornelia_, who was the daughter of the
great _Scipio Africanus_, to bring forward his _Agrarian
Laws_. The effect of them would have been to limit the amount of
the public domain which any one man could hold, and to divide portions
of it among poor citizens. In spite of the bitter opposition of the
nobility, these laws were passed (133). But _Gracchus_ had been
obliged to persuade the people to turn a tribune, who resisted their
passage, out of office, which was an unconstitutional act. In order to
carry out the laws, he would have to be re-elected tribune. But the
_optimates_, led by the consul _Scipio Nasica_, had been
still more infuriated by other proposals of _Gracchus_. They
raised a mob, and slew him, with three hundred of his followers. This
gave the democratic leaders a temporary advantage; but violent
measures on their own side turned the current again the other way, and
proceedings under the laws were quashed.

CAIUS GRACCHUS.--The laws of _Caius Gracchus_, the brother of
Tiberius, were of a more sweeping character. He caused measures to be
passed, and colonies to be sent out, by decrees of the people, without
any action of the Senate. He renewed the agrarian law. He caused a law
to be passed for selling corn for less than the cost, to all citizens
who should apply for it. He also caused it to be ordained, that juries
should be taken from the knights, the _equites_, instead of the
Senate. These were composed of rich men. The tendency of the law would
be to make the equestrian order distinct, and thus to divide the
aristocracy. The proposal (122), which was not passed, to extend the
franchise to the Latins, and perhaps to the Italians, cost him his
popularity, although the measure was just. The Senate gave its support
to a rival tribune, _M. Livius Drusus_, who outbid
_Gracchus_ in the contest for popular favor. In 121
_Gracchus_ was not made tribune. In the disorder that followed,
he, with several hundred of his followers, was killed by the
_optimates_. Before long most of his enactments were
reversed. The law for the cheap sale of corn, the most unwise of his
measures, continued.

THE JUGURTHINE WAR.--An interval of tranquility followed. But the
corruption of the ruling class was illustrated in connection with the
Jugurthine war. _Jugurtha_, the adopted son of the king of
_Numidia_, the ally of Rome, wishing the whole kingdom for
himself, killed one of the sons of the late king, and made war upon
the other, who applied to the Romans for help. The commission sent out
by the Senate was bribed by _Jugurtha_. Not until he took the
city of _Cirta_, and put to death the remaining brother, with all
his army, was he summoned to Rome. There, too, his money availed to
secure him impunity, although he caused a Numidian prince to be
murdered in Rome itself. When the Romans finally entered on the war
with _Jugurtha_, he bribed the generals, so that little was
effected. The indignation of the people was raised to such a pitch
that they would not leave the direction of the war in the hands of
_Quintus Metellus_, whom the Senate had sent out, and who
defeated _Jugurtha_ (108), but insisted on giving the chief
command to one of his subordinate officers, _Caius Marius_ (107),
the son of a peasant, wild and rough in his manners, but of
extraordinary talents as a soldier. He brought the war to an
end. _Jugurtha_ was delivered up by the prince with whom he had
taken refuge to _L. Cornelius Sulla_, one of the generals under
_Marius_, and in 105, with his two sons, marched in chains before
the triumphal car of _Marius_ through the streets of
Rome. _Marius_ was now the leader of the popular party, and the
most influential man in Rome.

THE CIMBRI AND TEUTONES.--The power of _Marius_ was augmented by
his victories over the _Cimbri_ and the _Teutones_. These
were hordes of barbarians who appeared in the Alpine regions, the
_Cimbri_ being either _Celts_, or, like the _Teutones_,
_Germans_. The _Cimbri_ crossed the Alps in 113, and
defeated a Roman consul. They turned westward towards the Rhine,
traversed Gaul in different directions, defeating through a series of
years the Roman armies that were sent against them. These defeats the
democratic leaders ascribed, not without reason, to the corrupt
management of the aristocratic party. In 103 the _Cimbri_ and the
_Teutones_ arranged for a combined attack on Italy. _Marius_
was made consul; and in order to meet this threatened invasion, which
justly excited the greatest anxiety, he was chosen to this office five
times in succession (104-100). Having repulsed the attack of the
barbarians on his camp, he defeated them in two great battles, the
first at _Aquce Sextice_ (Aix in Provence) in 102, and the second
at _Vercellce_, in Upper Italy, in 101. These successes, which
really saved Rome, made _Marius_ for the time the idol of the
popular party.

THE ARMY.--At about this time a great change took place in the
constitution of the army. The occupation of a soldier had become a
trade. Besides the levy of citizens, there was established a
recruiting system, which drew into the ranks the idle and lazy, and a
system of re-inforcements, by which cavalry and light-armed troops
were taken from subject and vassal states. Thus there arose a military
class, distinct, as it had not been of old, from the civil orders, and
ready to act separately when its own interest or the ambition of
favorite leaders might prompt.

SATURNINUS.--_Marius_ lacked the judgment and the firmness
required by a statesman, especially in troublous times. When
_Saturninus_ and _Glaucia_ brought forward a series of
measures of a radical character in behalf of the democratic cause, and
the consul _Metellus_, who opposed them, was obliged to go into
voluntary exile, _Marius_, growing ashamed of the factious and
violent proceedings of the popular party, was partially won over to
the support of the Senate. When _C. Memmius_, candidate for
consul, was killed with bludgeons by the mob of _Saturninus_ and
_Glaucia_, and there was fighting in the forum and the streets,
he helped to put down these reckless innovators (99). But his want of
hearty cooperation with either party made him hated by
both. _Metellus_ was recalled from banishment. _Marius_ went
to Asia, and visited the court of _Mithridates._

THE MURDER OF DRUSUS.--Nearly ten years of comparative quiet
ensued. The long continued complaints of the Italians found at last a
voice in the measures of _M. Livius Drusus,_ a tribune, who, in
91, proposed that they should have the right of citizenship. Two other
propositions, one referring to the relations of the _Equites_ and
the _Senate,_ and the other for a new division of lands, had been
accepted by the people, but were by the Senate declared null. Before
_Drusus_ could bring forward the law respecting Italian
citizenship, he was assassinated. Neither Senate nor people was
favorable to this righteous measure.

THE ITALIAN OR SOCIAL WAR (90-88 B.C.).--The murder of _Drusus_
was the signal for an insurrection of the _Italian_
communities. They organized for themselves a federal republic. The
peril occasioned by this great revolt reconciled for the moment the
contending parties at Rome. In the North, where _Marius_ fought,
the Romans were generally successful: in the South, the allies were at
first superior; but in 89, in spite of _Sulla's_ bold forays,
they were worsted. But it was by policy, more than by arms, that the
Romans subdued this dangerous revolt. They promised full citizenship
to those who had not taken part in the war, and to those who would at
once cease to take part in it (90). Finally, when it was plain that
Rome was too strong to be overcome, the conflict was ended by granting
to the allies all that they had ever claimed (89). Rome had now made
ALL ITALY (south of _Cisalpine Gaul_), except the _Samnites_
and _Lucanians,_ EQUAL WITH HERSELF. But Italy had been ravaged
by desolating war: the number of small proprietors was more than ever
diminished, and the army and the generals were becoming the
predominant force in the affairs of the state.

WAR WITH MITHRIDATES.--_Mithridates,_ king of Pontus, in the
north-east of Asia Minor, was as ardent an enemy of the Romans as
Hannibal had been. With the help of his son-in-law _Tigranes,_
king of Armenia, he had subdued the neighboring kings in alliance with
Rome. The Asiatic states, who were ruled by the Romans, were impatient
of the oppression under which they groaned. When checked by the
Romans, _Mithridates_ had paused for a while, and then had
resumed again his enterprise of conquest. In 88 the Grecian cities of
Asia joined him; and, in obedience to his brutal order, all the
Italians within their walls, not lelss than eighty thousand in number,
but possibly almost double that number, were put to death in one
day. The whole dominion of the Romans in the East was in jeopardy.

MARIUS AND SULLA.--_Sulla_ was elected consul in 88, and was on
the point of departing for Asia. He was a soldier of marked talents, a
representative of the _aristocratic_ party, and was more cool and
consistent in his public conduct than _Marius_. _Marius_
desired the command against _Mithridates_ for
himself. _P. Sulpicius_, one of his adherents, brought forward a
revolutionary law for incorporating the Italians and freedmen among
the thirty-five tribes. The populace, under the guidance of the
leaders of the Marian faction, voted to take away the command from
_Sulla_, and to give it to _Marius_. _Sulla_ refused to
submit, and marched his army to Rome. It was impossible to resist
him. _Sulpicius_ was killed in his flight. _Marius_ escaped
from Italy, and, intending to go to Africa, was landed at
_Minturnae_. To escape pursuit, he had to stand up to the chin in
a marsh. He was put in prison, and a Gaulish slave was sent to kill
him. But when he saw the flashing eyes of the old general, and heard
him cry, "Fellow, darest thou kill _Caius Marius_?" he dropped
his sword, and ran. _Marius_ crossed to Africa. Messengers who
were sent to warn him to go away, found him sitting among the ruins of
Carthage.

THE MARIANS IN ROME.--_Sulla_ restored the authority of the
Senate. During _Sulla's_ absence, _Cinna_, the consul of the
popular party, sought to revive the laws of _Sulpicius_ by
violent means (87). Driven out of the city, he came back with an army
which he had gathered in _Campania_, and with old Marius, who had
returned from Africa. He now took vengeance on the leaders of the
_Optimates_. For five days the gates were closed, and every noble
who was specially obnoxious, and had not escaped, was killed by
_Marius_, who marched through the streets at the head of a body
of soldiers. In 86 _Marius_ and _Cinna_ were made
consuls. _Sulla_ was declared to be deposed. _Marius_, who
was now more than seventy years old, died (86). The fever of revenge,
and the apprehension of what might follow on _Sulla's_ return,
drove sleep from his eyelids. A brave soldier, he was incompetent to
play the part of a statesman. He went to his grave with the curse of
all parties resting upon him.

RETURN OF SULLA.--_Sulla_ refused to do any thing against his
adversaries at home, or for the help of the fugitive nobles who
appealed to him, until the cause of the country was secure abroad. He
captured _Athens_ in 86, defeated _Archelaus_, the general
of _Mithridates_, in a great battle at _Chaeronea_; and, by
this and subsequent victories, he forced _Mithridates_ to
conclude peace, who agreed to evacuate the Roman province of Asia, to
restore all his conquests, surrender eighty ships of war, and pay
three thousand talents (84). _Sulla's_ hands were now free. In 83
he landed at _Brundisium_. He was joined by _Cneius
Pompeius_, then twenty-three years old, with a troop of
volunteers. _Sulla_ did not wish to fight the Italians. He issued
a proclamation, therefore, giving them the assurance that their rights
would not be impaired. This pledge had the desired effect. The army of
the _Consuls_ largely outnumbered his own. _Sulla_ lingered
in South Italy to make good his position there. The _Samnites_
joined the _Marians_, and moved upon Rome with the intent to
destroy it. They were defeated before they could enter the city. The
_Marians_ in Spain were defeated afterwards, as were the same
party in _Sicily_ and _Africa_ by _Pompeius_.

CRUELTY OF SULLA.--The cruelty of Sulla, after his victory, was more
direful than Rome had ever witnessed. It appeared to spring from no
heat of passion, but was cold and shameless. After a few days, there
was a massacre of four thousand prisoners in the _Circus_. Their
shrieks and groans were heard in the neighboring Temple of
_Bellona_, where Sulla was in consultation with the Senate. Many
thousands--not far from three thousand in Rome alone--were proscribed
and murdered, and the property of all on these lists of the condemned
was confiscated.

THE LAWS OF SULLA.--In his character as _Dictator_, _Sulla_
remade the constitution, striking out the popular elements to a great
extent, and concentrating authority in the _Senate_. The
_Tribunes_ were stripped of most of their power. The
_Senate_ alone could propose laws. In the Senate, the places in
the juries were given back (p. 154). Besides these and other like
changes, the right of suffrage was bestowed on ten thousand
emancipated slaves; while _Italians_ and others, who had been on
the Marian side, were deprived of it. In the year 80 B.C.,
_Sulla_ caused himself to be elected _Consul_. The next year
he retired from office to his country estate, and gave himself up to
amusements and sensual pleasure. A part of his time--for he was not
without a taste for literature--he devoted to the writing of his
memoirs, which, however, have not come down to us. He died in 78.



CHAPTER II.  POMPEIUS AND THE EAST: TO THE DEATH OF CRASSUS (78-53
B.C.).


WAR WITH SERTORIUS.--Not many years after _Sulla's _death, his
reforms were annulled. This was largely through the agency of
_Cneius Pompeius_, who had supported _Sulla_, but was not a
uniform or consistent adherent of the aristocratic party. He did not
belong to an old family, but had so distinguished himself that Sulla
gave him a triumph. Later he rose to still higher distinction by his
conduct of the war against _Sertorius_ in Spain, a brave and able
man of the Marian party, who was supported there for a long time by a
union of Spaniards and Romans. Not until jealousy arose among his
officers, and _Sertorius_ was assassinated, was the formidable
rebellion put down (72).

THE GLADIATORIAL WAR.--_Pompeius_ had the opportunity still
further to distinguish himself on his way back from Spain. A
gladiator, _Spartacus_, started a revolt among his companions. He
called about him slaves and outlaws until with an army of one hundred
thousand men he defeated the Roman generals, and threatened Rome
itself. For two years they ravaged Italy at their will. They were
vanquished by _Marcus Crassus_ in 71, in two battles, in the last
of which _Spartacus fell_. The remnant of them, a body of five
thousand men, who had nearly reached the Alps, were annihilated by
_Pompeius_.

POMPEIUS: CRASSUS: CICERO.--_Crassus_ was a man of great wealth
and of much shrewdness. _Pompeius_ was bland and dignified in his
ways, a valiant, though sometimes over-cautious, general. These two
men, in 70 B.C., became consuls. They had resolved to throw themselves
for support on the middle class at Rome. _Pompeius_, sustained by
his colleague, secured the abrogation of some of the essential changes
made by _Sulla_. The _Tribunes_ received back their powers,
and the independence of the _Assembly of the Tribes_ was
restored. The absolute power of the Senate over the law-courts was
taken away. These measures were carried in spite of the resistance of
that body. Pompeius was aided by the great advocate, _Marcus Tullius
Cicero_. He was born at _Arpinum_ in 106 B.C., of an
equestrian family. He had been a diligent student of law and politics,
and also of the Greek philosophy, and aspired to distinction in civil
life. He studied rhetoric under _Molo_, first at Rome and then at
_Rhodes_, during a period of absence from Italy, which continued
about two years. On his return (in 77 B.C.), he resumed legal
practice. _Cicero_ was a man of extraordinary and various
talents, and a patriot, sincerely attached to the republican
constitution. He was humane and sensitive, and much more a man of
peace than his eminent contemporaries. His foibles, the chief of which
was the love of praise, were on the surface; and, if he lacked some of
the robust qualities of the great Roman leaders of that day, he was
likewise free from some of their sins. The captivating oratory of
Cicero found a field for its exercise in the impeachment of
_Verres_, whose rapacity, as Roman governor of Sicily, had fairly
desolated that wealthy province.  _Cicero_ showed such vigor in
the prosecution that _Verres_ was driven into exile. This event
weakened the senatorial oligarchy, and helped _Pompeius_ in his
contest with it.

WAR WITH THE PIRATES.--In 69 B.C., _Pompeius_ retired from
office; but, two years later, he assumed command in the war against
the pirates. These had taken possession of creeks and valleys in
Western _Cilicia_ and _Pamphylia_, and had numerous
fleets. Not confining their depredations to the sea, they plundered
the coasts of Italy, and stopped the grain-ships on which Rome
depended for food. _Pompeius_ undertook to exterminate this
piratical community. By the _Gabinian Law_, he was clothed with
more power than had ever been committed to an individual. He was to
have absolute command over the Mediterranean and its coasts for fifty
miles inland. He used this unlimited authority for war purposes alone,
and, in three months, completely accomplished the work assigned
him. He captured three thousand vessels, and put to death ten thousand
men. Twenty thousand captives he settled in the interior of
_Cilicia_.

POMPEIUS IN THE EAST.--The success of Pompeius was the prelude to a
wider extension of his power and his popularity. After the return of
_Sulla_ from the East, another _Mithridatic War_ (83-81),
the second in the series, had ended in the same terms of peace that
had been agreed upon before (p. 157). In 74 the contest began anew
against _Mithridates_, and _Tigranes_ of Armenia, his
son-in-law. For a number of years _Lucullus_, the Roman
commander, was successful; but finally _Mithridates_ regained
what he had lost, and kept up his aggressive course. In 66 B.C., on a
motion that was supported by _Cicero_, but opposed by the
aristocratic party in the Senate, _Pompeius_ was made commander
in the East for an indefinite term. So extensive powers had never
before been committed to a Roman. He drove _Mithridates_ out of
Pontus into Armenia. _Tigranes_ laid his crown at the feet of the
Roman general, and was permitted to retain
_Armenia_. _Mithridates_ fled beyond the Caucasus, and, in
63 B.C., committed suicide. _Pompeius_ overthrew the Syrian
kingdom of the _Seleucidae_. He entered _Judaea_, captured
Jerusalem from _Aristobulus_ the reigning prince, and placed his
brother _Hyrcanus_ on the throne, who became tributary to Rome.
_Pompeius_ with his officers entered the sanctuary of the temple,
and was surprised to find there neither image nor statue. He
established in the Roman territories in Asia the two provinces,
_Pontus_ and _Syria_, and re-organized the province of
_Cilicia_. Several kingdoms he allowed to remain under Roman
protection. After this unexampled exercise of power and responsibility
as the disposer of kingdoms, he slowly returned to Italy, dismissed
his army at _Brundisium_, and entered the capital as a private
citizen, where, in 61 B.C., he enjoyed a magnificent triumph that
lasted for two days.

THE ROMAN TRIUMPH.--The most coveted reward of a victorious general
was a triumph. It was granted by a vote of the Senate and according to
certain rules, some of which, however, were often relaxed. The general
must have held the office of dictator, consul, or praetor; at least
five thousand of the enemy must have been slain in a single battle;
the war must have been against public foes, etc. The general, with his
army, remained without the city until the triumph had been decreed by
the Senate, which also assembled without the walls to deliberate on
the question. The pageant itself, in later times, was of the most
splendid character. It consisted of a procession which entered the
"Triumphal Gate," and passed through the _Via Sacra_, up the
Capitoline Hill to the Temple of Jupiter, where sacrifices were
offered. In front were the Senate, headed by the magistrates. Then
came a body of trumpeters, who immediately preceded the long trains of
carriages and frames which displayed the spoils of conquest, including
statues, pictures, gorgeous apparel, gold and silver, and whatever
else had been borne away from the conquered people. Pictures of the
country traversed or conquered, and models of cities and forts, were
exhibited. Behind the spoils came flute-players, and these were
followed by elephants and other strange animals. Next were the arms
and insignia of the hostile leaders; and after them marched the
leaders themselves and their kindred, and all the captives of less
rank, in fetters. The crowns and other tributes voluntarily given to
the general by Roman allies next appeared, and then the central figure
of the procession, the _imperator_ himself, standing in a chariot
drawn by four horses, clad in a robe embroidered with gold, and a
flowered tunic, in his right hand a bough of laurel and in his left a
scepter, with a wreath of laurel on his brow, and a slave standing
behind, and holding a crown over his head. Behind him in the
procession were his family, then the mounted _equites_ and the
whole body of the infantry, their spears adorned with laurels, making
the air ring with their shouts and songs. Meantime the temples were
open, and incense was burned to the gods; buildings were decorated
with festal garlands; the population, in holiday dress, thronged the
steps of the public buildings and stages erected to command a view,
and in every place where a sight of the pageant could be obtained. As
the procession climbed the Capitoline Hill, some of the captives of
rank were taken into the adjoining _Mamertine_ prison, and
barbarously put to death. In the lower chamber of that ancient
dungeon, which the traveler still visits, _Jugurtha_ and many
other conquered enemies perished. After the sacrifices had been
offered, the _imperator_ sat down to a public feast with his
friends in the temple, and was then escorted home by a crowd of
citizens.

The _ovation_ was a lesser triumph. The general entered the city
on foot, and the ceremonies were of a much inferior cast.

CONSPIRACY OF CATILINE.--Meanwhile at Rome, the state had been
endangered by the combination of democrats and anarchists in the
conspiracy of _Catiline_. The well-contrived plot of this
audacious and profligate man was detected and crushed by the vigilance
and energy of the consul _Cicero_, whose four speeches on the
subject, two to the Senate and two to the people, are among the most
celebrated of all his orations. _Catiline_ was forced to fly from
Rome; and several of his prominent accomplices were put to death by
the advice of _Cato_ (the younger), the leader of the Senatorial
party, and by the vote of the Senate. This was done without asking for
the verdict of the people, and for this reason was not warranted by
the law; but it was declared to be needful for the salvation of the
state. The next year _Catiline_ was killed in battle, and his
force dispersed by the army of the Senate. A turn of party feeling
afterwards exiled _Cicero_ for departing from the law in the
execution of the conspirators.

JULIUS CAESAR.--Another person strong enough to be the rival of
_Pompeius_ was now on the stage of action. This was _Caius
Julius Caesar_, who proved himself to be, on the whole, the
foremost man of the ancient Roman world. Caesar's talents were
versatile, but in nothing was he weak or superficial. He was great as
a general, a statesman, an orator, and an author. With as much power
of personal command over men as _Hannibal_ had possessed, he was
likewise an agreeable companion of men of letters and in general
society. Every thing he did he appeared to do with ease. By his family
connections he was naturally designated as the leader of the popular,
Marian party. He was the nephew of _Marius_ and the son-in-law of
_Cinna_. _Sulla_ had spared his life, although he had
courageously refused to obey the dictator's command to put away his
wife; but he had been obliged to quit Rome. At the funeral of
_Julia_, the widow of _Marius_, he had been bold enough to
exhibit the bust of that hero,--an act that involved risk, but pleased
the multitude. He was suspected of being privy to _Catiline's_
plot, and in the Senate spoke against the execution of his
confederates. In 65 he was elected _Aedile_, but his profuse
expenditures in providing games plunged him heavily in debt; so that
it was only by advances made to him by _Crassus_ that he was
able, after being praetor, to go to _Spain_ (in 61), where, as
propraetor, he first acquired military distinction. Prior to his
sojourn in Spain, by his bold political conduct, in opposition to the
Senate, and on the democratic side, he had made himself a favorite of
the people.

THE FIRST TRIUMVIRATE.--Pompeius was distrusted and feared by the
Senate; but, on seeing that he took no measures to seize on power at
Rome, they proceeded to thwart his wishes, and denied the expected
allotments of land to his troops. The circumstances led to the
formation of the first _Triumvirate_, which was an informal
alliance between _Pompeius_, _Caesar_, and _Crassus_,
against the Senatorial oligarchy, and for the protection and
furtherance of their own interests. _Caesar_ became consul in 59
B.C. He gave his daughter _Julia_ in marriage to
_Pompeius_. Gaul, both Cisalpine, and Transalpine (_Gallia
Narbonensis_), was given to _Caesar_ to govern for five
years. _Cato_ was sent off to take possession of the kingdom of
_Cyprus_. _Cicero_, who was midway between the two parties,
was exiled on motion of the radical tribune, _Clodius_. But the
independent and violent proceedings of this demagogue led
_Pompeius_ to co-operate more with the Senate. _Cicero_ was
recalled (57 B.C.). A jealousy, fomented by the Senate, sprang up
between _Pompeius_ and _Crassus_. By _Caesar's_
efforts, a better understanding was brought about between the
triumvirs, and it was agreed that his own proconsulship should be
prolonged for a second term of five years. _Pompeius_ received
the _Spains_, and _Crassus_, who was avaricious, was made
proconsul of _Syria_, and commander of the armies in the Oriental
provinces. In an expedition against the _Parthians_ in 53, he
perished.

CAESAR IN GAUL.--The campaigns of _Caesar_ in Gaul covered a
period of eight years. An admirable narrative of them is presented by
himself in his _Commentaries_.

  THE GAULS.--The Gauls were _Celts_. The Celts were spread over
  the most of Gaul, over Britain and the north of Italy. In
  _Gaul_, there were three general divisions of people, each
  subdivided into tribes. These were the _Belgae_, the
  _Galli_, and the _Aquitani_, the last of whom, however,
  were not Celts, but, like the _Iberians_ in Spain, belonged to
  a _pre-Celtic_ race. The _Helvetii_ and _Vindelici_
  were in Switzerland. The Celts of _Gaul_ had attained to a
  considerable degree of civilization. Their gods were the various
  objects of nature personified. Their divinities are described by
  Caesar as corresponding in their functions to the gods of
  Rome. Their priests were the _Druids_, a close corporation, but
  not hereditary. They not only conducted worship: they were the
  lawgivers, judges, and physicians of the people. They possessed a
  mysterious doctrine, which they taught to the initiated. They held a
  great yearly assembly for the trial of causes. The _Bards_
  stood in connection with the Druidical order. In worship, human
  sacrifices were offered in large numbers, the victims being
  prisoners, slaves, criminals, etc. There were temples, but thick
  groves were the favorite seats of worship. _Caesar_ says that
  the Gauls were strongly addicted to religious observances. In their
  character they are described as brave and impetuous in an onset, but
  as lacking persistency.

  The Celts in _Britain_ were less civilized than their kinsfolk
  across the channel. But in their customs and religious beliefs and
  usages, they were similar to them. They probably came over from
  Gaul.

CONQUEST OF GAUL.--The first victory of Caesar was in conflict with
the Helvetii, who had invaded Gaul, and whom he drove back to their
homes in the Alps. The Gallic tribes applied to him for help against
the _Germans_, who had been led over the Rhine by
_Ariovistus_, chief of the _Suevi_. Him _Caesar_ forced
to return to the other side of the river. The Gallic tribes, fearing
the power of Caesar, stirred up the _Belgae_, the most warlike of
all the Gauls. These Csesar subdued, and also, with less difficulty,
conquered the other nations of Gaul. _Twice_, in conflict with
the Germans, he crossed the Rhine near _Bonn_ and
_Andernach_ (55 and 53 B.C.).  _Twice_, also (55 and 54
B.C.), he landed in _Britain_. On the second expedition he
crossed the _Thames_. In 52 there was a general insurrection of
the Gauls under _Vercingetorix_, a brave chieftain, to conquer
whom required all of Caesar's strength and skill. The result of eight
years of hard and successful warfare was the subjugation of all Gaul
from the Rhine to the Pyrenees. The _Celts_ were subdued, and
steps taken which resulted in their civilization. A barrier was placed
in the way of the advance of the _Germans_, which availed for
this end during several centuries. By his successes in Gaul, Csesar
acquired a fame as a general, which partly eclipsed the glory
previously gained by _Pompeius_ in the East. He became, also, the
leader of veteran legions who were devoted to his interests.



CHAPTER III.  POMPEIUS AND CAESAR: THE SECOND TRIUMVIRATE.


THE CIVIL WAR.--The rupture between _Pompeius_ and _Caesar_
brought on another civil war, and subverted the Roman republic. They
were virtually regents. The triumvirs had arranged with one another
for the partition of power. The death of _Crassus_ took away a
link of connection which had united the two survivors. The death of
_Julia_, the beautiful daughter of _Caesar_, in 54 B.C., had
previously dissolved another tie. _Pompeius_ contrived to remain
in Rome, and to govern Spain by legates. Each of the two rivals had
his active and valiant partisans in the city. The spoils of Gaul were
sent to be expended in the erection of costly buildings, and in
providing entertainments for the populace. To _Pompey_, in turn,
Rome owed the construction of the first stone theater, which was
dedicated with unprecedented show and splendor. Bloody conflicts
between armed bands of adherents of the two leaders were of daily
occurrence. _Clodius_, an adherent of Caesar and a reckless
partisan, was slain by _Milo_, in a conflict on the Appian
Way. The Senate and the republicans, of whom _Cato_ was the
chief, in order to curb the populace, and out of enmity to Caesar,
allied themselves with _Pompeius_. It was determined to prevent
him from standing as a candidate for the consulship, unless he should
lay down his command, and come to Rome. He offered to resign his
military power if _Pompeius_ would do the same. This was
refused. Finally he was directed to give up his command in Gaul before
the expiration of the time which had been set for the termination of
it. This order, if carried into effect, would have reduced him to the
rank of a private citizen, and have left him at the mercy of his
enemies. The tribunes, including his devoted supporter, _Marcus
Antonius_, in vain interposed the veto, and fled from the
city. _Caesar_ determined to disobey the order of the Senate. His
legions--two had been withdrawn on the false pretext of needing them
for the Parthian war--clung to him, with the exception of one able
officer, _T. Labienus_. _Caesar_ acted with great
promptitude. He crossed the _Rubicon_, the boundary of the Gallic
Cisalpine province, before _Pompeius_--who had declared, that
with a stamp of his foot he could call up armed men from the
ground--had made adequate preparations to meet him. The strength of
_Pompeius_ was mainly in the _East_, the scene of his former
glory; and he was, perhaps, not unwilling to retire to that region,
taking with him the throng of aristocratic leaders, who fled
precipitately on learning of the approach of
_Caesar_. _Pompeius_ sailed from Brundisium to
_Epirus_. _Cicero_, who had ardently desired an
accommodation between the rivals, was in an agony of doubt as to what
course it was right and best for him to take, since he saw reason to
dread the triumph of either side. Reluctantly he decided to cast in
his lot with the Senate and its newly gained champion.

PHARSALUS: THAPSUS: MUNDA.--Caesar gained the advantage of securing
the state treasure which _Pompeius_ had unaccountably left behind
him, and was able to establish his power in _Italy_. Before
pursuing Pompeius, he marched through _Gaul_ into _Spain_
(49 B.C.), conquered the Pompeian forces at _Ilerda_, and secured
his hold upon that country. He then crossed the Adriatic, He
encountered Pompeius, who could not manage his imprudent officers, on
the plain of _Pharsalus_ (48 B.C.), where the senatorial army was
completely overthrown. _Pompeius_ sailed for Egypt; but, just as
he was landing, he was treacherously assassinated. His head was sent
to _Caesar_, who wept at the spectacle, and punished the
murderers. _Caesar_ gained friends everywhere by the exercise of
a judicious clemency, which accorded with his natural disposition. He
next went to _Egypt_. There he was met by _Cleopatra_, whose
dazzling beauty captivated him. She reigned in conjunction with her
younger brother, who, according to the Egyptian usage, was nominally
her husband. The Egyptians were roused against Caesar, and, on one
occasion, he saved his life by swimming; but he finally defeated and
destroyed the Egyptian army. At _Zela_, in _Pontus_, he met
and vanquished _Pharnaces_, the revolted son of
_Mithridates_, and sent the laconic message, "Veni, vidi, vici"
(I came, I saw, I conquered). Early in 46 he landed in _Africa_,
and, at _Thapsus_, annihilated the republican forces in that
region. A most powerful combination was made against him in
_Spain_, including some of his old officers and legionaries, and
the two sons of _Pompeius_. But in the hard-fought battle at
_Munda_ (March, 45 B.C.), when Caesar was himself in great
personal danger, he was, as usual, triumphant.

CAESAR AS A CIVILIAN.--Marvelous as the career of Caesar as a general
was, his merit as a civilian outstrips even his distinction as a
soldier. He saw that the world could no longer be governed by the
Roman rabble, and that monarchy was the only alternative. He ruled
under the forms of the old constitution, taking the post of dictator
and censor for life, and absorbing in himself the other principal
republican offices. The whole tendency of his measures, which were
mostly of a very wholesome character, was not only to remedy abuses of
administration, but to found a system of orderly administration in
which Rome should be not the sole _mistress_, but simply the
_capital_, of the world-wide community which had been subjected
to her authority.

THE GOVERNMENT OF CAESAR.--Caesar made the _Senate_ an advisory
body. He increased the number of senators, bringing in provincials as
well as Roman citizens. He gave full citizenship to all the
_Transpadane Gauls_, and to numerous communities in
_Transalpine Gaul_, in _Spain_, and elsewhere. He
established a wide-spread colonization, thus planting his veterans in
different places abroad, and lessening the number of proletarians in
Italy. He rebuilt _Carthage_ and _Corinth_. He re-organized
the army, and the civil administration in the provinces. In the space
of five years, while he was busy in important wars, he originated
numerous governmental measures of the utmost value.

THE MOTIVES OF CAESAR.--The designs of Caesar and of his party are to
be distinguished from what they actually accomplished. Caesar was not
impelled by a desire to improve the government of the provinces, in
taking up arms against the Senate. Nor did he owe his success to the
support of provincials; although, in common with the rest of the
democratic party at Rome, he was glad to have them for allies. The
custom had grown up of virtually giving to eminent generals, absolute
power for extended intervals. This was done, for example, in the case
of _Marius_, on the occasion of the invasion of the
_Cimbrians_ and _Teutones_. In such exigencies, it was found
necessary to create what was equivalent to a military
dictatorship. The idea of military rule became familiar. The
revolution made by Caesar was achieved by military organization, and
was a measure of personal self-defense on his part. Being raised to
the supreme power, he sought to rule according to the wise and liberal
ideas which were suggested by the actual condition of the world, and
the undesirableness of a continued domination of a single city, with
such a populace as that of Rome. Before he could carry out his large
schemes, he was cut down.

ASSASSINATION OF CAESAR.--Caesar was tired of staying in Rome, and was
proposing to undertake an expedition against the Parthians. Neither
his clemency nor the necessity and the merits of the government
sustained by him, availed to shield him against the machinations of
enemies. The aristocratic party detested his policy. He was suspected
of aiming at the title, as well as the power, of a king. A conspiracy
made up of numerous senators who secretly hated him, of other
individuals influenced by personal spite, and of republican
visionaries like _Cassius_ and _Junius Brutus_, who gloried
in what they considered tyrannicide, assaulted him on the ides of
March (March 15, 44 B.C.) in the hall of _Pompeius_, whither he
had come to a session of the Senate. He received twenty-three wounds,
one of which, at least, was fatal, and fell, uttering, a tradition
said, a word of gentle reproach to Brutus, one who had been counted a
special friend. _Cicero_ had acquiesced in the new government,
and eulogized _Caesar_ and his administration. But even he
expressed his satisfaction at the event which left the republic
without a master. An amnesty to those who slew Caesar was advocated by
him, and decreed by the Senate.

THE SECOND TRIUMVIRATE.--The Senate gave to the leading conspirators
provinces; to _Decimus Brutus_, Cisalpine Gaul. But at Rome there
was quickly a re-action of popular wrath against the enemies of
Csesar, which was skillfully fomented by _Marcus Antonius_ in the
address which he made to the people over his dead body, pierced with
so many wounds. The people voted to give Cisalpine Gaul to
_Antonius_, and he set out to take it from _Decimus Brutus_
by force of arms. _Cicero_ delivered a famous series of harangues
against Antonius, called the _Philippics. Antonius,_ being
defeated, fled to _Lepidus_, the governor of Transalpine
Gaul. _Octavius_, the grand-nephew and adopted son of
_Caesar_, a youth of eighteen, now became prominent, and at first
was supported by the Senate in the hope of balancing the power of
_Antonius_. But in October, 43, _Octavianus_ (as he was
henceforward called), _Antonius,_ and _Lepidus_ together
formed a second triumvirate, which became legal, by the ratification
of the people, for the period of five years. A proscription for the
destruction of the enemies of the three contracting parties was a part
of this alliance. A great number were put to death, among them
_Cicero_, a sacrifice to the vengeance of Antonius. War against
the republicans was the necessary consequence. At _Philippi_ in
Thrace, in the year 42, _Antonius_ and _Octavianus_ defeated
_Brutus_ and _Cassius_, both of whom committed
suicide. _Porcia_, the wife of _Brutus_, and the daughter of
_Cato_, on hearing of her husband's death, put an end to her own
life. Many other adherents of the republic followed the example of
their leaders. The victors divided the world between themselves,
_Antonius_ taking the east, _Octavianus_ the west, while to
the weak and avaricious _Lepidus_, Africa was assigned; but he
was soon deprived of his share by _Octavianus_.

CIVIL WAR: ACTIUM.--_Antonius_ was enamoured of _Cleopatra_,
and, following her to Egypt, gave himself up to luxury and sensual
gratification. Civil war between _Octavianus_ and the followers
of _Antonius_ in Italy (40, 41 B.C.) was followed by the marriage
of _Octavia_, the sister of _Octavianus_, to
_Antonius_. But after a succession of disputes between the two
regents, there was a final breach. _Antonius_ (35) went so far as
to give Roman territories to the sons of _Cleopatra_, and to send
to _Octavia_ papers of divorce. The Senate, at the instigation of
_Octavianus_, deprived his unworthy colleague of all his
powers. War was declared against _Cleopatra_. East and West were
arrayed in arms against one another. The conflict was determined by
the naval victory of _Octavianus_at _Actium_ (Sept. 2, 31
B.C.). Before the battle was decided, _Cleopatra_ fled, and was
followed by _Antonius_. When the latter approached
_Alexandria_, _Antonius_, deceived by the false report that
_Cleopatra_ had destroyed herself, threw himself upon his sword
and died. _Cleopatra_, finding herself unable to fascinate the
conqueror, but believing that he meant that she should adorn his
public triumph at Rome, poisoned herself (30). _Egypt_ was made
into a Roman province. The month _Sextilis_, on which
_Octavianus_returned to Rome, received in honor of him the name
of "August," from "Augustus," the "venerated" or "illustrious," the
name given him in 27 B.C. by the Roman people and Senate. He
celebrated three triumphs; and, for the third time since the city was
founded, the Temple of Janus was closed.



PERIOD V.  THE IMPERIAL MONARCHY: _TO THE MIGRATIONS OF THE TEUTONIC
TRIBES (375 A.D.)._



CHAPTER I.  THE REIGN OF AUGUSTUS.


AUGUSTUS AS A RULER.--The long-continued, sanguinary civil wars made
peace welcome. _Augustus_ knew how to conceal his love of power
under a mild exterior, and to organize the monarchy with a nominal
adherence to republican forms. The controlling magistracies, except
the censorship, were transferred to him. As _Imperator_, he had
unlimited command over the military forces, and was at the head of a
standing army of three hundred and forty thousand men. To him it
belonged to decide on peace and war. The _Senate_ became the real
legislative body, issuing _senatus-consulta_. There was also a
sort of "cabinet council" chosen by him from its members. The
authority of the _Tribunes_ belonged to him, and thus the popular
assemblies became more and more a nullity. "The Senate was made up of
his creatures; the people were won by bread and games; the army was
fettered to him by means of booty and gifts." While the forms of a
free state remained, all the functions of authority were exercised by
the ruler.

STATE OF THE EMPIRE.--(1) _Its Extent_. The Roman Empire extended
from the Atlantic to the Euphrates, a distance of more than three
thousand miles, and from the Danube and the English Channel--later,
from the friths of Scotland--to the cataracts of the Nile and the
African desert. Its population was somewhere from eighty millions to
one hundred and twenty millions. It was composed of the _East_
and the _West_, a distinction that was not simply geographical,
but included deeper characteristic differences. (2) _The
Provinces_.  The provinces were divided (27 B.C.) into the
_proconsular_, ruled by the Senate, and the _imperial_,
ruled by the legates of Augustus. His authority, however, was
everywhere supreme. Over all the empire extended the system of Roman
law, the rights and immunities of which belonged to Roman citizens
everywhere. (3) _The Two Languages_. It was a
_Romano-Hellenic_ monarchy. Local dialects remained; but the
_Greek_ language was the language of commerce, and of polite
intercourse in all places. The Greek tongue and Hellenic culture were
the common property of the nations. The _Latin_ was prevalent
west of the Adriatic. It was adopted in Africa, Spain, Gaul, and in
other provinces. It was the language of courts and of the camp. (4)
_Journeys and Trade_. The Roman territory was covered with a
net-work of magnificent roads. Journeys for purposes of trade and from
motives of curiosity were common. Religious pilgrimages to famous
shrines were frequent. The safety and peace which followed upon the
civil wars stimulated traffic and intercourse between the different
regions united under the imperial government.

LITERATURE.--The Augustan period was the golden age of Roman
literature. Literary works were topics of conversation in social
circles. Libraries were collected by the rich. The shops of
booksellers were places of resort for cultivated people. There were
active and liberal patrons of poets and of other men of letters. Such
patrons were _Maecenas_, _Horace's_ friend, and
_Augustus_ himself. Then favors were repaid by praises and
flattery, as we see in the verses of _Horace_, _Virgil_, and
especially of _Ovid_. The lectures of grammarians and
rhetoricians, of philosophers and physicians, were largely
attended. Literary societies were formed. Periodicals and bulletins
were published, in which the proceedings of the Senate and of the
courts were recorded. The business of _scribes_--copyists of
manuscripts--engaged a vast number of persons.

WRITINGS OF CICERO.--Cicero (106-43), in his philosophic writings,
reproduces the thoughts and speculations of the Greek sages, in the
manner of a cultivated and appreciative student. His speeches and his
epistles, especially those to his friend, _Atticus_, lift the
veil, as it were, and afford us most interesting glimpses of the civil
and social life of the Romans of that day.

THE POETS.--One of the most original of the Latin poets is
_Lucretius_ (95-51 B.C.), whose poem "On the Nature of Things" is
an effort to dispel superstitious fear by inculcating the Epicurean
doctrine that the world is self-made through the movement and
concussion of atoms, and that the gods leave it to care for itself. A
contemporary of Lucretius, and a poet of equal merit, but in an
altogether different vein, is _Catullus_. He is chiefly noted for
his lyrics. _Virgil_ (70-19 B.C.), in the _Aeneid_, has
produced a genuine Roman epic, although his dependence on Homer is
obvious throughout, and in the _Bucolics_, and in particular in
the _Georgics_, where he shows most originality, has made himself
immortal as a pastoral poet. _Horace_ (65-8 B.C.), like most of
the Roman authors, in many of his poems is inspired by his Greek
models, but, in his _Satires_ and _Poetic Epistles_,
expresses the character of his own genius. His "Odes," for their
beauty and melody and the variety of their topics, rank among the best
of all productions of their kind. _Ovid_ (43 B.C.-A.D. 18), in
his chief work, the _Metamorphoses_, handled the mythical tales
of the Greeks, and, in his poems on _Love_, likewise introduced
many Grecian tales. He was much influenced by the Alexandrian poets.

THE HISTORIANS.--In historical composition, most of the Roman authors
had Greek patterns before their eyes. Nevertheless, _Livy_ (59
B.C.-A.D. 17), thirty-five of the one hundred and forty-two books of
whose "Annals" have been preserved, and _Sallust_, to whom we are
indebted for narratives of the conspiracy of Cataline and of the
Jugurthine war, are far from being servile copyists. The simple and
lucid but graceful style of the _Commentaries_ of _Caesar_
makes this work an example of the purest Latin prose.

LAW WRITERS.--In one department, that of jurisprudence, the Romans
were eminently original. The writings of the great jurists were simple
and severe, and free from the rhetorical traits which Roman authors in
other departments borrowed from the Greeks.

  OTHER AUTHORS.--Among other eminent authors of this period are the
  great Roman antiquary _Varro_ (116-27 B.C.); the elegiac poets,
  _Tibullus_ and _Propertius_; _Phaedrus_, the Roman
  Aesop; the historian, _Cornelius Nepos_; and the Greek
  historical writers of that day, _Diodore_ of Sicily and
  _Dionysius_ of Halicarnassus; also _Strabo_, the Greek
  geographer (64 B.C.-A.D. 24).



THE INTRODUCTION OF CHRISTIANITY.

THE JEWS AND THEIR DISPERSION.--There were three ancient peoples, each
of which fulfilled an office of its own in history. The _Greeks_
were the intellectual people, the _Romans_ were founders in law
and politics: from the _Hebrews_ the true religion was to
spring. At the epoch of the birth of Jesus, the Hebrews, like the
Greeks and Romans, were scattered abroad, and mingled with all other
nations. Wherever they went they carried their pure monotheism, and
built their synagogues for instruction in the law and for common
worship. In the region of _Babylon_, a multitude of Jews had
remained after the captivity. Two out of the five sections of
_Alexandria_ were occupied by them. At _Antioch_ in Syria,
the other great meeting-place of peoples of diverse origin and
religion, they were very numerous. In the cities of Asia Minor, of
Greece and Macedonia, in Illyricum and in Rome, they were planted in
large numbers. Jewish merchants went wherever there was room for
profitable trade. Generally regarded with aversion on account of their
religious exclusiveness, they nevertheless made so many proselytes
that the Roman philosopher, _Seneca_, said of them, "The
conquered have given laws to the conquerors." Prophecy had inspired
the Jews with an abiding and fervent expectation of the ultimate
conquest of heathenism, and prevalence of their faith. If the hope of
a temporal Messiah to free them from the Roman yoke, and to lead them
to an external victory and dominion, burned in the hearts of most,
there were some of a more spiritual mind and of deeper aspirations,
who looked for One who should minister to the soul, and bring in a
reign of holiness and peace.

PREPARATION FOR CHRISTIANITY AMONG THE HEATHEN.--In the heathen world,
there was not wanting a preparation for such a Deliverer. The union of
all the nations in the Roman Empire had lessened the mutual antipathy
of peoples, melted down barriers of feeling as well as of intercourse,
and weakened the pride of race. An indistinct sense of a common
humanity had entered the breasts of men. Writers, like _Cicero_,
talked of a great community, a single society of gods and men. The
_Stoic philosophy_ had made this idea familiar. Mankind, it was
said, formed one city. Along with this conception, precepts were
uttered in favor of forbearance and fraternal kindness between man and
man. In religion, there was a drift towards monotheism. The old
mythological religion was decaying, and traditional beliefs as to
divine things were dissolving.  Many minds were yearning for something
to fill the void,--for a more substantial ground of rest and of
hope. They longed for a goal on which their aspirations might center,
and to which their exertions might tend. The burden of sin and of
suffering that rested on the common mass excited at least a vague
yearning for deliverance. The Roman Empire, with all its treasures and
its glory, failed to satisfy the hearts of men. The dreams of
philosophy could not be realized on the basis of ancient society,
where the state was every thing, and where no higher, more
comprehensive and more enduring kingdom could spring into being.

CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES.--Four years before the date assigned for the
beginning of the Christian era, _Jesus_ was born. _Herod_, a
tyrannical king, servile in his attitude toward the Romans, and
subject to them, was then ruling over the Jews in Palestine. But, when
Jesus began his public ministry, the kingship had been abolished, and
Judaea was governed by the procurator, _Pontius Pilate_
(A.D. 26). Jesus announced himself as the _Messiah_, the founder
of a kingdom "not of this world;" the members of which were to be
brethren, having God for their Father. He taught in a tone of
authority, yet with "a sweet reasonableness;" and his wonderful
teaching was accompanied with marvelous works of power and mercy, as
"he went about doing good." He attached to himself twelve disciples,
among whom _Peter_, and the two brothers _James_ and
_John_, were the men of most mark. These had listened to the
preaching of _John_, the prophet of the wilderness, by whom Jesus
had been recognized as the Christ who was to come. The ministry of the
Christ produced a wide-spread excitement, and a deep impression upon
humble and truth-loving souls. But his rebuke of the ruling class, the
_Pharisees_, for their formalism, pretended sanctity,
self-seeking, and enslavement to tradition, excited in them rancorous
enmity. His disappointment of the popular desire for a political
Messiah chilled the enthusiasm of the multitude, many of whom had
heard him gladly. After about three years, he was betrayed by one of
his followers, _Judas Iscariot_; was accused of heterodoxy and
blasphemy before the Jewish Sanhedrim; the consent of Pilate to his
death was extorted by a charge of treason based on the title of
"king," which he had not refused; and he was crucified between two
malefactors. Not many days elapsed before his disciples rallied from
their despondency, and boldly and unitedly declared, before
magistrates and people, that he had manifested himself to them in
bodily form, in a series of interviews at definite places and
times. They proclaimed his continued though invisible reign, his
perpetual presence with them, and his future advent in power. In his
name, and on the ground of his death, they preached the forgiveness of
sins to all who should believe in him, and enter on a life of
Christian obedience. In the year 33 or 34, the death of
_Stephen_, the first martyr, at the hands of a Jewish mob, for a
time dispersed the church at Jerusalem, and was one step towards the
admission of the Gentiles to the privileges of the new faith. But the
chief agent in effecting this result, and in thus giving to
Christianity its universal character and mission, was the Apostle
_Paul_, a converted Pharisee. _Antioch_ in Syria became the
cradle of the Gentile branch of the church, and of the missions to the
heathen, in which Paul was the leader; while _Peter_ was
efficient in spreading the gospel among the Jews in Palestine and
beyond its borders. By Paul numerous churches were founded in the
course of three extended missionary journeys, which led him beyond
Asia into Macedonia, Greece, and Illyricum. By him the gospel was
preached from Jerusalem to Rome, where he died as a martyr under
_Nero_ in 67 or 68. Not far from the same time, according to a
credible tradition, Peter, also, was put to death at Rome. The
preachers of the Christian faith pursued their work with a fearless
and untiring spirit, and met the malignant persecution of the Jews and
the fanatical assaults of the heathen with patient endurance and with
prayer for the pardon and enlightenment of their persecutors.

THE VICTORY OF THE GERMANS.--Augustus avoided war when he could. His
aim was to defend the frontiers of the empire rather than to extend
them. The Parthians were prevailed on to return of their own accord
the standards and prisoners taken from the army of _Crassus_. But
in Germany, _Drusus_, the brave step-son of _Augustus_, made
four campaigns on the east of the Rhine, as far as the Weser and the
Elbe. On his way back from the Elbe, a fall from his horse terminated
his life (9 B.C.). His brother, _Tiberius_, managed to establish
the Roman power over a part of the Germanic tribes on the right bank
of the river (4 B.C.) Long before (27 B.C.) the western shore of the
river had been formed into two provinces, _Upper_ and _Lower
Germany_. An incapable and incautious general, _Quintilius
Varus_, excited the freedom-loving Germans to revolt under the
brave chief of the _Cherusci_, _Arminius_ (or
Hermann). Three Roman legions were annihilated in the _Teutoburg_
forest, Varus taking his own life. The civil and military chiefs who
were taken captive, the Germans slew as a sacrifice to their gods. The
rest of the prisoners were made slaves. "Many a Roman from an
equestrian or a senatorial house grew old in the service of a German
farmer, as a servant in the house, or in tending cattle without."
There in the forest of _Teutoburg_ the Germans practically won
their independence. On hearing the bad news, Augustus, for several
days, could only exclaim, "Varus! give me back my legions!" After the
death of Augustus, in his seventy-sixth year, the noble son of Drusus,
_Germanicus_, conducted three expeditions against _Arminius_
(A.D. 14-16), obtained a victory over him, and took his wife prisoner,
who died in captivity; but the Romans permanently held only the left
bank of the Rhine.

ROMAN LIFE.--Various particulars characteristic of Roman ways have
been, or will be, incidentally referred to. A few special statements
may be given in this place. The Romans, like the Greeks, built a town
round a height (or capitol) where was a stronghold (_arx_), a
place of refuge. Here temples were erected. The _forum_, or
market-place, was near by, where the courts sat, and where the people
came together to transact business. The dwellings were on the sides of
the hill, or on the plain beneath. The streets were narrow. The
exterior of the houses was plain. They were of brick, generally
covered with stucco, and whitewashed. Glass was too costly to be much
used: hence the openings in the walls were few. When the space became
valuable, as in Rome, the houses were built high. The chief room in
the house was the _atrium_, which, in earlier times, was not only
the common room but also the bedroom of the family. In the primitive
dwellings it had been the only room. A passage led from it through a
door-way into the street. In front and on both sides were apartments,
and in the rear a walled court, or garden. Large houses had several
inclosed courts. Rich men and nobles built magnificent palaces. The
walls of Roman dwellings within were decorated with fresco-paintings,
some of which at Pompeii are left in all their freshness. Round the
dinner-table were couches, on which those who partook of the meal
reclined. In other rooms chairs were plentifully supplied. Lamps were
very numerous and of beautiful design, but the wick was so small that
they gave but little light. There was little furniture in the
_atrium_. Statues stood round the walls of this room, if the
house were one of the better sort, and in open presses on the walls
were the images or masks of the distinguished ancestors of the
family. At a funeral of a member of the household they were worn in
the procession by persons representing the deceased progenitors.

DRESS.--The principal material of a Roman's dress was woolen
cloth. The main article of wearing apparel for a man was the
_toga_, thrown over the shoulders, and brought in folds round the
waist in a way to leave the right arm free. Under it was a tunic. At
the age of about seventeen, the boy publicly laid aside the
_toga_ with a purple hem, and put on the white toga, the token of
citizenship. Women wore a long tunic girded about the waist, with a
tunic and a close-fitting vest beneath. Except on a journey or in an
open theater, as a protection from the sun, neither men nor women wore
any covering on the head. Women, when they walked abroad, wore veils
which did not cover the face. The color and form of the shoes varied
with the rank of the individual, and were significant of it. In the
house, sandals were used.

ORDER OF OCCUPATIONS.--The interval from sunrise to sunset was divided
into twelve hours. The seventh hour of the day began at noon. At the
third hour, there was usually a light meal, which was followed by
business, or visits of friendship. The wealthy Roman was followed
about the city by a throng of clients, who called on him with their
morning greeting before he rose, and received their gift of food or
money. At noon came the _prandium_, or more substantial
breakfast. This was followed by a short sleep, in the case of those
who were at leisure to take it. Then came games and physical exercise
of various sorts. A favorite recreation, both for young and old, was
ball-games. Exercise was succeeded by the bath, for which the Romans
from the later times of the republic had a remarkable fondness. In
private houses the bathing conveniences were luxurious. The emperors
built magnificent bath-houses, which included gymnasia, and sometimes
libraries. What is now called the Turkish bath was very much in
vogue. Dinner, or the _cena_, the principal meal, was about
midway between noon and sunset. The fork was not used at the table,
but only in carving; but spoons, and sometimes, it would appear,
knives, were used by the host and his guests. The food was so carved
that it was usually taken with the fingers. At the table, the toga was
exchanged for a lighter garment, and sandals were laid aside. The
beverage was wine mixed with water. At banquets of the rich, after the
dessert of fruit and cakes had been taken, there was, in later times,
the _convivium_, or social "drinking-bout." Under the empire,
this became often a scene of indecent revelry. The Roman dinner-table
was not so likely as a Greek repast to be enlivened by flashes of
intellect and of wit, or by music furnished by the guests. Musicians
were more commonly hired performers, as were also the dancers. The
Romans enjoyed games of chance. Playing with dice, and gambling along
with it, became common.

MARRIAGE AND THE HOUSEHOLD.--There were two kinds of marriage. By one
the wife passed entirely out of the hands (_manus_) of the father
into the hands of the husband, or under his control. There was
frequently a religious rite (_confarreatio_); but, when this did
not take place, the other customary ceremonies were essentially the
same. At the betrothal the prospective bride was frequently presented
with a ring, and with some more valuable gift, by the man whom she was
to marry. In the household, notwithstanding the supreme authority of
the husband, the wife had an honored position and an active
influence. The children were, in law, the property of the
father. Their lives were at his disposal. The mother had charge of
their early training. The father took the principal charge of the
young boy, taught him athletic exercises, and took him to the forum
with him. Schools began to exist in the early period. Boys and girls
studied together. The _pedagogue_ was the servant who accompanied
the child to school, and conducted him home. Greek was studied. The
law of the Twelve Tables was committed to memory. Virgil and Horace
became school-books, along with Cicero and earlier writers. In the
later republican period, Greeks took the business of teaching largely
into their hands. There were flourishing schools of rhetoric managed
both by Greek and by Latin teachers. Young Romans who could afford to
do so went to Athens and other cities in the East for their university
training.

SLAVES.--Town-slaves were found in the richer families in great
numbers (p. 152). They were not only employed in menial occupations:
they were clerks, copyists, sculptors, architects, etc., as well as
actors and singers. The work of the farm-slaves was harder. They were
shut up in the night in large barracks, made partly under ground, into
which was admitted but little light or air. They often worked in
chains. In town and country both, the unlimited power of the master
led to great severity and cruelty in the treatment of slaves. Women as
well as men were often guilty of brutal harshness. Females as well as
males were the sufferers. The town-slave, however, might be favored by
his master: he might be allowed to save money of his own, and might,
perhaps, buy his freedom, or receive it as a gift. During the holidays
of the _Saturnalia_, slaves were allowed unusual privileges and
pleasures.  The _freedmen_ could become citizens, and were then
eligible to any office.

MAGISTRATES.--A Roman who sought office went round soliciting votes.
This was called _ambitio_ (from _ambire_, to go round),
whence is derived the English word _ambition_. He presented
himself in public places in a toga specially whitened, and was hence
called a _candidate_ (from _candida_, meaning
_white_). He sought to get support by providing shows and
games. The voting was by ballot. Magistrates had their seats of honor,
which were made in a particular shape. In the different forms used in
the trial of causes, there was one general practice,--the magistrate
laid down the law, and referred the judgment as to the facts in the
case to an umpire, either an individual or a special court.



THE JULIAN IMPERIAL HOUSE.

C. JULIUS CÆSAR, _m_. Aurelia.
|
+--C. JULIUS CÆSAR.
|
+--Julia, _m_. M. Atius Balbus.
   |
   +--Atia, _m_. C. Octavius.
      |
      +--C. Octavius (adopted as son by the will of Julius)
         became C. JULIUS CÆSAR OCTAVIANUS AUGUSTUS, _m_.
         2, Scribonia;
         |
         +--Julia
            _m_. 2, M. Vipsanius Agrippa.
            |
            +--Agrippina,
            |  _m_. Germanicus.
            |  |
            |  +--CAIUS (Caligula),
            |  |  _m_. Cæsonia,
            |  |  |
            |  |  +--Julia Drusilla.
            |  |
            |  +--Agrippina,
            |     _m_. Cn. Domitius.
            |     |
            |     +--L. DOMITIUS NERO,
            |        _m_. Poppæa Sabina.
            |        |
            |        +--Claudia Augusta.
            |
            +--Julia,
               _m_. Æmilius Paulus.
               |
               +--Æmilia Lepida, _m_.
                  1, CLAUDIUS;
                  2, Junius Silanus.
                  |
                  +--Junia Calvina,
                     _m_. VITELLIUS.

         3, Livia.
         |
         +--TIBERIUS (adopted as son by Augustus).



THE CLAUDIAN IMPERIAL HOUSE.


TIBERIUS CLAUDIUS NERO.
_m_. Livia Drusilla (afterwards wife of AUGUSTUS).
|
+--TIBERIUS CLAUDIUS NERO.
|
+--Drusus Claudius Nero,
   _m_. Antonia, daughter of the Triumvir and niece of Augustus.
   |
   +--Germanicus,
   |  _m_. Agrippina.
   |
   +--TI. CLAUDIUS DRUSUS,
      _m_. 5, Valeria Messalina.
      |
      +--Octavia,
      |  _m_. NERO.
      |
      +--Britannicus.
      |
      +--By adoption, NERO.



CHAPTER II.  THE EMPERORS OF THE AUGUSTAN HOUSE.


TIBERIUS.--During the long reign of the prudent _Augustus_, there
was peace within the borders of the empire. He said of himself, that
he "found Rome of brick, and left it of marble." This change may be
taken as a symbol of the growth of material prosperity in the Roman
dominions. But in his private relations, the emperor was less
fortunate. His daughter _Julia_, a woman of brilliant talents,
disgraced him by her immorality, and he was obliged to banish her. Her
two elder sons died when they were young. The empire devolved on his
adopted step-son _Tiberius_ (14-37), who endeavored to continue
the same conservative policy. Tiberius was at first alarmed by
mutinies among the troops in Pannonia and on the Rhine. The army of
the Rhine urged _Germanicus_, the emperor's adopted son and
probable successor, to lead it to Rome, promising to place him on the
throne, but _Germanicus_ succeeded in quieting the
disturbance. As there were during this reign no great wars,
_Tiberius_ was able to devote himself more exclusively to the
civil administration. He transferred from the popular assembly to the
Senate the right of choosing the magistrates, emphasizing in this way
the dual system that Augustus had created. The rights of the Senate he
appeared scrupulously to respect. For the more effective government of
the city of Rome he established there a permanent prefecture and
brought together in a camp before the Viminal gate the nine prætorian
cohorts. Unhappily this Prætorian Guard, which might serve to overawe
the city mobs, might also interfere in the affairs of
government. Indeed, a little later it had to be counted with in the
choice of emperors. The notorious _Sejanus_ was prefect during a
large part of this reign, and acquired so completely the confidence of
Tiberius that he began to plot his overthrow. He had already caused
_Drusus_, the son of Tiberius, to be poisoned in order to remove
one obstacle. Finally the emperor discovered his plots and caused him
to be arrested and put to death (31). For several years Tiberius had
been living in retirement on the island of _Capreæ_. There his
enemies represented him as given over to debauchery, while the lives
of Roman citizens were never safe from his suspicions or from the
accusations of the _delators_, men who presented formal charges
of crime, there being no public prosecutors. Earlier in his reign
_Tiberius_ had shown a serious purpose to improve the
administration of justice, but with the lapse of years he became
distrustful and cruel. He had, moreover, changed the law of treason so
that to write or speak slightingly of the emperor was interpreted as
conspiracy to bring the commonwealth into contempt and was punished
with death. Although he was justly hated by the Roman nobles, in the
provinces he was respected because he sought to protect them against
extortion and to foster their general interests. He died in the year
37 at the age of seventy-eight.

CALIGULA.--There was no law for the regulation of the succession. But
the Senate, the prætorians, and the people united in calling to the
throne _Caius_, the son of Germanicus (37-41). This ruler, called
_Caligula_, at first mild and generous in his doings, soon rushed
into such excesses of savage cruelty and monstrous vice that he was
thought to be half-deranged. He was fond of seeing with his own eyes
the infliction of tortures. His wild extravagance in the matter of
public games and in building drained the resources of the
empire. After four years, this madman was cut down by two of his
guards whom he had grievously insulted.

CLAUDIUS.--_Claudius_, the uncle and successor of
_Caligula_, and the son of Drusus and Antonia, was not bad, but
weak. He was a student and a recluse in his habits. His favorites and
nearest connections were unprincipled. The depravity of his wife,
_Messalina_, was such that he did right in sanctioning her
death. The immoral and ambitious _Agrippina_, whom he next
married, had an influence less malign. But she was unfaithful to her
husband; and this fact, together with the fear she felt that
_Nero_, her son by her first marriage, would be excluded from the
throne, impelled her to the crime of taking the life of
_Claudius_ by poison.

NERO.--_Nero_ reigned from 54 to 68. He was the grandson of
Germanicus, and had been the pupil of the philosopher _Seneca_,
and of _Burrus_, an excellent man, the captain of the Prætorian
Guard. The first five years of Nero's reign were honorably
distinguished from the portion of it that followed. When a warrant for
the execution of a criminal was brought to him, he regretted that he
had ever learned to write. His first great crime was the poisoning of
_Britannicus_, the son of _Claudius_. Nero became enamored
of a fierce and ambitious woman, _Poppæa Sabina_. On the basis of
false charges, he took the life of his wife, _Octavia_, the
daughter of Claudius (A.D. 62). His criminal mother, Agrippina, after
various previous attempts made by him to destroy her, was dispatched
by his command (A.D. 59). His unbridled cruelty and jealousy moved him
to order _Seneca_, one of the men to whom he owed most, to commit
suicide. He came forward as a musician, and nothing delighted him so
much as the applause rendered to his musical performances. He recited
his own poems, and was stung with jealousy when he found himself
outdone by _Lucan_. His eagerness to figure as a charioteer
prompted him, early in his reign, to construct a circus in his own
grounds on the _Vatican_, where he could exhibit his skill as a
coachman to a throng of delighted spectators. At length he appeared,
lyre in hand, on the stage before the populace. Senators of high
descent, and matrons of noble family, were induced by his example and
commands to come forward in public as dancers and play-actors. The
public treasure he squandered in expensive shows, and in the lavish
distribution of presents in connection with them.

THE CHRISTIANS.--_Nero_ has the undesirable distinction of being
the first of the emperors to persecute the Christians. In A.D. 64 a
great fire broke out at Rome, which laid a third of the city in
ashes. He was suspected of having kindled it; and, in order to divert
suspicion from himself, he charged the crime upon the Christians, who
were obnoxious, _Tacitus_ tells us, on account of their "hatred
of the human race." Their withdrawal from customary amusements and
festivals, which involved immorality or heathen rites, naturally gave
rise to this accusation of cynical misanthropy. A great number were
put to death, "and in their deaths they were made subjects of sport;
for they were covered with the hides of wild beasts, and worried to
death by dogs, or nailed to crosses, or set fire to, and, when day
declined, were burned to serve for nocturnal lights." At length a
feeling of compassion arose among the people for the victims of this
wanton ferocity. Prior to this time, while the Christians were
confounded with the Jews as one of their sects, they had been more
protected than persecuted by the Roman authorities. Now that they were
recognized as a distinct body,--the adherents of a new religion not
identified with any particular nation, but seeking to spread itself
everywhere,--they fell under the condemnation of Roman law, and were
exposed to the hostility of magistrates, as well as to the wrath of
the fanatical populace.

Nero was a great builder. The ground which had been burnt over in the
fire he laid out in regular streets, leaving open spaces, and limiting
the height of the houses. But a large area he reserved for his "Golden
House," which, with its lakes and shady groves, stretched over the
ground on which the Coliseum afterwards stood, and as far as the
Esquiline.

THE CITY OF ROME.--Ancient Rome was mostly built on the left bank of
the Tiber. It spread from the Palatine, the seat of the original
settlement, over six other hills; so that it became the "city of seven
hills." All of them appeared higher than they do now. Of these hills
the Capitoline was the citadel and the seat of the gods. In earlier
days, from a part of the summit, the Tarpeian Rock, criminals were
hurled. In time the hill became covered with public edifices, of which
the grandest was the Temple of "Capitoline Jupiter." On the Palatine
were eventually constructed the vast palaces of the emperors, the
ruins of which have been uncovered in recent times. The walls of
_Servius Tullius_ encompassed the seven hills. The walls
constructed by _Aurelian_ (270-275 A.D.), _Probus_, and
_Honorius_ (402 A.D.), inclosed an area twelve miles in
circumference. The streets were most of them narrow; and, to economize
space, the houses were built very high. One of the finest, as well as
most ancient, thoroughfares was the _Via Sacra_, which ran past
the Coliseum, or the Flavian amphitheater, and under the Triumphal
Arch of _Titus_, erected after the capture of Jerusalem, along
the east of the Forum to the Capitol. There was a particular street in
Rome where shoemakers and booksellers were congregated. The central
part of the city was thronged, and noisy with cries of teamsters and
of venders of all sorts of wares. The _fora_--one of which, the
"Roman Forum," between the Capitoline and the Palatine, was the great
center of Roman life--were open places paved, and surrounded with
noble buildings,--temples, and _basilicas_, or halls of
justice. The _fora_ were either places for the transaction of
public business, or they served the purpose of modern
market-places. Among the public buildings of note were the vast
colonnades, places of resort both for business and for recreation. The
sewers, and especially the aqueducts, were structures of a stupendous
character. Among the most imposing edifices in ancient Rome were the
baths. Those built by _Diocletian_ had room for three thousand
bathers at once. In these establishments the beauty of the gardens and
fountains without was on a level with the elegance of the interior
furnishings, and with the attraction of the libraries, paintings, and
sculptures, which added intellectual pleasure to the physical comfort
for which, mainly, these gigantic buildings were constructed. Besides
the Temple of Jupiter Capitolinus, there were many other temples, some
of which were but little inferior to that majestic edifice.

The triumphal arches--as that of _Titus_, already mentioned,
which was built of Pentelic marble--and the commemorative columns--as
the Column of _Trajan_, which stood in the forum that bears his
name--were among the architectural wonders of the ancient capital of
the world. The plain, named of old the _Campus Martius_, on the
north-west side of the city, and bordering on the Tiber, contained,
among the buildings and pleasure-grounds by which it was covered, the
Pantheon, and the magnificent mausoleum of Augustus. On the south-west
of the Coelian Hill, the Appian Way turns to the south-east, and
passes out of the Appian Gate. It is skirted for miles with sepulchral
monuments of ancient Romans, of which the circular tomb of _Metella
Cæcilia_ is one of the most interesting. There are varying
estimates of the population of ancient Rome. Probably the number of
free inhabitants, in the early centuries of the empire, was not far
from a million; and the slaves were probably almost as many.

DEATH OF NERO: GALBA.--Growing jealous of the legates who commanded
armies on the frontiers, _Nero_ determined to destroy them. They
consequently revolted; and war between the troops of two of them
issued in the death of _Vindex_, the general in Gaul.  But
_Galba_ was deputed to carry on the contest; and Nero, being
forsaken even by his creature, _Tigellinus_, and the prætorians,
at last gained courage to call on a slave to dispatch him, and died
(A.D.  68) at the age of thirty. The principal events out of Italy,
during his reign, were the revolt of the Britons under the brave queen
_Boadicea_ (A.D. 61), and the suppression of it by _Suetonius
Paulinus_; the war with the Parthians and Armenians, extending
slightly the frontier of the empire; and the beginning of the Jewish
war. Despite the corruption at Rome, her disciplined soldiers still
maintained their superiority on the borders.

OTHO: VITELLIUS.--With the death of Nero, the Augustan family came to
an end. _Galba_ began the series of military emperors. A Roman of
the old type, simple, severe, and parsimonious, he pleased nobody. The
prætorians killed him, and elevated _Otho_, a profligate noble,
to the throne; but he was obliged to contend with a rival aspirant,
_Vitellius_, commander of the German legions, who defeated him,
and became emperor A.D. 69. Vitellius was not only vicious, like his
predecessor, but was cowardly and inefficient. The Syrian and Egyptian
legions refused to obey so worthless a ruler, and proclaimed their
commander, _Flavius Vespasian_, as emperor. As Vespasian's
general, _Antonius_, approached Rome, _Vitellius_ renounced
the throne, and declared his readiness to retire to private life. His
adherents withstood him; and, in the struggle that followed between
the two parties in the city, the Capitoline Temple was burned. The
Flavian army took Rome, and _Vitellius_ was put to an ignominious
death (A.D. 69).



CHAPTER III.  THE FLAVIANS AND THE ANTONINES.


VESPASIAN: THE JEWISH WAR.--_Vespasian_, the first in the list of
good emperors, restored discipline in the army and among the
prætorians, instituted a reform in the finances, and erected the
immense amphitheater now called the _Coliseum_, for the
gladiatorial games. By his general, _Cerealis_, he put down the
revolt in Germany and Eastern Gaul, and thus saved several provinces
to the empire. _Civilis_, the leader of the rebellion, had aimed
to establish an independent German principality on the west of the
Rhine.  Vespasian had begun the war with the Jews while _Nero_
reigned (A.D. 66). The Romans had to face a most energetic
resistance. Among the captives taken by them in Galilee was the Jewish
historian, _Josephus_. At the end of A.D. 67, all Galilee was
subdued. The fanatical, or popular, party, the _Zealots_, got the
upper hand at _Jerusalem_. The city was torn with the strife of
violent factions. In A.D. 70 commenced the memorable siege by
_Titus_, the son of Vespasian, the details of which are given by
_Josephus_.  The fall of the city was attended with the
conflagration of the temple. Although the estimate given by
_Josephus_ of the number that perished during the siege, which he
places at eleven hundred thousand, is exaggerated, it is true that the
destruction of life was immense. The inhabitants of the city who were
not killed were sold as slaves. In _Britain_ a most competent
officer--_Agricola_, the father-in-law of Tacitus--was made
governor in A.D. 78. He conquered the country as far north as the
_Tyne_ and the _Solway_, and built a line of forts across
the isthmus between England and Scotland.

TITUS (A.D. 79-81).--Vespasian's firm and beneficent reign was
followed by the accession of _Titus_, who had been previously
associated by his father with himself in the imperial office. Titus
was mild in temper, but voluptuous in his tastes, and prodigal in
expenditures. One of the marked events of his short reign was the
destruction of the cities of _Pompeii_ and _Herculaneum_ by
a great eruption of Vesuvius (A.D. 79). The uncovering of the streets
and buildings of _Pompeii_ in recent times has added much to our
knowledge of ancient arts and customs. A terrible fire and destructive
pestilence at Rome were regarded as sent by the gods, not on account
of the sins of the emperor, but of the nation.

DOMITIAN (A.D. 81-96).--_Domitian_, the younger brother of
_Titus_, succeeded him. By nature autocratic, he refused to share
the government with the senate, as Augustus had planned. In order the
more completely to control this body he assumed the censorship for
life. In the latter part of his reign _Domitian_, like
_Tiberius_, was gloomy and suspicious, and committed many acts of
tyranny. He was killed by the freedmen of his own palace
(A.D. 96). His war with the _Dacians_ on the Danube had been
concluded by the dubious stipulation to pay them an annual tribute as
a reward for abstaining from predatory incursions into _Moesia_
(A.D. 90). For the first time, Rome purchased peace of her
enemies. _Domitian_ was guilty of persecuting the Christians,
among whom, it is now known, was included at least one member of his
own family, his niece, _Flavia Domatilla_, who was also allied to
him by marriage. The epistle of _Clement_ of Rome, the oldest
extant Christian writing after the Apostles, refers to the barbarities
inflicted upon Christian disciples by this tyrant.

NERVA (A.D. 96-98).--The Senate now took the initiative, and placed on
the throne one of their own number, _Nerva_, an old man of mild
and virtuous character. The administration was in every point in
contrast with the preceding. But the best thing Nerva did was to
provide for the curbing of the prætorians by appointing, with the
concurrence of the Senate, a most competent man to be his colleague
and successor.

TRAJAN (A.D. 98-117).--_Trajan_ was a native of Spain, and had
been brought up in the camp. He belongs among the very best of the
Roman emperors. He upheld the ancient laws and institutions of the
state. He provided for the impartial administration of justice. He
restored freedom of speech in the Senate. He founded schools, and
establishments for the care of orphans, facilitated commerce by
building new roads, bridges, and havens, and adorned Rome with a
public library, and with a new and magnificent forum, or market-place,
where "Trajan's Column" was placed by Senate and people as a monument
of his victories and services.

He relished the society of literary men like the historian
_Tacitus_. He was an intimate friend of _Pliny_ (the
younger), whose correspondence while he was governor of
_Bithynia_ throws much light upon the emperor's character and
policy. Trajan's own manner of life was simple, and free from
luxury. To the people he furnished lavishly the diversions which they
coveted. He made an aggressive war against the _Dacians_ on the
Danube, and constituted a new province of _Dacia_. He carried his
arms into the _Parthian_ territory; and three new
provinces--_Armenia, Mesopotamia_, and _Assyria_--were the
fruit of his campaign in the East. In a letter to _Pliny_, he
defined the policy to be pursued towards Christians, who had become
very numerous in the region where _Pliny_ governed.  The effect
of the emperor's rescript was to place Christianity among the
religions under the ban of the law. This decision was long in force,
and guided the policy of future emperors towards the new
faith. HADRIAN (A.D. 117-138).--Trajan was succeeded by
_Hadrian_, a lover of peace,--a cultivated man, with
extraordinary taste in the fine arts, and their generous patron. He
was diligent and full of vigor in the transaction of public
business. Although genial and affable, his temper was not so even as
that of Trajan; and he was guilty of occasional acts of cruelty. He
spent the larger portion of his reign in traveling through his
dominions, personally attending to the wants and condition of his
subjects. He constructed great works in different portions of the
empire: in Rome, his Mausoleum (now the _Castle of St. Angelo_),
and his grand temple of Rome and Venus. He began the wall connecting
the Scottish friths. A fresh revolt broke out among the _Jews_
(A.D. 131), under a fanatic named _Bar-Cocaba_, which was
suppressed in 135. _Jerusalem_ was razed to the ground; and the
Jewish rites were forbidden within the new city of _Ælia
Capitolina_, which the emperor founded on its site. This gave a
finishing blow to the Jewish and Judaizing types of Christianity
within the limits of the Church.

ANTONINUS PIUS (A.D. 138-161).--_Antoninus Pius_ was the adopted
son and successor of Hadrian. He was one of the noblest of princes, a
man of almost blameless life. His reign was an era of peace, the
golden age in the imperial history. He fostered learning, was generous
without being prodigal, was firm yet patient and indulgent, and
watched over the interests of his subjects with the care of a
father. It is a sign of the happiness of his reign that it does not
afford startling occurrences to the narrator.

MARCUS AURELIUS (A.D. 161-180).--Hardly less eminent for his virtues
was the next in the succession of sovereigns, _Marcus Aurelius_
(161-180). "A sage upon the throne," he combined a love of learning
with the moral vigor and energy of the old Roman character, and with
the self-government and serenity of the Stoic school, of the tenets of
which he was a noble exemplar as well as a deeply interesting
expounder. A philosopher was now on the throne; and his reign gives
some countenance to the doctrine of Plato, that the world could be
well governed only when philosophers should be kings, or kings
philosophers. He endured with patience the grievous faults of his wife
_Faustina_, and of his brother by adoption, and co-regent,
_Lucius Verus_. He protected the eastern frontier against
_Parthia_. In the war with the _Marcomanni_, he drove the
German tribes back over the Danube, and gained a signal victory over
the _Quadi_ in their own land. His great object was to strike
terror into the barbarian enemies of the empire on the north, and
prevent future incursions. Although victorious in many of his battles,
he failed to accomplish this result. The danger from barbarian
invasion increased with the lapse of time. Before his work was
finished, _Marcus Aurelius_ died at _Vindobona_ (Vienna), in
March, 180. During his reign, there was persecution of
Christians. Especially the churches of _Lyons_ and _Vienne_
have left a record of their sufferings. The virtuous emperors, who
were strenuous in their exertions to maintain the old laws and
customs, were apt to be more severe in their treatment of Christians,
whom they ignorantly regarded as a mischievous sect, than were those
emperors who were men of looser principles.

STATE OF MORALS.--The Roman Empire, in the declining days of
heathenism, presented the spectacle of a flourishing civilization in
contrast with extreme moral degeneracy. Rich and populous cities;
stately palaces; beautiful works of art--as vases, statues, carved
altars--on every hand; bridges and aqueducts, and noble highways,
binding land to land; institutions of education in the provincial
cities as well as in Rome; a thriving trade and commerce; a rapid
spread of the Roman language, of the Roman legal system, and Roman
culture and manners over the subject countries,--these are among the
signs and fruits of civilization. But with all this outward prosperity
and elegance, there was a growing sensuality, a decay of manly
feeling, a disregard of the sanctity of the marriage tie, an
insatiable hunger for wealth and for the pleasures of sense. One of
the most corrupting features in the social condition was
_slavery_. Every Roman of moderate means aspired to own at least
a few slaves. Some owned from ten to twenty thousand, mostly
field-hands. Many householders possessed as many as five
hundred. _Horace_ gives it as a sign of the simplicity of his
life as a bachelor, that he is waited on at table by only three
slaves. Slave-holding among the Romans brought in temptations to all
sorts of brutality and vice. It brought a poisonous atmosphere into
every household. Nothing more clearly illustrates the moral
degradation of this period than the character of the sports in which
people of all ranks delighted. The most attractive theatrical
performances came to be comedies, from the Greek and Latin plays of
the same order, where scenes were introduced from the licentious
stories of the Greek mythology. But the _Pantomime_, which was
often of an unchaste and even obscene character, gradually usurped the
place of every other exhibition on the stage. The chief amusements of
the people of all classes were the _Circus_ and the
_Arena_. In the _Circus_, before hundreds of thousands of
spectators, nobles of ancient lineage competed in the chariot
race. _Gladiatorial games_, which had first taken place at
funerals, and in honor of deceased friends, acquired an almost
incredible popularity. At the games instituted by _Augustus_, ten
thousand men joined in these bloody combats. In the festivals under
the auspices of _Trajan_, in A.D. 106, eleven thousand tame and
wild animals were slain. Not satisfied with seeing pairs of men engage
in mortal conflict, the Romans were eager to witness bloodshed on a
larger scale. The emperors provided actual battles between hundreds
and, in some cases, thousands of men, which were beheld by countless
spectators. On an artificial lake in Cæsar's garden, _Augustus_
gave a sea-fight in which three thousand soldiers were engaged. The
effect of these brutal spectacles of agony and death was inevitably to
harden the heart.

LITERATURE.--If the sanguinary fights in the arena excited little or
no condemnation, the prevalence of various other sorts of immorality,
at variance with the practice of better days, could not fail to call
out different forms of censure.

One of these forms of protest was through the _satirical
poets_. Of these caustic writers, _Persius_ (34-62) is obscure
and of a moderate degree of merit. _Juvenal_ (about 55-135), on
the contrary, is spirited and full of force. _Martial_ (43-101),
a Spaniard by birth, was the author of numerous short poems of a pithy
and pointed character, called _epigrammata_. All these poets, if
we make proper discount for the exaggeration of satire, are very
instructive as to the manners and morals of their time. _Lucian_
(120-200), who wrote in Greek, the best known of whose works are his
"Dialogues," touched with his broad humor a great many of the
superstitions and follies of the day.

The popular teachers in the imperial time were the
_rhetoricians_, analogous to the Greek _Sophists_,--teachers
of rhetoric and eloquence,--one of whom, _Quintilian_ (who was
born about 40, and died about 118), was the first to receive from the
public treasury a regular salary, and had among his pupils the younger
_Pliny_ and the two grand-nephews of _Domitian_. The
influence of the mania for rhetoric was more and more to impart an
artificial character to literature and art. The epic poems of such
writers as _Lucan_ and _Statitis_ are to a large extent
imitations; although Lucan's principal poem, "Pharsalia," gives
evidence of poetic talent. Where there was so little productive
genius, it was natural that grammarians and commentators should
abound. There was one great writer, the historian _Tacitus_
(about 54-117), who towers above his contemporaries, and in vigor and
conciseness has seldom been equaled. The elder _Pliny_ (23-79),
whose curiosity to witness the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 cost him his
life, was a famous observer and author in natural history. His nephew,
the younger _Pliny_, the friend of Trajan, has left to us ten
books of "Epistles," which present an agreeable picture of the life
and thoughts of a cultivated Roman gentleman. The philosopher
_Seneca_, with the exception of _Marcus Aurelius_, the most
eminent expositor of the Roman Stoic school, was a voluminous
author. No ancient heathen writer has uttered so many thoughts and
precepts which bear a resemblance to teachings of the New Testament.

The study that nourished most in this period is
_Jurisprudence_. It is the classic era of the jurists. Persons
versed in the law were preferred by the emperors for high offices. Men
who would have been statesmen under the Republic, found a solace and
delight in legal studies. Among the most learned jurists of this era,
were _Caius Papinian_, and _Ulpian_. Of the Greek writers,
one of the most important is _Plutarch_ (about 50-120), whose
"Lives," and "Essays" (or _Moralia_), are among the most
delightful and instructive of all the works of antiquity. One of the
noblest philosophical writers of that or of any other period is the
Stoic _Epictetus_ (50-c.120).

The two most popular systems of philosophy in the closing days of the
Republic and the early period of the Empire, were the Stoic and the
Epicurean. The severity of the Stoic doctrine was somewhat softened by
its Roman teachers; but the rigorous self-control, the superiority to
misfortune, and the contempt of death, which it recommended, found
favor with noble Romans in dark days. _Cato_ and other champions
of the falling Republic were disciples of this school. Later, New
Platonism, of a mystical and contemplative type, secured many
adherents.

SKEPTICISM.--Long before the fall of the Republic, faith in the old
mythology had begun to decline. This change followed upon an intimate
contact of the Romans with the Greek religion. It was hastened by the
familiarity acquired by the Romans with so great a variety of heathen
systems. The decay of morality was attended with a spread of
skepticism as regards the supernatural world altogether. In the course
of the debate in the Roman Senate on the punishment of the
confederates of _Catiline_, _Julius Caesar_ opposed their
execution, on the ground that death puts an end to consciousness, and
thus to all suffering. It does not appear that in that body, where
_Cicero_ and _Cato_ were present, any one disputed this
tenet. _Cicero_ in his philosophical essays advocates the
doctrine of immortality by arguments, mostly gathered from Greek
sources,--arguments some of which are of more and some of less
weight. His correspondence, on the contrary, even in times of
bereavement, affords no proof that this consoling truth had any
practical hold upon his convictions.

SUPERSTITION.--The spread of skepticism was attended, as time went on,
with a re-action to the other extreme of superstition. Magic and
sorcery came into vogue. There was an eagerness to become acquainted
with Oriental religious rites, and to pay homage to deities worshiped
in the East with mysterious ceremonies. Another tendency strongly
manifest was towards what is called _syncretism_, or a mingling
of different religious systems. It was hoped that the truth might be
found by combining beliefs drawn from many different quarters. This
eclectic drift was signally manifest in religion as well as in
philosophy.



CHAPTER IV.  THE EMPERORS MADE BY THE SOLDIERS: THE ABSOLUTE MONARCHY.


COMMODUS.--Rome had enjoyed good government for eighty-four
years. This was owing to the fact that her sovereigns had been
nominated to their office, instead of inheriting it. None of the
emperors during this interval had male children. _Marcus
Aurelius_ made the mistake of associating with him in power his son
_Commodus_, who was eighteen years old when his father died, and
reigned alone from 180 to 192. He began his despicable career as sole
ruler by buying peace of the _Marcomanni_ and the
_Quadi_. He turned out to be a detestable tyrant, who was
likewise guilty of the worst personal vices. He was strangled in his
bedroom by one of his concubines, _Marcia_, with the assistance
of others, all of whom he was intending to kill. At this time the
army, where there had been more energy and virtue than in any other
class, began to decline in discipline. Society was growing more and
more corrupt. It proves the inherent strength of the organization of
the Roman Empire, that, amid all the causes of disintegration and
decay, it lasted for two centuries longer.


I. EMPERORS MADE BY THE SOLDIERS.

We now enter upon a period of military license. The emperors are
appointed by the soldiers. The rulers, when the soldiers fall out with
them, are slain. In the course of ninety-two years, from 192 to 284,
twenty-five emperors, with an average reign of less than four years
for each, sat on the throne. Only two reigns exceeded ten years. Ten
emperors perished by violence at the hands of the soldiers. A real
advantage in this way of making emperors, was, that supreme power
might thus devolve on able generals; but another, and a fatal result,
was the demoralizing of the armies, by whose favor the rulers of the
state were set up and pulled down.

TO ALEXANDER SEVERUS (A.D. 222).--The assassins of Commodus, with the
assent of the praetorians, made a worthy senator, _Pertinax_,
emperor; but his honesty and frugality, and his disposition to
maintain discipline among the soldiers, caused them to murder him
three months after his accession (193). It is said that they then sold
the imperial office at auction to a rich senator, but the leaders of
the armies in different regions refused their consent. Of these,
_Septimius Severus_ (193-211) made his way to the throne, and put
down his rivals. The empire became a military despotism. A garrison of
forty thousand troops, the prefect of whom was in power second only to
the sovereign, took the place of the old prætorians. _Severus_
was a good general. In a war against the Parthians, he captured
Ctesiphon, their capital. _Caracalla_, his son (211-217), was a
base tyrant. He was murdered by the prætorian prefect,
_Macrinus_, who reigned for a short time (217-218), but perished
in consequence of his attempts to reform the discipline of the
army. _Heliogabalus_ (218-222) was not more cruel than others had
been, but his gross and shameless debauchery was without a precedent.

POWER OF THE PROVINCES: DISCORD.--In the reign of _Caracalla_ is
placed the Edict which gave the rights of citizenship to all the free
inhabitants of the Roman Empire. The provinces had been steadily
rising in power and influence. At Rome, among officials of the highest
grade, as well as in the higher professions, there was a throng of
provincials. The provinces were disposed to nominate emperors of their
own. It was hard for the central authority to keep under control the
frontier armies. To add to these sources of division, there was a
growing jealousy between the East and West, owing to a difference in
language, ideas, and interests. _Persia_ was soon to threaten the
empire on the East, and Gothic barbarians to invade its territories.

ALEXANDER SEVERUS: PERSIA.--_Alexander Severus_ (222-235) was a
man of pure morals, and sincerely disposed to remedy abuses and to
govern well. But the evils were too great for the moderate degree of
vigor with which he was endowed. The overthrow of the _Parthian_
kingdom, in 226, created, in the _New Persian Monarchy_, a
formidable enemy to Rome. Alexander did little more than check the
advance of Persia. In a war against the Germans, he was slain by his
own soldiers.

TO DECIUS (A.D. 249).--The fierce and brutal _Maximin_, who had
excited the soldiers of _Alexander Severus_ to mutiny, reigned
from 235 to 238. The Senate roused itself to resist his advance into
Italy; and he, and his son with him, were killed in his tent by his
soldiers. _Gordian_ (238-244) at least held the frontier against
the attacks of the Persians. _Philip_, an Arabian, probably a
Roman colonist, after reigning from 244 to 249, was supplanted by
_Decius_, whom his rebellious Moesian and Pannonian soldiers
raised to power.

DECIUS TO CLAUDIUS (A.D. 250-268).--The short reign of _Decius_
was marked by the first general persecution of the Christian
Church. During his reign, the _Goths_ (A.D. 250) invaded the
empire. They traversed _Dacia_, and crossed the Danube. They
ravaged _Moesia_, and even made their way into
Thrace. _Decius_ was defeated by them in _Moesia_, and
slain. The peril of the empire continually increased. The German
tribes on the north, the Goths on the Lower Danube and the Euxine, and
Persia in the east, arrayed themselves in hostility.

The reigns of _Valerian_ (253-260) and of his associate and
successor, _Gallienus_ (260-268), were marked by continuous
disaster. Numerous independent rulers--"the thirty
tyrants"--established themselves, generally for a very short time, in
different regions. In the East, one kingdom, the capital of which was
_Palmyra_, and which had for a ruler _Zenobia_, the widow of
its founder, lasted for ten years (264-273). The _Goths_ occupied
_Dacia_, and from the Cimmerian Bosphorus sent out their
predatory expeditions in all directions, plundering cities, including
_Athens_ and _Corinth_, and carrying off immense booty to
their homes south of the Danube. The _Persians_ conquered
_Armenia_, took _Valerian_ prisoner, advanced into Syria,
and burned Antioch.

TO DIOCLETIAN (A.D. 284).--It would seem as if the Roman empire was on
the verge of dissolution. But a series of vigorous emperors--among
them _Claudius_ (268-270) and _Aurelian_ (270-275)--quelled
rebellion within its borders, and re-established its boundaries;
although _Aurelian_ gave up to the Goths _Dacia_, which had
been of no benefit to the empire. _Probus_ (276-282) was a
prudent as well as valiant ruler. _Carus_ (282-283) invaded
Persia, captured _Seleucia_ and _Ctesiphon_, and might,
perhaps, have completed the conquest of the country, but for his
death. _Numerianus_ (283-284) was the last in the succession of
rulers during this period of military control, of which the corruption
of the army was the worst result.



II. THE ABSOLUTE MONARCHY (TO A.D. 375).

DIOCLETIAN.--Once more the gigantic and weakened frame of the Roman
Empire was invigorated by a change in the character of the chief
rulers and in the method of government. _Diocletian_ (284-305),
one of a number of energetic emperors who were of Illyrian birth,
first stripped the imperial office of its limitations, and converted
it into an absolute monarchy. This new system was carried to its
completion by _Constantine_. _Diocletian_ took from the
Senate what political jurisdiction was left to it. He abolished the
difference between the treasury of the state and the private coffers
of the prince. The precedence of Rome was taken away by making other
great cities to be seats of government. There were to be two emperors
under the title of _Augustus_, with two _Caesars_ under
them; and thus the empire was divided, for administrative purposes,
into four parts. _Maximian_, the second Augustus, was to rule
over Italy, Africa, and the islands, with _Milan_ for his
residence. _Constantius Chlorus_ had the western provinces,
--Spain, Gaul, and Britain. At _Nicomedia_, _Diocletian_, a
man of imposing presence and of great talents as a statesman,
exercised rule for twenty years with efficiency and success. The new
system, if it involved the peril of strife among the regents, led to a
more vigilant and efficient government in the different provinces, and
provided for a peaceful succession to the throne. But the government
came to resemble, in the omnipotence of the emperor, in the obsequious
homage paid to him, and in the cringing manners of the court, an
Oriental despotism. The old heathen religion was considered by
conservative Romans to be an essential part of the imperial system,
and indispensable to the unity of the empire. It was this view, in
connection with other influences, which moved _Diocletian_, near
the close of his reign, in 303, to set on foot a systematic
persecution of the Christian Church, by a series of extremely severe
and well-contrived measures, through which it was designed to
extirpate the new religion. The last great persecution, in the reign
of _Decius_, cruel though it had been, did not approach in
severity this final effort to exterminate the disciples of the
Christian faith, who had now become very numerous. Terrible sufferings
were inflicted, but without avail. In 305 Diocletian, partly on
account of a serious illness, formally abdicated, and obliged
_Maximian_ to do the same. Civil wars followed, until
_Constantine_, the son of _Constantius_, gained the
supremacy, first as joint ruler with _Licinius_, who governed in
the East, and then, after a bloody struggle which began in A.D. 314,
as sole master of the empire (A.D. 323).

CONSTANTINE (A.D. 306-337).--The career of _Constantine_ was
stained by acts of cruelty towards members of his own family. In the
closing period of his life, he was less just and humane than in
earlier days. The change which had taken place in the imperial system
was signally manifest in his removal of the seat of government to
CONSTANTINOPLE, which was built up by him, and named in his
honor. Placed between Europe and Asia, on a tongue of land where it
was protected from assault, it was admirably suited for a
metropolis. But the change of capital involved dangers for the western
portions of the empire, exposed as they were to the assaults of the
barbarians. The changes in the government begun by Diocletian were
completed by Constantine. The empire was divided, for purposes of
government, into four _prefectures_, each of which was subdivided
into _dioceses_. _Constantine_ established, likewise,
different classes of nobles, the type of modern systems of
nobility. He organized the army afresh, under the _Master of the
Horse_ and _Master of the Foot_, each, however, commanding, in
action, both infantry and cavalry, and each having under him
_dukes_ and _counts_. In short, the system of central and
despotic administration, with subordinate rulers, which
_Diocletian_ began, was perfected by
_Constantine_. Diocletian, in order to fortify the imperial power
against the army, had shared his power with "a cabinet of emperors,"
which his genius enabled him to control. To prevent the breaking up of
the empire through the system of viceroys thus created to preserve it,
Constantine separated the civil authority from the military as regards
the subordinate rulers, while both functions were united in
himself. He still further exalted his throne by giving it even more of
an Oriental character, by creating a multitude of officials, who were
satellites of the sovereign, and by becoming the secular head and
guardian of the Christian Church. The arrangements of his court, with
its grades of officials, from the chamberlain downwards, were after
the Oriental pattern.


THE DOWNFALL OF HEATHENISM.

PROGRESS OF CHRISTIANITY.--The failure of the grand attempt of
_Diocletian_ to exterminate Christianity was an indication of its
coming triumph. Its progress had been gradual yet rapid, and, in its
earlier stages especially, obscure. Of the labors of most of the
apostles we know little. On the approach of the Jewish war (p. 180),
the Apostle _John_, and other Christians with him, had repaired
to Asia Minor. There, at _Ephesus_, this apostle lived until the
reign of _Trajan_, and from that center exerted a wide influence,
the traces of which are marked and various. The cities were the
principal scenes of early missionary work. They were the "strategic
points." In them it was easier for Christian preachers to gain a
hearing, and in them they were exempt from the hindrance created by
strange dialects. Wherever Christians went, even for purposes of trade
or mechanical industry, they carried the seeds of the new
doctrine. Even with regard to the churches of _Alexandria_ and
_Carthage_, which became so flourishing, and in the case of the
church at _Rome_ itself, we can not say how they were first
planted. The exultant terms in which the ecclesiastical writers at the
end, and even as early as the middle, of the second century speak of
the increasing number of the converts, proves that the Christian cause
was fast gaining ground. Its adherents were sometimes of the higher
class, but mostly from the ranks of the poor.

PERSECUTIONS.--Persecution from the side of the heathen began among
the populace. Always when fire, tempest, or plague occurred, they were
ascribed to the wrath of the heathen gods at the desertion of their
altars, and the cry was for Christian blood. But Christianity, from
the time of _Trajan_, was an illegal religion. Magistrates might
at any time require Christians to do homage to the emperor's bust, or
to burn incense to the old divinities. To make a proselyte of a Roman
citizen, or to meet in private companies for worship, was
unlawful. The persecutions by public authority have been said to be
ten; but this number is too small if all of them are reckoned, and too
large if only those of wide extent are included. The constancy with
which even young women and children sometimes endured the torture,
excited wonder in the beholders. Among the more noted martyrs are
_Ignatius_, bishop of Antioch (116); _Polycarp_, bishop of
Smyrna, who had been a pupil of the Apostle John, and was put to death
in 155; and _Cyprian_, the aged bishop of Carthage, one of the
leading ecclesiastics of the time, who suffered under _Valerian_
in 258.

THE CHURCH UNDER CONSTANTINE.--The accession of Constantine made
Christianity the predominant religion in the Roman Empire. His
conversion was gradual. More and more he came to rely for support in
his conflicts with his rivals upon the God of the Christians. The sign
of the cross, which he said that he beheld in the sky, and which led
him to make the cross his standard, may have been an optical illusion
occasioned partly by his own mental state at the moment, when, after
prayer, he was standing at noon-day in the door of his tent. He
remained, like many others in that day, not without relics of the old
beliefs, as is seen from inscriptions on his coins, and other
evidences. His own baptism he deferred until he was near his end, on
account of the prevalent idea that all previous guilt is effaced in
the baptismal water. The edict of unrestricted toleration was issued
from _Milan_ in 312. _Constantine_ did not proscribe
heathenism. He forbade immoral rites, and rites connected with magic
and sorcery. But, with this exception, heathen worshipers were not
molested. But the emperor gave his zealous personal countenance to the
Christian cause, and marks of his favor to its adherents. By the
privileges and immunities which he granted to the Church and its
ministers, he did more than he would have been likely to effect by the
use of severity against its adversaries. ORGANIZATION OF THE
CHURCH.--The early Christian societies were little republics, at first
under the supervision of the apostles. Their organization shaped
itself partly after the model of the synagogue, and partly from the
pattern of the civil communities and the voluntary associations about
them. In the apostolic age a body of _elders_ or _bishops_
and a body of _deacons_ in each church guided its affairs, while
the members took an active part in the choice of their officers, and
in the general direction of ecclesiastical proceedings. In the second
century, when we get a distinct view of the churches after the obscure
interval that follows the age of the apostles, we find that over the
elders is a _bishop_, whose office grows in importance as the
churches become larger, as the need of more compact organization is
felt, and as the clergy become more and more distinct from the
laity. The bishop of the city church acquires jurisdiction over the
adjacent country churches. The bishop in the capital of each province
comes to exercise a certain superintendence within the province. This
is the _metropolitan_ system. More and more the bishops of the
great cities, especially _Rome_, _Alexandria_, and
_Antioch_, exercise a parallel supervision in larger divisions of
the empire. This is the _patriarchal_ system. As early as the
closing part of the second century, the catholic or universal church
presents itself before us, conceived of as a unity which is made such
by the hierarchy of bishops, and by connection with the apostolic
sees,--the churches founded by the apostles in person. As the apostles
were thought of as having a head in _Peter_, the bishops of Rome,
who were looked on as his successors, had accorded to them a
precedence over other bishops. The grandeur of Rome, the strength of
the church there, its services to other churches in the empire,
especially in the West, together with many other considerations
additional to its alleged historic relation to Peter and to Paul, gave
to the Roman See, as time went on, a growing and acknowledged
pre-eminence. The custom of holding synods helped to build up the
unity of the Church, and to give power and dignity to its officials.

SECTS: THEOLOGY.--The Church from the beginning had to contend with
opposing sects. There was a desire to amalgamate the Christian
doctrine with other systems. On the _Jewish_ side, the
_Ebionites_ clung to the Old Testament ritual observances, a part
of them being bitterly hostile to the Apostle Paul, and another part,
the _Nazareans_, not sharing this fanatical feeling, but still
adhering to the Jewish ceremonies. On the other hand, the
_Gnostics_ introduced a dualism, and ascribed to the
_Demiurge_--a second deity, either subordinate to the supreme
God, or antagonistic to him--the origination of this world and of the
Old Testament religion. They made a compound of Christianity, Judaism,
and heathen religion and speculation, each Gnostic sect giving to one
or the other of these ingredients the preponderance in the strange and
often fantastic medley. The controversy with heathenism was prosecuted
with the pen. Of the numerous defenses of Christianity, now addressed
to heathen rulers and now to its opponents in private stations, the
most remarkable work in the first three centuries was the writing of
_Origen_--who was the most eminent of the teachers of theology at
_Alexandria_--in reply to _Celsus_. Origen, after scholarly
labors so vast as to earn for him the title of the _Adamantine_,
died in 254, in consequence of his sufferings in the Diocletian
persecution. Two defenses of the Christian faith, composed about the
middle of the second century by _Justin Martyr_, are specially
instructive as to the state of Christian opinion and the customs of
the Church. The first great center of theological activity was
_Alexandria_, where philosophy was studied in a liberal
spirit. In the East, the questions relative to the divinity of Jesus
and the relation of the divine to the human nature, engrossed
attention. In the West, it was the practical aspects of theology, the
doctrine of sin and of the deliverance of the will by grace, which
were chiefly discussed. The _Arian_ controversy grew out of the
assertion by _Arius_, a presbyter of Alexandria, that Jesus was
the first-made of all beings, the instrument of the creation of all
other beings, but himself a creature. The leader of the orthodox
opposition to this opinion was the famous Alexandrian archdeacon,
afterwards bishop, _Athanasius_. This debate it was which led to
the assembling, under the auspices of _Constantine_, of the
_Council of Nicaea_ (A.D. 325), the first of a series of General
Councils, for the adjudication of doctrinal disputes, that were held
in this and the following centuries. The Arian doctrine was condemned
at Nicaea, and, after a long contest in the period subsequent, was
finally determined to be heretical. In the West, the main controversy
was that raised by _Pelagius_, respecting the power of the will,
the native character of men, and the agency of God in their
conversion. In this debate, _Augustine_ (354-430), the most
eminent theologian of the West, bishop of _Hippo_ in North
Africa, was the renowned champion of the doctrine of _grace_
against what he considered an exaggerated assertion of
_free-will_. Pelagianism was condemned in the West, and nominally
in the East where views intermediate between the Pelagians and
Augustinians commonly prevailed. The most eminent scholar contemporary
with Augustine was _Jerome_, who died in 420, the author of the
Latin version of the Scriptures, called the _Vulgate_. Preceding
Augustine in North Africa, early in the third century, was
_Tertullian_, a vigorous and fervid writer, who first made Latin
the vehicle of theological discussion; and, a little later,
_Cyprian_, whose works relate chiefly to church unity and
hierarchical government, of which he was a devoted champion. Late in
the second century, _Irenaeus_, bishop of Lyons in Gaul, one of
the most eminent ecclesiastics of that day, composed an elaborate work
against the Gnostic heresies. _Irenaeus_ had known
_Polycarp_, a disciple of John the apostle.

CHRISTIAN LIFE.--Passing within the sphere of Christian life, there
can be no doubt that Christianity exerted a power, of which there had
been no experience before, in reforming the character and conduct of
those even who had been addicted to crime and vice. The fraternal
feeling of Christians for one another impressed the heathen about them
as something new and singularly attractive. It expressed itself in
unstinted charity for those in poverty, and in helpfulness for all
sorts of distress. The church was a home for the weary and
friendless. In the strong reaction against the sensuality of a
dissolute society, ascetic tendencies appeared, which, in process of
time, issued in monasticism. _Anthony_ of Thebes, born about 250,
was one of the earliest and most celebrated of the _Anchorites_,
who chose a hermit life, and abjured all the luxuries of life and most
of the comforts which belong to social existence. To the
_Anchorites_ succeeded the _Caenobites_, societies of monks
who dwelt in a common habitation under fixed rules; and these were
naturally followed by _confederacies_ of such communities under
one organization. The monastic vows were _poverty_, or the
renunciation of property; _celibacy_, or abstinence from
marriage; and _obedience_ to the conventual superior. Sometimes
in the early centuries great evils and abuses sprang up in connection
with monastic life. For example, monks might become fanatical and
violent. But they furnished numerous examples of sincere piety, and of
unselfish and intrepid self-sacrifice for the welfare of others.

CHANGES IN WORSHIP.--As the Church grew in numbers and wealth, costly
edifices were constructed for worship. The services within them became
more elaborate. At length art was called in to adorn the Christian
sanctuaries. Sculpture and painting were enlisted in the work of
providing aids to devotion. Relics of saints and martyrs were
cherished as sacred possessions. Religious observances were
multiplied; and the Church, under the Christian emperors, with its
array of clergy and of imposing ceremonies, assumed much of the
stateliness and visible splendor that had belonged to the heathen
system which it had supplanted.

LAST DAYS OF HEATHENISM.--When Christianity had become powerful, its
disciples forgot the precepts of their Master, and sometimes
persecuted the heathen. Christian mobs demolished the old temples. The
great temple of _Serapis_ in _Alexandria_ was destroyed, and
the statue of the god was broken in pieces. _Theodosius I._
(379-395) made the celebration of heathen rites a capital offense, and
confiscated the property by which heathen worship had been
supported. Arians, too, he persecuted, but with less harshness. The
Eastern emperor, _Justinian_, suppressed the school of New
Platonic philosophers at Athens, and banished the teachers
(529). Heathenism lingered in remote districts, and was hence called
_paganism_, or the religion of rustics. The last adherents of the
ancient religion inhabited in the seventh century remote valleys of
the Italian islands. The oracles were for ever dumb. The old
divinities were never more to be invoked. But it was not by force that
heathenism was extirpated. If it had not lost its vitality, it would
have survived the penal laws against it. It perished by the expulsive
energy of a better faith.

CAUSES OF THE TRIUMPH OF CHRISTIANITY.--The causes of the spread and
triumph of Christianity lie ultimately in the need which men feel of
religion, especially in times of dread and distress, and in the
intrinsic excellence which was felt to belong to Christianity. In the
first and second centuries the dreary feeling engendered by the hollow
skepticism that prevailed was favorable to the Christian cause. There
was a void to be filled, and the gospel came to fill it. In the third
century, when the progress of Christianity was specially rapid, there
was a perceptible revival of religious feeling among the heathen; and
this, too, operated to the advantage of the gospel. At least it must
have done so in numerous instances. In that century the terrible
plagues which desolated the empire, with the sufferings that sprung
from wild anarchy and misgovernment, made the church a welcome asylum
for the afflicted. In the _first_ place, Christianity was a
religion. It was neither a merely speculative nor a merely moral
system. It took hold of the supernatural. _Secondly_, it
presented to a corrupt society a moral ideal of spotless
perfection. _Thirdly_, it offered, in the doctrine of the cross,
a welcome solace,--consolation in life, with a sense of
reconciliation, and the hope of everlasting good. Other causes, such
as _Gibbon_ enumerates, were operative. But these are themselves
mostly _effects_ or _aspects_ of the gospel; or they were
_auxiliary_, not _principal_, causes.

CHRISTIANITY AND LIBERTY.--The founders of Christianity had no thought
of becoming the authors of a political revolution. They had a very
different purpose in view. To overthrow the existing order of society
would have been equally unwise and impracticable. What was needed was
a new spirit of justice and of love. The virtues that were called for
then were the _passive_ virtues,--gentleness, forbearance, the
calm endurance of ills of which there was no present remedy. The
Christian spirit, therefore, did not evoke in the disciples of the new
faith sentiments of liberty akin to those which had belonged to Greek
and Roman heroes. Indirectly, however, Christianity brought into human
society the germs of liberty. In the _first_ place, while it
enjoined absolute submission to rulers, it made an exception whenever
their commands should require disobedience to God's law. This position
involved the denial to the state of that absolute supremacy accorded
to it by the ancients. The allegiance to the state became a
_qualified_ allegiance. _Secondly_, there arose within the
state another community, which took into its hands, to a large extent,
the regulation of social life. The boundaries of the two authorities
might be indistinct, but there was a real division of control between
them. It is true that tyranny might arise within the Christian
organization itself: still, its very existence planted on the earth a
principle of liberty, which was destined ultimately to work out the
destruction of all tyranny, whether civil or religious. For the first
time the rulers of the Roman world were faced by an opposition, meek
yet too inflexible for all their power to overcome. This is the first
stage in the history of modern liberty. The "heroic and invincible
_Athanasius_" as _Milton_ styles him, boldly confronted
_Constantine_ and his successors, and chose to spend twenty years
of his life in voluntary or enforced exile rather than bow to their
tyrannical decrees. _Ambrose_, the great archbishop of
_Milan_, compelled the Emperor _Theodosius_--who, in a fit
of anger had ordered a massacre at _Thessalonica_--to do penance
before he could be admitted to the communion. Such occurrences
indicate that the days of imperial omnipotence, even over unarmed
subjects, were past.

SUCCESSORS OF CONSTANTINE.--Constantine left his empire to his three
unworthy sons. _Constantine_, the eldest, had the Western
provinces for his share. He endeavored to wrest Italy from his brother
_Constans_, but was slain at _Aquileia_ (340). This event
left Constans the master of the entire West. He took up his abode in
Gaul, where he was slain by _Magnentius_, the leader of a
mutinous body of soldiers (350). _Constantius_ was at
_Edessa_, engaged in war against the Persians. He marched
westward, and routed Magnentius at _Mursia_, in Pannonia. This
rival fled to Gaul, and was there attacked and
destroyed. _Gallus_, the cousin of Constantius, was put to death
for the murder of one of the emperor's officers (354). _Julian_,
the brother of Gallus, was the sole remaining survivor of the family
from which the emperor sprung. _Constantius_, under whom the
whole empire was now for a few years (357-361) united, made a
triumphal visit to Rome. He was the defender of the Arians, but he
found it impossible to coerce the Roman Christians into the adoption
of his opinion. The orthodox bishop whom he had banished, was
restored.  _Constantius_ was succeeded by his cousin
_Julian_ (361-363), commonly called the
_Apostate_. Fascinated by the heathen philosophy, and a secret
convert to the old religion, he



THE IMPERIAL HOUSE OF CONSTANTINE.


CONSTANTIUS CHLORUS, _m_.
1, Helena;
|
+--CONSTANTINE I (the Great) _m_.
   1, Minervina;
   2, Fausta
   |
   +--CONSTANTINE II.
   |
   +--CONSTANTIUS II.
   |  |
   |  +--Constantia,
   |     _m_. GRATIAN.
   |
   +--CONSTANS.
   |
   +--CONSTANTIA, _m_.
   |  1, Hannibalianus;
   |  2, GALLUS.
   |
   +--HELENA,
      _m_. JULIAN.

2, Theodora.
|
+--Constantius, _m_.
|  1, Galla;
|  2, Basilina.
|  |
|  +--GALLUS
|  |  _m_. Constantia, widow of Hannibalianus.
|  |
|  +--JULIAN
|     _m_. Helena, daughter of Constantine I.
|
+--Constantia,
   _m_. LICINIUS.


proved that its vitality was gone, by his ineffectual exertions to
rescue it, and restore its predominance. He was not without merits as
a ruler. He looked out for the impartial administration of justice: he
revived discipline and a military spirit in the army, and sought to
infuse a better spirit into the civil administration. While he avoided
cruel persecution, he directed all his personal efforts to the
weakening of the Christian cause. Julian led an expedition against the
Persians. He sailed down the Euphrates to _Circesium_, and thence
proceeded into the interior of Persia. He repulsed the enemy, but was
slain while engaged in the pursuit. The soldiers on the field of
battle chose one of his officers, _Jovian_ (363-364), who was a
Christian, to be his successor. He conducted the retreat of the
army. His reign lasted for only seven months. He showed no intolerance
either towards Pagans or Arians, but he gave back to Christianity its
former position.  The army next chose _Valentinian I_. (364-375),
the son of a Pannonian warrior, who associated with him, as emperor in
the East, his brother _Valens_ (364-378). _Valens_ ruled
from Constantinople. _Valentinian_ fixed his court at Milan, and
sometimes at Treves. He was an unlettered soldier, but strict and
energetic in the government of the state, as well as of the army. His
time was mostly spent in conflict with the barbarians on the northern
frontiers. He carried forward this contest with vigor on the Rhine and
on the Danube. He trained up his son _Gratian_ to be his
successor. The great event of the reign of Valens was the irruption of
the _Huns_ into Europe, and the consequent invasion of the
_Goths_, by whom _Valens_ was defeated and slain in 378.
Several emperors followed, until, on the death of _Theodosius
I._, (the Great) (395), the Roman Empire was divided. In 476, after
successive invasions of barbarians had disorganized the western part
of the Empire, the line of phantom emperors at Rome came to an
end. The fourth century, in which these invasions--which overthrew the
Western Empire, and transferred power to new races--occurred, forms
the era of transition from ancient to mediaeval history.

  LITERATURE.--The general works on Ancient History (p. 16). _On
  Roman History as a whole_: MERIVALE'S _General History of
  Rome_ (from 753 B.C. to A.D. 476: 1 vol.); DURUY, _History of
  Rome,_ etc. (8 vols., 410); Wägner, _Rom_, etc. (3 vols.);
  Allen, _A Short Story of the Roman People_; FREEMAN,
  _Outlines of Roman History_.

  _On the Roman Republic_: MOMMSEN, _The History of Rome_ (4
  vols.); LIDDELL, _A History of Rome,_ etc. (1 vol.); IHNE,
  _The History of Rome_ (Eng. trans., 3 vols.); Michelet,
  _History of the Roman Republic_ (1 vol., 12mo); Schwegler,
  _Römishce Geschichte_ (4 vols); How and Leigh, _A History of
  Rome_; Shuckburgh, _A History of Rome_.

  _On the Roman Empire:_ MERIVALE, _History of the Romans under
  the Empire_ (7 vols ); Seeley, _Roman Imperialism_ [three
  Lectures]; MOMMSEN, _The Provinces_ (5th volume of his History,
  1885); Bury, _Students' Roman Empire_; Bury, _Later Roman
  Empire_ (2 vols.).

  _On special periods:_ IHNE, _Early Rome_ (1 vol.);
  T. Arnold, _History of Rome_ (3 vols; reaches into the second
  Punic war); Long, _The Decline of the Roman Republic_ (5
  vols.); R. B. Smith, _Rome and Carthage_; MERIVALE, _The
  Roman Triumvirates_; T Arnold, _History of the Later Roman
  Commonwealth_ (2 vols.); GIBBON, _History of the Decline and
  Fall of the Roman Empire_ (Smith's edition); FINLAY, _A History
  of Greece from the Conquest of the Romans to the Present Time_ (7
  vols.); Dill, _Roman Society_ (5th century).

  Trollope, _Life of Cicero_ (2 vols.); FORSYTH, _Life of
  Cicero_ (2 vols.); Middleton's _Life of Cicero_; Froude,
  _Life of Caesar_ (1 vol.); Boissier, _Ciceron et ses Amis_
  (1 vol., 12mo).

  _Treatises:_ Taylor, _Const, and Polit. History of Rome;_
  KUHN, _Verfassung d. Römischen Städte_; GUHL AND KÖNER, _Life
  of the Greeks and Romans;_ Marquardt, _Handbuch d. Römischen
  Alterthümer_ (7 vols.); BECKER, _Gallus_ (an archaeological
  novel); Abbott, _Roman Political Institutions;_ Greenidge,
  _Roman Public Life;_ Preston and Dodge, _Private Life of the
  Romans;_ Madvig, _Verfassung und Verwaltung des Röm Staates_
  (2 vols.); Lanciani (_Ancient Rome_, and others); Burn, _Rome
  and the Campagna;_ ZIEGLER, _Das alte Rom;_ Smith and Wace's
  _Dictionary of Christian Biography;_ Smith and Cheatham's
  _Dictionary of Christian Antiquities;_ FRIEDLÄNDER,
  _Sittengeschichte Roms_ (2 vols.); Histories of Roman
  Literature by Simcox. Cruttwell, SCHMITZ, Teuffel. Mac-Kail, Fowler.

  _On Early Christianity:_ The Lives of Jesus, by NEANDER, WEISS,
  Farrar, Edersheim, Andrews. Neander's _Planting and Training of
  the Church_. Works on the Life of St. Paul, by CONYBEARE AND
  HOWSON, by Lewins, by Farrar. Fisher's _The Beginnings of
  Christianity;_ Pressensé, _Early Days of
  Christianity_. Church Histories of NEANDER, GIESELER, SCHAFF,
  Robertson, HASE, Kurtz, ALZOG. UHLHORN, _Christian Charity in the
  Ancient Church;_ Ramsay, _The Church and the Roman Empire,
  before 170 A.D._

  Reber, _History of Ancient Art;_ Wickoff, _Roman Art;_ see
  Dictionaries, p. 122.



PART II.  MEDIÆVAL HISTORY.


INTRODUCTION.

CHARACTER OF THE MIDDLE AGES.--The middle ages include the long
interval between the first general irruption of the Teutonic nations
towards the close of the fourth century, to the middle of the
fifteenth century, when the modern era, with a distinctive character
of its own, began. Two striking features are observed in the mediæval
era. First, there was a mingling of the conquering Germanic nations
with the peoples previously making up the Roman Empire, and a
consequent effect produced upon both. The Teutonic tribes modified
essentially the old society. On the other hand, there was a reaction
of Roman civilization upon them. The conquered became the teachers and
civilizers of the conquerors. Secondly, the Christian Church, which
outlived the wreck of the empire, and was almost the sole remaining
bond of social unity, not only educated the new nations, but regulated
and guided them, to a large extent, in secular as well as religious
affairs. Thus out of chaos, Christendom arose, a single homogeneous
society of peoples. It was in the middle ages that the pontifical
authority reached its full stature.  The Holy See exercised the lofty
function of arbiter among contending nations, and of leadership in
great public movements, like the Crusades. Civil authority and
ecclesiastical authority, emperors and popes, were engaged in a long
conflict for predominance. Thus there are three elements which form
the essential factors in Mediæval History,-the _Barbarian_
element, the _Roman_ element, with its law and civil polity, and
with what was left of ancient arts and culture, and the
_Christian_, or _Ecclesiastical_, element. As we approach
the close of the mediæval era, a signal change occurs. The nations
begin to acquire a more defined individuality; the superintendence of
the church in civil affairs is more and more renounced or
relinquished; there dawns a new era of invention and discovery, of
culture and reform.



PERIOD I.  FROM THE MIGRATIONS OF THE TEUTONIC TRIBES TO THE
CARLOVINGIAN LINE OF FRANK RULERS. (A.D. 375-751.)



CHAPTER I. CAUSES OF THE FALL OF THE WESTERN EMPIRE: THE TEUTONIC
CONFEDERACIES.


GRADUAL OVERTHROW OF THE EMPIRE.--When we speak of the destruction of
the Roman Empire by the barbarians, we must not imagine that it was
sudden, as by an earthquake. It was gradual. Had the empire not been
undermined from within, it would not have been overthrown from
without. The Roman armies were recruited by bringing numerous
barbarians into the ranks. At length whole tribes were suffered to
form permanent settlements within the boundaries of the empire. A
"king" with his entire tribe would engage to do military service in
exchange for lands.  More and more both the wealth and the weakness of
Rome were exposed to the gaze of the Germanic nations. Their cupidity
was aroused as their power increased. Meantime the barbarians were
learning from their employers the art of war, and were gaining
soldierly discipline. Their brave warriors rose to places of
command. They made and unmade the rulers, and finally became rulers
themselves. Another important circumstance is, that most of the
Germanic tribes were converts to Christianity before they made their
attacks and subverted the throne of the Cæsars. In fine, there was a
long preparation for the great onset of the barbarian peoples in the
fifth century.

CAUSES OF THE FALL OF THE EMPIRE.--But the success of the barbarian
invasions presupposes an internal decay in the empire. It was one
symptom of a conscious decline, that the conquering spirit was
chilled, and the policy was adopted of fixing the limits of the Roman
dominion at the Rhine and the Danube. Rome now stood on the
defensive. The great service of the imperial government, for which it
was most valued, was to protect the frontiers. This partly accounts
for the consternation of _Augustus_, when, in the forests of
Germany, the legions of _Varus_ were destroyed (p. 172). The
essential fact is, that Rome became unable to keep up the strength of
its armies. _First_, there were lacking the men to fill up the
legions. The civil wars had reduced the population in Italy and in
other countries. The efforts of _Augustus_ to encourage marriage
by bounties proved of little avail. _Secondly_, the class of
independent Italian yeomen, which had made up the bone and sinew of
the Roman armies, passed away. Slavery supplanted free
labor. _Thirdly_, in the third century terrible plagues swept
over the empire. In 166 a frightful pestilence broke out, from which,
according to _Niebuhr_, the ancient world never recovered. It was
only the first in a series of like appalling
visitations. _Fourthly_, the death of liberty carried after it a
loss of the virtue, the virile energy, by which Rome had won her
supremacy. _Fifthly_, the new imperial system, after
_Diocletian_, effective as it was for maintaining an orderly
administration, drained the resources of the people. The municipal
government in each town was put into the hands of _curiales_, or
the owners of a certain number of acres. They were made responsible
for the taxes, which were levied in a gross amount upon the town. The
_fiscus_, or financial administration of the empire, was so
managed that the civil offices became an intolerable burden to those
who held them. Yet it was a burden from which there was no escape. One
result was, that, while slaves were often made _coloni_,--that
is, tillers or tenants, sharing with the owner the profits of
tillage,--and thus had their condition improved, many freeholders sank
to the same grade, which was a kind of serfdom. When to the exhausting
taxation by government, there were added the disposition of large
proprietors to despoil the poorer class of landholders, and from time
to time the predatory incursions of barbarians, the small supply of
Roman legionaries is easily accounted for.

THREE RACES OF BARBARIANS.--While the empire, as regards the power of
self-defense, was sinking, the barbarians were not only profiting by
the military skill and experience of the Romans, but were forming
military _unions_ among their several tribes. In the East, there
was one civilized kingdom, _Persia_, the successor of the
Parthian kingdom, but not powerful enough to be a rival,--certainly
not in an aggressive contest. But northward and northeast of the Roman
boundaries, there stretched "a vague and unexplored waste of
barbarism," "a vast, dimly-known chaos of numberless barbarous tongues
and savage races." A commotion among these numerous tribes, the
uncounted multitudes spreading far into the plain of Central Asia, had
begun as early as the days of Julius Caesar. They were made up of
three races,--the _Teutons_, or _Germanic_ peoples; eastward
of them, the _Slavonians_; and, farther beyond, the Asiatic
_Scythians_. The Slavonians, an Aryan branch, like the Teutons,
had their abodes in the space between Germany and the Volga. They were
a pastoral and an agricultural race, of whose religion little is
known. Their incursions and settlements belong to the sixth and
seventh centuries, and to the history of the Eastern Empire.

TEUTONIC CONFEDERACIES.--Of the confederacies of German tribes, the
_Goths_ are first to be mentioned. In the third century they had
spread over the immense territory between the Baltic and the Black
seas. They were divided into the West Goths (_Visigoths_) and
East Goths (_Ostrogoths_). Their force was augmented by the
junction of kindred tribes. To the east of them, towards the Don, was
a tribe of mixed race, the _Alani_. In the third century the
Goths had made their terrible inroads into _Mæsia_ and
_Thrace_, and the brave emperor _Decius_ had perished in the
combat with them. They had pushed their marauding excursions as far as
the coasts of Greece and Ionia. In the middle of the fourth century
they were united, with their allied tribes, under the sovereignty of
the East Gothic chieftain, _Hermanric_. A second league of
Germanic peoples was the _Alemanni_, which included the
formidable tribes called by Cæsar the _Suevi_, and who, after
various incursions, had established themselves on the Upper Rhine, in
what is now Baden, Würtemberg, and north-east in Switzerland, and in
the region southward to the summits of the Alps. Their invasion of
Italy in 255, when they poured through the passes of the Rhetian Alps,
and penetrated as far as _Ravenna_, was repelled by
_Aurelian_, afterwards emperor. A third confederacy was that of
the _Franks_ (or Freemen) on the Lower Rhine and the Weser. In
North Germany, between the Elbe and the Rhine, were the
_Saxons_. The _Burgundians_, between the Saxons and the
Alemanni, made their way to the same river near _Worms_. East of
the Franks and Saxons, were the valiant _Lombards_, who made
their way southwards to the center of Europe, and finally to the
Danube. The _Frisians_ were situated on the shore of the North
Sea and in the adjacent islands. North of the Saxons were the
_Danes_ and other peoples of _Scandinavia_,--Teutons all,
but a separate branch of the Teutonic household. To bold and warlike
tribes, now banded together, such as were the Franks and the Alemanni,
the Rhine, with its line of Roman cities and fortresses, could form no
permanent barrier. When they crossed it, they might be driven back;
but this was only to renew their expeditions at the first favorable
moment. The prey which they saw near by, and of which they dreamed in
the distance, was too enticing. No more could the Danube fence off the
thronging nations; all of whom had heard, and some of whom had beheld,
the wealth and luxury of the civilized lands.

Beginning at the _Euxine_, and moving westward along the line of
the _Danube_ and the _Rhine_, we find, at the end of the
fourth century, that the six most prominent names of _Teutonic_
tribes are the _Goths_, _Vandals_, _Burgundians_,
_Franks_, _Saxons_, and _Lombards_. Over the vast
plains to the south and west of the Caspian are spread the
_Huns_, who belong to one branch of the Scythian or Turanian
group of nations.

HABITS OF THE GERMANS.--We have notices of the Germans from _Julius
Caesar_, the most full description of them in the _Germania_
of _Tacitus_. They were tall and robust, and seemed to the
Romans, who were of smaller stature, as giants. Tacitus speaks of
their "fiercely blue eyes."  They lived in huts made of wood, and
containing the cattle as well as the family. They tilled the soil, but
their favorite employments were war and the chase. Capable of cruelty,
they were still of a kindly temper, and fond of feasts and social
gatherings, where they were apt to indulge in excessive drinking and
in gambling. They were brave, and not without a delicate sense of
honor. Family ties were sacred. The women were chaste, and were
companions of their husbands, although subject to them. Most of the
people were _freemen_, who were land-owners, and carried
arms. The nobles were those of higher birth, but with no special
privileges. The freemen owned _slaves_, who were either criminals
or persons who had lost their freedom in gaming or prisoners of
war. There were also _freedmen_ or _leti_, who held land of
a superior. Many freedmen lived apart, but many were gathered in
villages. The land about a village was originally held in common. Each
village had a chief, and each collection of villages, or
_hundred_, possessed a chief of high rank; and there was a
"king," or head of the tribe. All these chieftains were elected by the
freemen at assemblies periodically held. When the duke or general was
chosen, he was raised on a shield on the shoulders of the men. The
judges in the trial of causes sat, with assessors or jurymen around
them, in the open air. But private injuries were avenged by the
individual or by his family. One marked characteristic of the Germans
was the habit of devoting themselves to the service of a military
leader. They paid to him personal allegiance, and followed him in
war. The Germans were, above all, distinguished by a strong sense of
personal independence. If their mode of living resembled outwardly
that of other savage races, yet in their free political life, and in
the noble promise of their language even in its rudiments, the
comparison does not hold. In their faithfulness, courage, and personal
purity, they are emphatically contrasted with the generality of
barbarous peoples.

RELIGION OF THE GERMANS.--We know more of the Scandinavian religion
through the _Eddas_, the Iliad of the Northmen, than of the
religion of the Germans; but the two religions were closely
allied. Among the chief gods worshiped by the Germans were
_Woden_, called "Odin" in the North, the highest divinity, the
god of the air and of the sky, the giver of fruits and delighting in
battle; _Donar_ (Thor), the god of thunder and of the weather,
armed with a hammer or thunderbolt; _Thiu_ (Tyr), a god of war,
answering to Mars; _Fro_ (Freyr), god of love; and _Frauwa_
(Freya), his sister. Particular days were set apart for their
worship. Their names appear in the names of the days of the
week,--Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. Sunday is the day of
the sun, and Monday the day of the moon. Saturday alone is a name of
Latin origin. Among the minor beings in the German mythology were
fairies, elves, giants, and dwarfs. There were festivals to the
gods. Their images were preserved in groves. Lofty trees were held
sacred to divinities. The oak and the red ash were consecrated to
_Donar_. Sacrifices, and among them human sacrifices, were
offered to the gods. Their will was ascertained by means of the lot,
the neighing of wild horses, and the flight of birds. Priests were not
without influence, but were not a professional class, and were never
dominant. Valiant warriors at death were admitted into Walhalla (the
_hall of the slain_), where they sat at banquet with the gods.



THE THEODOSIAN IMPERIAL HOUSE


THEODOSIUS
|
+--THEODOSIUS I (the Great), _m._,
|  1, Flaccilla;
|  2, Galla sister of Valentinian II
|  |
|  +--Grantianus
|  |
|  +--Pulcheria
|  |
|  +--ARCADIUS
|  |  _m._ Eudoxia
|  |  |
|  |  +--THEODOSIUS II
|  |  |  _m._ Eudocia
|  |  |  |
|  |  |  +--Eudoxia
|  |  |  |  _m._ VALENTINIAN III
|  |  |  |
|  |  |  +--Flaccilla
|  |  |
|  |  +--Pulcheria
|  |  |  _m._ MARCIAN
|  |  |
|  |  +--Three other daughters
|  |
|  +--HONORIUS
|  |  _m._ Maria, daughter of Stilicho
|  |
|  +--Placidia _m._
|     1, Adolphus;
|     2, CONSTANTIUS
|     |
|     +--VALENTINIAN III,
|     |  _m._ Eudoxia.
|     |  |
|     |  +--Eudoxia, _m._
|     |  |  1, Palladius, son of MAXIMUS;
|     |  |  2, Huneric, son of GENSERIC.
|     |  |  |
|     |  |  +--Ideric
|     |  |
|     |  +--Placidia
|     |     _m._ OLYBRIUS
|     |
|     +--Honoria
|
+--Honorius
   |
   +--Serena,
   |  _m._ Stilicho
   |  |
   |  +--Maria
   |
   +--Thermantia

[From Rawlinson's _Manual of Ancient History._]



CHAPTER II.  THE TEUTONIC MIGRATIONS AND KINGDOMS.


THE GOTHS: THEODOSIUS I.--Towards the close of the fourth century,
when _Valens_ (364-378) was reigning in the East, the _Huns_
moved from their settlements north of the Caspian, defeated the
_Alans_, a powerful nation, and, compelling them to enter their
service, invaded the empire of the _Ostrogoths_, then ruled by
_Hermanric_. The Huns belonged to one branch of the Scythian
race. They had migrated in vast numbers from Central Asia. Repulsive
in form and visage, with short, thick bodies, and small, fierce eyes,
living mostly on horseback or in their wagons, these terrible
warriors, with their slings and bone-pointed arrows, struck terror
into the nations whom they approached. The Gothic Empire fell. The
Ostrogoths submitted, and Hermanric died, it is thought by his own
hand. The _Visigoths_ crowded down to the Danube, and implored
Valens to give them an asylum upon Roman territory. They had
previously been converted to Christianity, mainly by the labors of
_Ulphilas_, who had framed for them an alphabet, and translated
nearly the whole Bible into their tongue. Fragments of this
_Moeso-Gothic_ version are the oldest written monument in the
Teutonic languages. Christianity was taught to them by Ulphilas in the
Arian type; and this circumstance was very important, since it was the
occasion of the spread of _Arianism_ among many other Teutonic
peoples. Valens granted their request to cross the Danube, and, under
_Fritigern_ and _Alavivus_, to settle in Moesia (376). By
the connivance of the officers of Valens, they were allowed to retain
their arms. The avarice of corrupt imperial governors provoked them to
revolt; and, in the battle of _Adrianople_, Valens was
defeated. The house into which the wounded emperor was carried was set
on fire, and he perished. _Gratian_, who, since the death of
Valentinian I. (375), had been the ruler of the West, summoned the
valiant _Theodosius_ from his estate in Spain, to which he had
been banished, to sustain the tottering empire. Gratian made him
regent in the East. His father had cleared Britain of the Picts and
Scots, and restored it to the empire. Under him the son had learned to
be a soldier. He had been driven into retirement by court
intrigues. He now accomplished, as well as it could be done, the
mighty task laid upon him. He checked the progress of the Goths,
divided them, incorporated some of them in the army, and dispersed the
rest in Thrace, Moesia, and Asia Minor (382). Four years later
forty-thousand Ostrogoths were received into the imperial
service. Once Rome had conquered the barbarians, and planted its
colonies among them; now, after they had proved their power, and
gained boldness by victory, it received them within its own
borders. The indolence and vice of _Gratian_ produced a
revolution in the West. _Maximus_ was proclaimed imperator by the
legions of Britain, and Gratian was put to death by his cavalry
(383). After sanguinary conflicts, _Theodosius_ obtained, also,
supreme power in the West. He gave to orthodoxy, in the strife with
Arianism, the supremacy in the East; and, under his auspices, the
_General Council of Constantinople_ re-affirmed the Nicene
doctrine of the Trinity (381). In the ancient church he had a glory
second only to that of Constantine. With the exception of his harsh
and inquisitorial laws for the forcible suppression of Arianism and
paganism, his legislation was generally wise and beneficent.

ARCADIUS: HONORIUS.--Theodosius left the government of the East to his
son _Arcadius_, then eighteen years of age, and that of the West
to a younger son, _Honorius_. The empire of the East continued
ten hundred and fifty-eight years after this division; that of the
West, only eighty-one years. The Eastern Empire was defended by the
barriers of the Danube and the Balkan mountains, by the strength of
Constantinople, together with the care taken to protect it, and by the
general tendency of the barbarian invasions westward. Rome, in the
course of a half-century, was the object of four terrible
attacks,--that of _Alaric_ and the Visigoths; of
_Radagaisus_ with the Suevi, Vandals, and Alans; of
_Genseric_ with the Vandals; of _Attila_ with the Huns.

ALARIC IN ITALY.--The Visigoths made _Alaric_--the head of their
most illustrious family, the Balti--their leader. _Honorius_ was
controlled by the influence of _Stilicho_, a brave soldier, by
birth a Vandal; _Arcadius_ was ruled by a Goth, _Rufinus_, a
cunning and faithless diplomatist. Alaric and his followers were
enraged at the withholding of the pay which was due to them yearly
from _Arcadius_. _Rufinus_, in order to keep up his sway,
and out of hostility to _Stilicho_, arranged that they should
invade _Eastern Illyricum_, a province on which each of the
emperors had claims, and which he feared that Stilicho would
seize. They ravaged Thrace and Macedonia, passed through the
undefended strait of Thermopylae, spared Athens, but devastated the
rest of Greece. The only protector of the empire now was
_Stilicho_, to whom Theodosius had committed the care of his two
sons, and whose power was exercised in the West. He caused the
perfidious _Rufinus_ to be put to death by _Gainas_, one of
the Gothic allies of Arcadius. The place of the minister was taken by
_Eutropius_, an Armenian who had been a slave. _Stilicho_
fought the Goths in two campaigns, but, perhaps from policy, suffered
them to escape by the Strait of _Naupactus_ (_Lepanto_). To
prevent further ravages, Arcadius had no alternative but to appoint
_Alaric_ master-general or duke of Illyricum. This obliged
_Stilicho_ to retire. Raised upon the shield, and thus made king
by his followers, Alaric led them to the conquest of
Italy. _Honorius_ fled for refuge from Milan to the impregnable
fortress of _Ravenna_. Stilicho came to his relief, and defeated
the Visigoths at _Pollentia_ (402). But Honorius copied the
example of Arcadius, made Alaric a general, and gave him the
commission to conquer Illyricum for the Western Empire. After his
defeat, he was moving against Rome with his cavalry, when his retreat
was purchased by a pension. It was when Honorius was celebrating his
triumph at Rome that a monk named _Telemachus_ leaped into the
arena to separate the gladiators. He was stoned to death by the
spectators, but the result of his self-devotion was an edict putting a
final stop to the gladiatorial shows. The emperor now fixed his
residence, which had been at Milan, at _Ravenna_, a city that was
covered on the land side by a wide and impassable morass, over which
was an artificial causeway, easily destroyed in case it could not be
defended. It had served him as an asylum during the invasion of
Alaric.

RADAGAISUS.--The empire was not long left in peace. _Alaric_ was
a Christian, and partially civilized. _Radagaisus_ was a Goth,
but a heathen and a barbarian. The _Suevi_ under his command,
took their course southward from the neighborhood of the Baltic, and,
drawing after them the _Burgundians, Vandals_, and
_Alans_,--tribes which began to be alarmed by the hordes of
_Huns_ that were gathering behind them,--advanced to the pillage
of the empire. Leaving the bulk of their companions on the borders of
the Rhine, two hundred thousand of them crossed the Alps, and made
their way as far as _Florence_. _Stilicho_ once more saved
Rome and the empire by forcing them back into the Apennines, where
most of them perished from famine. _Radagaisus_ surrendered, and
was beheaded. The news of this disaster moved the host which had been
left behind, joined by the remainder of the army of Radagaisus, to
make an attack upon _Gaul_. Despite the resistance of the
Ripuarian Franks, to whom Rome had committed the defense of the Rhine,
they crossed that river on the last day of the year 406. For two years
Gaul was a prey to their ravages, until the Suevi, the Alans, and the
Vandals, sought for fresh booty on the south of the Pyrenees (409). In
Gaul they "destroyed the cities, ravaged the fields, and drove before
them in a promiscuous crowd, the bishop, the senator, and the virgin,
laden with the spoils of their houses and altars." Brief as was this
period of devastation, it marks the severance of _Gaul_ from the
empire.

ALARIC AGAIN IN ITALY.--_Stilicho_ had kept up friendly relations
with _Alaric_, and had retained in Italy thirty thousand
barbarians in the pay of the empire. The brave general became an
object of suspicion to _Honorius_, who caused him to be
assassinated, and the wives and children of the barbarian troops to be
massacred. The men fled to _Alaric_. He came back with them to
avenge them. He appeared under the walls of Rome. "It was more than
six hundred years since a foreign enemy had been there, and Hannibal
had advanced so far, only to retreat." When the envoys of the Senate
represented to Alaric how numerous was the population, he answered,
"The thicker the hay, the easier it is mowed." But he consented to
accept an enormous ransom, and retired to winter quarters in
Tuscany. The court at Ravenna refused to assign lands to the Visigoths
for a permanent settlement in Northern Italy. Alaric demanded the post
of master-general of the Western armies. Once more he advanced to
Rome, seized the "Port" of _Ostia_, and compelled the Senate to
appoint _Attalus_, the prefect of the city, emperor. He besieged
_Ravenna_ without effect, quarreled with Attalus, and deposed
him, and for the third time marched upon Rome. Slaves within the city
opened the Salarian gate to their countrymen, and on the 24th of
August, 410, the sack of the city began. To add to the horrors of the
scene, a terrific thunderstorm was raging. For three days Rome was
given up to pillage. Only the Christian temples were respected, which
were crowded by those who sought within them an asylum. Rome had been
the center of Paganism. The scattering and destruction of its
patrician families was the ruin of the old religion. Alaric did not
long survive his victory. He died at _Consentia_ in
_Bruttium_. He was buried under the little river
_Basentius_, which was turned out of its course while the
sepulcher was constructing, and then restored to its former
channel. The slaves employed in the work were put to death, that the
place of his burial might remain a secret (410).

ATHAULF: WALLIA.--_Athaulf_ (called Adolphus), the brother and
successor of Alaric, was an admirer of the empire. He enlisted in the
service of _Honorius_, and married his sister, _Placidia_,
who was in the hands of the Goths, either as a captive or as a
hostage. He put down usurpers in the south of Gaul who had set
themselves up as emperors, and entered _Spain_, in order to drive
out the barbarians from that country. But he was assassinated
(415). His successor, _Wallia_, carried forward his plans, in the
name of Honorius, against the Alans, the Suevi, and the Vandals. He
partly exterminated the Alans, chased the Suevi into the mountains on
the north-west, and the Vandals into the district called after them,
_Andalusia_.

THREE BARBARIAN KINGDOMS.--The kingdom of the Suevi thus established
(419), under the kings reigning from 438 to 455 conquered
_Lusitania_, and would have subdued all Spain had they not been
checked by the _Visigoths_. As a reward for their services, the
latter received from Honorius, _Aquitaine_ in Gaul, as far as the
Loire and the Rhone, with _Toulouse_ for their capital. They
conquered the _Suevi_ in 456, and in 585 subjugated them; in 507
the Franks had driven them out of Gaul. Early in the fifth century the
_Burgundian kingdom_ grew up in South-eastern Gaul. At the end of
that century the Rhone was a Burgundian river. _Lyons_ and
_Vienne_ were Burgundian cities. Thus in the first twenty years
of the fifth century there arose _three_ barbarian kingdoms. Of
these, that of the _Suevi_ soon vanished (585), being absorbed by
the Visigoths; that of the _Burgundians_ continued until 534;
while that of the _Visigoths_ in Spain lasted until the conquest
by the Arabs in 711.

CONQUEST OF AFRICA BY THE VANDALS.--_Honorius_ died in 423. He
had shown himself a zealous defender of the Church against heresy, and
was the author of edicts for the suppression of heathenism, and for
the destruction of heathen temples and idols. But he had proved
himself inefficient in the defense of the empire. His nephew
_Valentinian III.,_ the son of _Placidia_ and of the general
_Constantius_, whom she had married in 417, succeeded him; but he
was only six years old, and for twenty-five years the government was
carried on in his name by his unworthy mother. She had two able
generals, _Aëtius_ and _Boniface_, whose discord was fatal
in its effects. At the same time in the East, the government was
managed by _Pulcheria_ for her brother, _Theodosius II.,_
who had succeeded _Arcadias_ in 408. _Aëtius_, who was a
Hun, by insidious arts persuaded Placidia to recall _Boniface_,
who was governor of Africa, at the same time that he advised Boniface
to disobey the order which he represented as a sentence of
death. Boniface sent to _Gonderic_, king of the Vandals in
Spain,--who, after the retreat of the Visigoths, were strong in that
country,--an offer of an alliance. _Genseric_, the Vandal leader,
the brother and successor of _Gonderic_, landed in Africa in 429
with fifty thousand men. Too late the treachery of Aëtius was
explained to Boniface. Genseric, with his allies, tribes of nomad
Moors, defeated him in a bloody battle, and besieged _Hippo_ for
fourteen months. _Augustine_, the bishop of Hippo, animated the
courage of its defenders until his death in 430, in the seventy-sixth
year of his age. Boniface was again defeated, and Hippo was taken. The
Vandals pushed on their conquest, but eight years passed before
_Carthage_ was reduced (439). _Valentinian_ had recognized
by treaty the kingdom of the Vandals. _Genseric_ was
characterized by genius and energy as well as by cruelty and
avarice. He built up a navy, and made himself master of Sicily,
Corsica, Sardinia, and the Balearic Isles. He was able to defy
Constantinople, on account of his control of the Mediterranean. At the
same time he entered into relations with the barbarians in the north,
in order that Aëtius, who endeavored to bring in some degree of order
and obedience in the empire, might be checked and restrained on all
sides. The Vandals were Arians, and made full use of the difference in
faith as a motive for plundering and maltreating the orthodox
Christians in Africa, whom their arms had subdued.

ATTILA: CHALONS.--The enemy whom _Genseric_ invoked to make a
diversion in his favor against the combined rulers of the East and of
the West, was _Attila_. For a half-century the _Huns_ had
halted, in their migration, in the center of Europe, and held under
their sway the Ostrogoths, the Gepids, the Marcomanni, and other
tribes.  The empire of Attila extended from the Baltic to the north of
the Danube, and as far east as the Volga. His name inspired terror
wherever it was heard. He was styled "the scourge of God."  The "sword
of Mars"--the point of an ancient sword which, it was said, was
discovered by supernatural means, and was presented to him--was deemed
the symbol of his right to the dominion of the world. Yet,
notwithstanding his fierce visage and haughty mien, he was an
indulgent ruler of his own people, and not without pity and other
generous traits. Such was the dread of him that it was said that no
blade of grass grew on the path which his armies had traversed. First,
he attacked _Theodosius II._ in the East, to force him to recall
the troops which he had sent against _Genseric_. He crossed the
Danube, destroyed seventy cities, and forced the Eastern emperor not
only to pay a tribute heavier than he had paid before, but also to
cede to the Huns the right bank of the river. Theodosius failed in a
treacherous attempt to assassinate him through Attila's ambassador,
_Edecon_, whom he had bribed. Attila discovered the plot, but
pardoned with disdain the ambassadors of the emperor who went to him
in his wooden palace in Pannonia. He contented himself with
reproaching Theodosius with "conspiring, like a perfidious slave,
against the life of his master."  Regarding Constantinople as
impregnable, he turned to the West. He demanded of the Western emperor
the half of his states; and, moving to the Rhine with six hundred
thousand barbarians, he crossed that river and the Moselle, advanced
on his devastating path into the heart of _Gaul_, crossed the
Seine, and laid siege to _Orleans_. Everywhere the inhabitants
fled before him. The courage of the people in Orleans was sustained by
their bishop, who at length, as the city was just falling into the
hands of the assailants, saw a cloud of dust, and cried, "It is the
help of God." It was _Aëtius_, who, on the death of Boniface, had
thought it prudent to fly to the _Huns_, had come back to Italy
at the head of sixty thousand men, obtained forgiveness of
_Placidia_, and been made master-general of her forces. He had
united to the Roman troops the barbarians who had occupied Gaul, the
Visigoths under Theodoric, the Saxons, the Burgundians, the Ripuarian
and the Salian Franks. On the Catalaunian fields, a vast plain near
_Chalons_, whither _Attila_ now retreated to find room for
the effective use of his cavalry, the two multitudinous armies, each
composed of a motley collection of nations, met. It was, like the
conflict at Marathon, one of the decisive battles of history. It was
to determine whether the Aryan or the Scythian was to be supreme in
Europe. The battle-field was strewn, it was said, with the bodies of a
hundred and sixty thousand men,--an exaggeration indicating that the
carnage was too great to be estimated. Attila was worsted. He
encircled his camp with a rampart of wagons; and in the morning the
victors saw him standing on the top of a mound composed of the
trappings of horsemen, which was to serve as his funeral-pile, with
torch-bearers at hand ready to light it in case of defeat. Aëtius was
weakened by the withdrawal of the _Visigoths_: the allies did not
venture to attack the lion standing thus at bay, but suffered him to
return to Germany (451).

ATTILA IN ITALY.--The next year _Attila_ invaded Upper Italy. He
destroyed _Aquileia_, the inhabitants of which fled to the
lagoons of the Adriatic, where their descendants founded
_Venice_. Padua, Verona, and other cities were reduced to
ashes. At Milan he saw a painting which represented the emperor on his
throne, and the chiefs of the Huns prostrate before him. He ordered a
picture to be painted in which the king of the Huns sat on the throne,
and the emperor was at his feet. The Italians were without the means
of defense. _Leo I._ (Leo the Great), bishop of Rome, at the risk
of his life accompanied the emperor's ambassadors to Attila's
camp. Their persuasions, with rich gifts and the promise of a tribute,
availed. The army of Attila was weakened by sickness, and
_Aëtius_ was approaching. The king of the Huns decided to retire
to his forests. The apparition of the two apostles, _Peter_ and
_Paul_, threatening the barbarian with instant death if he did
not comply with the prayer of their successor, is the subject of one
of the paintings of _Raphael_. Some months after he left Italy
_Attila_ died at the royal village near the Danube, probably from
the bursting of an artery during the night (453). The nations which he
had subjugated regained their freedom. The chiefs of the Huns
contended for the crown in conflicts which dissipated their
strength. The expeditions of Attila were like a violent tempest,--
destructive for the moment, the traces of which soon disappear.

About the name of _Attila_, there gathered cycles of traditions,
Gallo-Roman or Italian, East German or Gothic, West German and
Scandinavian, and Hungarian. Such traditions in Germany formed, later,
the germ of the national epic, the _Nibelungen-lied_. They
testify to the powerful impression which the hero of the Huns made on
the memory and imagination of the different nations.

GENSERIC.--_Attila_ did not see Rome; but _Genseric_, his
ally, visited it with fire and sword (455). The emperor was
_Petronius Maximus_, a senator, who had slain _Valentinian
III._ as the penalty for a mortal offense. The weakness of Maximus
as a ruler caused him to be destroyed by the populace. _Eudoxia_,
the widow of Valentinian, whom Maximus had compelled to marry the
author of her husband's death, had secretly implored the aid of the
king of the Vandals. Once more _Leo_ showed his fearless spirit
by going into the camp of the Vandal king, and interceding for
Rome. He only succeeded, however, in mitigating to a limited extent
the horrors that attended the pillage of the city by the fierce and
greedy soldiers, the Vandals and Moors, who followed _Genseric_,
For fourteen days (June 15-29, 455) Rome was given up to carnage and
robbery. The conqueror carried off every thing of value that was
capable of being transported. _Eudoxia_ was rudely stripped of
her jewels, and with her two daughters, descendants of the great
Theodosius, was conveyed away with the conqueror to Carthage. For
twenty years longer _Genseric_ ruled over the Mediterranean in
spite of the hostility of both empires. An expedition sent against him
at the instigation of _Ricimer_, the Sueve, by the Eastern
emperor _Leo_, was ill commanded by _Basiliscus_, and
failed. But after the Vandal king died (477), his kingdom was torn by
civil and religious disorders, and by the revolts of the Moors, and,
fifty-seven years after the death of its founder, was conquered by the
general of the Eastern Empire.

FALL OF ROME: ODOACER.--After the death of _Maximus, Avitus_ was
appointed emperor by the king of the Visigoths in Gaul. The barbarians
hesitated to assume the purple themselves, but they determined on whom
it should be bestowed. Of the emperors that succeeded, _Majorian_
(457-461)--who was raised to the throne by _Ricimer_, military
leader of the German mercenaries in the Roman army--presents an
instance of a worthy character in a corrupt time. At last another
leader of mercenaries (_Orestes_, a Pannonian) made his son
emperor,--a boy six years old, called _Romulus Augustulus_
(475). _Odoacer_, who commanded the Heruli, Rugii, and other
federated tribes,--mercenaries to whom Orestes refused to grant a
third part of the lands of Italy,--made himself ruler of that
country. The Senate of Rome, in pursuance of his wishes, in an address
to the Eastern emperor _Zeno_, declared that an emperor in the
West was no longer necessary, and asked him to make Odoacer
_patrician_, and prefect of the diocese of Italy. It was in this
character--not as king, but in nominal subordination to _Zeno_,
the head of the united Roman Empire--that Odoacer governed (476). For
more than a half-century people had been accustomed to see the
barbarians exercise supreme control, so that the extinguishment of the
Western Empire was an event less marked in their eyes than it seemed
to the view of subsequent ages.

OSTROGOTHIC KINGDOM OF THEODORIC.--When _Odoacer_ had reigned
twelve years, _Theodoric_, king of the Ostrogoths in
_Moesia_,--who in his youth had lived at the court of
Constantinople, had defended the Eastern emperor, but had been
provoked to hostility to him,--was authorized by _Zeno_ to move
upon Italy. A host consisting of two hundred thousand fighting-men,
together with their families and goods, followed the Gothic
leader. Defeated at _Verona_ (489), Odoacer was forced to make a
treaty for a division of power, and to surrender _Ravenna_, where
he had taken refuge; but very soon, in the tumult of a banquet, he was
slain by Theodoric's own hand, either from fear of a rival, or because
he suspected that Odoacer was plotting against him. From this time the
long reign of Theodoric was one of justice and of peace. More by
negotiation than by war, he extended his dominion so that it embraced
Illyricum, Pannonia, Noricum, and Rhoetia, and, in the West,
Southeastern Gaul (Provence). The Bavarians paid him tribute; the
Alemanni invoked his assistance against the Franks, against whom he
afforded succor to the Goths of Aquitaine. In his administration he
showed reverence for the old imperial system, and for its laws and
institutions. He fostered agriculture, manufactures, and
trade. Although he could not write, he encouraged learning; and a
learned Roman, _Cassiodorus_, he appointed to high offices. He
permitted the Goths alone to bear arms. He caused to be compiled from
the Roman law a collection of statutes for the Goths and for his new
subjects, and established mixed tribunals for causes in which both
were parties. Cassiodorus ascribes to Theodoric the words, "Let other
kings seek to procure booty, or the downfall of conquered cities: our
purpose is, with God's help, so to conquer that our subjects shall
lament that they have too late come under our rule."  He did what he
could to promote peace among other barbarian nations. The prosperity
of Italy, and the increase of its population, were a proof of the good
government which it enjoyed. An Arian, he respected the Catholics,
confirmed the immunities enjoyed by the churches, and generally
allowed the Romans to elect their own bishop. He also protected the
Jews. The persecution of the Arians in the East (524) by _Justin
I._, awakened in his mind the belief that a conspiracy was forming
against him. He accused _Boethius_ of being a partner in it, and
adjudged him to death (524). While in prison at Pavia, this cultivated
man, whom Theodoric had highly esteemed, composed a work on the
"Consolations of Philosophy," which has made his name immortal in
literature. The course of Theodoric at this time drew upon him the
severe displeasure of his orthodox subjects. Soon after his death
(526) his ashes were taken out of the tomb, and scattered to the
winds. Hence nothing remains of his sepulcher at Ravenna but his empty
mausoleum.

Before the close of the century, as we shall see, another German
tribe, the _Lombards_, founded a powerful state in Italy, which
continued for more than two hundred years (568-774).

THE FRANKS: CLOVIS.--When _Clovis_ (481-511), a warlike and
ambitious chief of the Merovingian family of princes, became king of
the Franks, they numbered but a few thousand warriors. The remnant of
the Roman dominion on the Seine and the Loire he annexed, after having
put to death _Syagrius_, the Roman governor, who was delivered up
to him by the _Visigoths_. He made _Soissons_, and then
_Paris_, the seat of his authority. A Salian Frank himself, he
joined to himself the Ripuarian Franks on the Lower Rhine, and made
war on the _Alemanni_, who were planted on both sides of the
river. Before a battle (formerly thought to have been at
_Tolbiac_), he vowed, that, if the victory were given him, he
would worship the God of the Christians, of whom his wife
_Clotilde_ was one. Clotilde was the niece of the Burgundian
king, who was an Arian; but she was orthodox. The victory was
won. Clovis, with three thousand of his nobles, was baptized by
Remigius (_St. Remi_), Archbishop of Rheims. Hearing a sermon on
the crucifixion, Clovis exclaimed, that, if he and his faithful Franks
had been there, vengeance would have been taken on the Jews. He was a
barbarian still, and the new faith imposed little restraint on his
ambition and cruelty. But his conversion was an event of the highest
importance. The Gallic church and clergy lent him their devoted
support. The Franks were destined to become the dominant barbarian
people. It was now settled that power was to be in the hands of
Catholic--as distinguished from heretical Arian--Christianity. Clovis
forced _Gundobald_, the Burgundian king, to become tributary, and
to embrace the Catholic faith. He extended his kingdom to the Rhone on
the east, and on the south (507-511), confined the Visigoths in Gaul
to the strip of territory called _Septimania_, which they held
for three centuries longer. _Brittany_ alone remained independent
under its king. Clovis was hailed as the "most Christian king" and the
second Constantine, and was made patrician and consul by the Eastern
emperor _Anastasius_, in which titles, with their insignia, he
rejoiced. In the closing part of his life he took care to destroy
other Frank chieftains who might possibly undertake to dispute or
divide with him his sovereignty.

DISTRIBUTION OF TRIBES.--If we look at the map at the close of the
fifth century, we find that all the western dominions of Rome are
subject to Teutonic kings. The _Franks_, still retaining Western
and Central Germany, rule in Northern Gaul, and are soon to extend
their sway to the Pyrenees, and to conquer Burgundy. The _West
Goths_ are the masters in Spain, and still hold Aquitaine, the most
of which, however, is soon to be lost to the Franks. Italy and the
lands north of the Alps and the Adriatic form the _East Gothic_
kingdom of _Theodoric_. Africa is governed by the Arian
Vandals. To the north of the Franks, the tribes of Germany, which were
never subject to Rome, have already begun their conquests in
Britain. With the exception of Britain, which is falling under the
power of the _Saxons_, and Africa, these countries are still
nominally parts of the Roman Empire, of which Constantinople is the
capital. In the east, the boundaries of the empire, notwithstanding
the aggressions and insults which it has suffered, are but little
altered.

THE MEROVINGIANS.--The dominion of _Clovis_ was partitioned among
his four sons (511). _Theodoric_, the eldest, in Rheims, ruled
the Eastern Franks, in what soon after this time began to be called
_Austrasia_, on both banks of the Rhine. _Neustria_, or the
rest of the kingdom north of the Loire, was governed in parts by the
other three. Theodoric gained by conquest the land of the Thuringians,
whose king, _Hermanfrid_, he treacherously destroyed. A part of
this land was given to the Saxons. The history of the Franks for half
a century lacks unity. The several rulers rarely acted in
concert. They made expeditions against the Burgundians, the Visigoths,
and the Ostrogoths. Twice they attacked the _Burgundians_. The
last time, in 534, they conquered them, deprived them of their
national kings, and forced them to become Catholic. In 531 they made
war on the Visigoths to avenge the wrongs inflicted on
_Clotilde_, a princess of their family who suffered indignities
at the hands of the Arian king _Amalaric_. They crossed the
Pyrenees, and brought away Clotilde. A second division of the kingdom
was made in 561 among the grandsons of Clovis, and consummated in
567. _Austrasia_, having Rheims for its capital, had a population
chiefly German. _Neustria_, where the Gallo-Roman manners were
adopted, had Soissons for its capital; and _Burgundy_ had its
capital at Orleans. The population in both these last dominions was
more predominantly Romano-Celtic, or "Romance."  Family contests, and
wars full of horrors,--in which the tragic feud of two women,
_Brunhilde_ of Austrasia, a daughter of Athanagild, king of the
Visigoths, and _Fredegunde_ of Neustria, played a prominent
part,--ensued. In 613 _Clotaire II_. of Neustria united the
entire kingdom. Brunhilde was captured, and put to death in a
barbarous manner. The son of Clotaire, _Dagobert_, was a
worthless king. The Frank sovereigns of the royal line are
inefficient, and the virtual sovereignty is in the hands of the
"Mayors of the Palace," the officers whose function it was to
superintend the royal household, and who afterwards were leaders of
the feudal retainers. The family of the _Pipins_, who were of
pure German extraction, acquired the hereditary right to this office,
first in Austrasia and later in Neustria. The descendants of _Pipin
of Heristal_, as dukes of the Franks, had regal power, while the
title of king was left to the Merovingian princes. The race of Pipin
was afterwards called _Carolingians_, or _Karlings_. The
preponderance of power at first had been with Neustria, but it shifted
to the ruder and more energetic Austrasians. The battle of
_Testry_, in which _Pipin_ of Heristal at their head
overcame the Neustrians, determined the supremacy of Germany over
France (687). His son and successor, _Charles Martel_ (715-741),
made himself sole "Duke of the Franks;" and _Pipin the Short_
(741-768), the son of Charles Martel, became king, supplanting the
Merovingian line (752).

SAXON CONQUEST OF ENGLAND.--In the fourth century, when the power of
Rome was declining, the Picts and Scots from the North began to make
incursions into the Roman province of Britain. At the same time
Teutonic tribes from the mouths of the Weser and the Elbe, began to
land as marauders upon the coast. _Honorius_ withdrew the Roman
troops from the island in 411; and it was conquered by these invading
tribes, especially the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes. They became one
people, called _Anglo-Saxons_, Angles or _English_. They
were fierce barbarians, who drove the Celts whom they did not kill or
enslave--and whom they called _Welsh_, or strangers--into Wales
and Cornwall. They formed kingdoms, the first of which, Kent, was the
result of the coming of _Hengist_ and _Horsa_, whom
_Vortigern_, the native prince, had invited to help him against
the Picts (449). There were seven of these Saxon kingdoms (the
_Heptarchy_), not all of which were at any one time regular
communities. They were almost constantly at war with one another and
with the natives. They had a king elected from the royal
family. Freemen were either _Earls_ or _Churls_, the
"gentle" or the "simple." The churl was attached to some one lord whom
he followed in war. The _thanes_ were those who devoted
themselves to the service of the king or some other great man. The
thanes of the king became gentlemen and nobles. There were
_thralls_, or slaves, either prisoners in war, or made slaves for
debt or for crime. Connected with the king was a sort of Parliament,
called the _Witenagemôt_, or Meeting of the Wise, composed
originally of all freemen, and then of the great men, the
_Ealdormen_, the king's thanes. After the Saxons were converted,
the bishops and abbots belonged to it. In minor affairs, the "mark,"
or township, governed itself.

CONVERSION OF THE SAXONS--The seven kingdoms, in the ninth century
(828), were united under _Egbert_, who became king of Wessex in
802. He was called the king of England. Towards the Celtic Christians
the heathen Saxons were hostile. The conversion of the Saxons was due
to the labors of _Augustine_ and forty monks, whom _Gregory the
Great_ (Gregory I.) sent to the island as missionaries in
597. Their first conversions were in Kent, whose king,
_Ethelbert_, had married _Bertha_, the daughter of a
Frankish king. Augustine, who had great success, became the first
archbishop of _Canterbury_, and he consecrated a bishop of
London. During the seventh century the other Saxon kingdoms were
gradually converted. _York_ became a seat of a second
archbishopric. While Britain had been cut off from close relations
with the continent, the Celtic Church there had failed to keep pace
with the changes of rite and polity which had taken place among
Christians beyond the channel. The consequence was a strife on these
points between the converted Saxons, who were devoted to the holy see,
and the "Culdees" or Old British Christians.

CONVERSION OF THE IRISH.--About the middle of the fifth century the
gospel had been planted in Ireland, mainly by the labors of
_Patrick_, who had been carried to that country from Scotland by
pirates when he was a boy, and had returned to it as a missionary. The
cloisters, and the schools connected with them, which he founded,
flourished, became nurseries of study as well as of piety, and sent
out missionaries to other countries of Western Europe.

CHARACTER OF THE TEUTONIC KINGDOMS.--The Teutonic tribe was made up of
freemen and of their dependents. The rights of freemen, such as the
right to vote, continued; but these were modified as differences of
rank and wealth arose. Their leaders in peace and war were the duke
(_dux_), the count (_comes_, or _graf_), and the
_herzog_ (duke of higher grade) over larger provinces. The
companions of the king and the local chiefs grew into a nobility. Once
or twice in the year there was a gathering of the freemen in
assemblies, to decree war or to sanction laws. Land was partly held in
common, partly by individuals either as tenants of the community, or
as individual owners. The soil was shared in proportions by the
conquerors and the conquered.

THE CHURCH.--The Germanic tribes were generally more or less
acquainted with the Romans, and were Christians by profession. They
were subject to the influences of religion, of law, and of language,
in the countries where they settled. Power passed from the Empire to
the Church. The Church was strong in its moral force. Its bishops
commanded the respect of the barbarians. They were moral and social
leaders. In the period of darkness and of tempest, the voices of the
Christian clergy were heard in accents of fearless rebuke and of
tender consolation. In the cities of Italy and Gaul, the bishops, at
the call of the people, informally took the first place in civil
affairs. Remarkable men arose in the Church, who were conspicuous as
ambassadors and peace-makers, as intercessors for the suffering, and
courageous protectors of the injured. Such a man was _Leo the
Great._ The barbarians were awed by the kingdom of righteousness,
which, without exerting force, opposed to force and passion an
undaunted front. There was often a conflict between their love of
power and passionate impatience of control, and their reverence for
the priest and for the gospel. They could not avoid feeling in some
measure the softening and restraining influence of Christian teaching,
and learning the lessons of the cross. Socially, the Church, as such,
"was always on the side of peace, on the side of industry, on the side
of purity, on the side of liberty for the slave, and protection for
the oppressed. The monasteries were the only keepers of literary
tradition: they were, still more, great agricultural colonies,
clearing the wastes, and setting the example of improvement. They were
the only seats of human labor which could hope to be spared in those
lands of perpetual war."  Nevertheless, the religious condition of the
West, the condition of the Church and of the clergy, could not fail to
be powerfully affected for the worse by the influx of barbarism, and
the corrupting influence of the barbarian rulers. A great
deterioration in the Church and in its ministry ensued after the first
generation following the Germanic conquests passed away. This
demoralization was more among the secular clergy than the monastic.

The "History of the Franks," by _Gregory of Tours_ (540-594), is
an instructive memorial of the times. He was himself an intrepid
prelate, who did not quail before _Chilperic I_. and
_Fredegunde_, but braved their wrath. Chilperic proposed to
establish by his authority a new view of the Trinity of his own
devising, but was resisted by Gregory, who told him that no one but a
lunatic would embrace such an opinion. A still more crude reform of
the alphabet, which the Frankish king contrived, and proposed to put
in force by having existing books rewritten, Gregory effectually
resisted.

ROMAN LAW.--The barbarians were profoundly impressed by the system of
Roman law. This they recognized as the rule for the Roman population
in the different countries. More and more they incorporated its exact
provisions into their own codes. Among the _West Goths_ in
_Spain_ the two elements were ultimately fused into one body of
laws (642-701). Under the _Franks_, the Roman municipal system
was not extinguished; the Teutonic count or bishop standing in the
room of the Roman president or consular, and a more popular body
taking the place of the restricted municipality. The Roman civil
polity, with its definite enactments for every relation in life and
every exigency, was always at hand, and exercised an increasing
control.

STATE OF LEARNING.--The Latin language--the rustic Latin of the lower
classes--was spoken by the conquered peoples. Latin was the language
of the Church and of the Law. The consequence was, that the two
languages, the tongue of the conquerors and of the Roman subjects,
existed side by side in an unconscious struggle with one another. In
the west and south of Europe, the victory was on the side of the
Latin. The languages of these countries, the "Latin nations," grew out
of the rustic dialects spoken in Roman times. In these nations the
result of the mixture of the races was the final predominance of the
Latin element in the civilization. In Gaul, the Franks yielded to
Latin influences: _France_ was the product. With the fall of the
empire, classical culture died out. The cathedral and cloister schools
preserved the records of literature. The study of language, and the
mental discrimination and refinement which spring from it and from
literary discipline, passed away. Centuries of comparative
illiteracy--dark centuries--followed. Yet the monks were often active
in their own rude style of composition; and among them were not only
good men, but men of eminent natural abilities, who were unconsciously
paving the way for a better time.

SAXON ENGLAND.--In England, by the Saxon conquest, a purely Teutonic
kingdom was built up. The _Saxons_ were heathen, who had never
felt the civilizing influence of Rome. The traces of the earlier state
of things in the province which had long been sundered from the
empire, they swept away in the progress of their conquest.



CHAPTER III.  THE EASTERN EMPIRE.


RELIGIOUS DISPUTES.--While the West was beginning to recover from the
shock of the barbarian invasions, society in the Eastern Empire was
growing more enervated and corrupt. For a considerable period the
Byzantine government was managed by the influence of women. Thus
_Theodosius II_., the successor of Arcadius (408-450), was
governed during his whole reign by his sister _Pulcheria_. In the
East, there was an intense interest felt in the abstruse questions of
metaphysical theology. The Greek mind was speculative; and eager and
often acrimonious debate on such questions as were raised by
_Nestorius_ respecting the two natures of the Saviour, was heard
even in the shops and markets. The court meddled actively in these
heated controversies, and was swayed to one party or the other by the
theologians whom, for the time, it took into its favor. The emperors
assumed the high prerogative of personally deciding in doctrinal
disputes, and of dictating opinions to the clergy, who gradually lost
their independence, and became abjectly subservient to the imperial
will.

THE HIPPODROME.--The rage for doctrinal dispute in the sixth century
was only exceeded by the passions kindled in connection with the
circus, or hippodrome, at Constantinople. In old Rome the competitors
in the chariot-races were organized, the drivers wore their respective
badges,--red, white, blue, or green,--and emperors of the baser sort,
like _Caligula_ and _Caracalla_, visited the stables, and
were enrolled on the lists of the rival factions. But in
Constantinople the factions of the _blue_ and the _green_,
not content with the contest of the race-course, were violent
political parties in which courtiers and the emperor himself took
sides. The animosity of the _blues_ and the _greens_ broke
out in frequent bloody conflicts in the streets. Their respective
adherents spread into the provinces. On one occasion, under
_Justinian_, they raised a sedition called _Nika_ (from the
watchword used by the combatants), which well-nigh subverted the
throne. In this period the _body-guard_ of the emperor played a
part resembling that of the old praetorians at Rome.

JUSTINIAN.--A new dynasty began with _Justin I_., who succeeded
_Anastasius_ in 518. A peasant from _Dardania_ (Bulgaria),
who to the end of life was obliged to sign his name by means of an
engraved tablet, but, from being prefect of the Guard, became emperor,
Justin was still not without merit as a ruler. He educated his nephew,
_Justinian I_. (527-565), and made him his successor. Justinian
married _Theodora_, who had been a comedian and a courtesan, and
was famous for her beauty. She was the daughter of _Acacius_, who
had had the care of the wild beasts maintained by one of the factions
of the circus. She joined the _blues_, and it was her brave
spirit that prevented _Justinian_ from taking flight when he was
in imminent danger from the revolt of the _Nika_. The most
important proceedings and decisions in affairs of state were
determined by her will. Outwardly correct in her life, and zealous for
orthodoxy, her vigor of mind and cleverness were not without service
to the government; but her vindictive passions had full
indulgence. Justinian's reign was the most brilliant period in the
Byzantine history after the time of Constantine. Under his despotic
rule the last vestiges of republican administration were
obliterated. His love of pomp and of extravagant expenditure, in
connection with his costly wars, subjected the people to a crushing
weight of taxation.

WAR WITH PERSIA.--The brilliant achievements in war during Justinian's
reign were owing to the skill and valor of his generals, especially of
the hero _Belisarius_. After a hundred years of amity with
Persia, war with that kingdom broke out once more under
_Anastasius_ and _Justin_. _Belisarius_ saved the
Asiatic provinces, and defended the empire on the east against
_Cobad_, and against his successor, _Chosroes I_. (531-579),
who was, perhaps, the greatest of the Persian kings of the
_Sassanid_ dynasty. The "endless peace" made with him in 533
lasted but seven years. _Chosroes_ captured _Antioch_ in
540. The worst consequences of this success were again averted by
_Belisarius_, who was recalled from Italy in all haste. In the
treaty of 562, _Justinian_ ingloriously agreed to pay for the
honor of being the protector of the Christians in Persia the annual
tribute of thirty thousand pieces of gold.

CONQUEST OF AFRICA--From a military point of view the conquests of
_Justinian_ in Africa, in Italy, and in Spain, were the signal
events of his reign. Victory proved fatal to the barbarian conquerors
in those countries. They were weakened by the southern climate, by
sensual indulgence, and by strife among themselves. Justinian was
ready to profit by this diminished capacity of
resistance. _Gelimer_, king of the _Vandals_, had put to
death _Hilderic_, a kinsman of _Theodosius I_. The emperor
made this an occasion of attacking the Vandal kingdom, which was
distracted by religious differences and contention. _Belisarius_
sailed to Africa with a fleet of six hundred vessels, manned with
twenty thousand sailors and fifteen thousand troops. Three months
after landing he gained a decisive victory, and took possession of
_Africa, Sardinia_, and the _Balearic Isles_ (534). He
carried _Gelimer_ as a captive to Constantinople, and presented
him to _Justinian_ and _Theodora_, seated side by side in
the hippodrome to receive the triumphal procession in honor of the
victor. The captive ruler could only exclaim, "Vanity, vanity! All is
vanity!"

CONQUEST OF ITALY.--Professedly to avenge the wrongs of
_Amalasontha_, the ambitious and intriguing daughter of
_Theodoric_, who had been killed as a consequence of the
disaffection of the Goths, _Belisarius_ was sent to
Italy. _Sicily_ was conquered (535), and _Naples_ and
_Rome_ were taken (536). _Vitiges_, the new king of the
Goths, united the forces of the nation; but he was driven to shut
himself up in _Ravenna_, and Ravenna surrendered (540). The Goths
had offered the sovereignty of the country to _Belisarius_. The
jealousy of Justinian, and war with Persia, led to the recall of
Belisarius before he could complete the work of conquest. The Goths
under _Totila_, a nephew of the late king, regained the greater
part of Italy. Belisarius (544-549) was sent for the second time to
conquer that country. He gained important successes, and recaptured
Rome; but he was feebly supported by the suspicious and envious ruler
at Constantinople, and was at length called home. _Narses_, a
eunuch, insignificant in person, but as crafty as he was brave, was
commissioned to accomplish what Belisarius had not been allowed to
effect. He entered Italy at the head of an army, made up mostly of
Huns, Heruli, and other barbarians, and defeated _Totila_, who
died of his wounds (552). The Ostrogothic kingdom fell. The Gothic
warriors who survived had leave to quit the country with their
property, they having taken an oath never to return. The Ostrogoths,
as a nation, vanish from history. The EXARCHATE, or vice-royalty of
the Eastern Empire, was established, with its seat at
_Ravenna_. In _Spain_, Justinian obtained _Corduba,
Assidona, Segontia_ (554), in reward of the assistance which he had
rendered to _Athanagild_ against a competitor for the
throne. Constantinople was saved by _Belisarius_ from a
threatened attack of the _Bulgarians_, who had crossed the Danube
on the ice (559). This great general, whose form and stature and
benign manners attracted the admiration of the people, as his noble
but poorly requited services gave him a right to the gratitude of the
sovereign, was accused, in 563, of conspiracy against the life of
Justinian. His property was confiscated, but his innocence was finally
declared. The story that he was deprived of his eyes, and compelled to
beg his bread, is not credited. He died in 565. A few months later
_Justinian_ himself died at the age of eighty-three. He has been
aptly compared, as to his personal character and the character of his
reign, to Louis XIV. of France. Among the many structures which he
reared was the temple of St. Sophia at Constantinople, and countless
fortresses for the defense of the capital, of the Danube, and of other
parts of the exposed frontier.

THE CIVIL LAW.--Justinian's principal distinction in history grows out
of his relation to legislation, and to the study of the law. He caused
a famous lawyer, _Tribonian_, with the aid of a body of jurists,
to make those collections of ancient law which are still in force in
many countries. The _Code_ included the imperial constitutions
and edicts in twelve books (527, 528). This was followed (533) by the
_Institutes_, embracing the principles of Roman jurisprudence,
which was to be studied in the schools of _Constantinople_,
_Berytus_, and _Rome_; and the _Digest_, or
_Pandects_, comprising the most valuable passages from the
writings of the old jurists, that were deemed of authority. In this
last work three million lines were reduced to a hundred and fifty
thousand. Finally a fourth work, _The Novels_, embraced the laws
of Justinian after the publication of the code (534-565). These works,
taken together, form the Civil Law,--the _Corpus Juris
Civilis_. They are the legacy of Rome to later times. Humane
principles are incorporated into the civil law, but, likewise, the
despotic system of imperialism.

THE LOMBARDS IN ITALY.--In the great "Wandering of the Nations," the
German tribe of _Lombards_, or Langobards, had made their way
into _Pannonia_. To the east of them, in _Dacia_, there had
arisen the kingdom of the _Gepidae_, a people akin to the
_Goths_. In that region, also, were the Turanian _Avars_,
with whom the Lombards allied themselves, and overthrew the kingdom of
the Gepidæ. After the conquest of Italy, _Narses_ had established
there the Byzantine system of rule and of grinding
taxation. Discontent was the natural result. The enemies of
_Narses_ at Constantinople persuaded _Justin II._ and his
queen _Sophia_, who had great influence over him, that prudence
demanded the recall of the able, but avaricious and obnoxious,
governor. The queen was reported to have said, that "he should leave
to men the exercise of arms, and return to his proper station among
the women of the palace, where a distaff should be placed in the
eunuch's hand." "I will spin her such a thread," Narses is said to
have replied, "as she shall not unravel her life long."  He forthwith
invited the _Lombards_ into Italy, an invitation which they were
not both to accept. _Alboin_ was their leader, who had married
the beautiful _Rosamond_, daughter of the _Gepid_ king whom
he had slain. Narses repented of his rash proceeding, but he died
before he could organize a resistance to the invaders. These founded
the great Lombard kingdom in the north of Italy, and the smaller
Lombard states of _Spoleto_ and _Beneventum_. Ravenna,--the
residence of the _Exarchs_,--Rome, Naples, and the island city of
Venice, were centers of districts still remaining subject to the Greek
emperor, as were also the southern points of the two peninsulas of
Southern Italy, and, for the time, the three main
islands. _Alboin_ was killed in 574 at the instigation of
_Rosamond_, to whom, it was said, at a revel he had sent wine to
drink in the skull of _Cunimund_, her father. The Lombards were
not like the Goths. They formed no treaties, but seized on whatever
lands they wanted, reserving to themselves all political rights. The
new-comers were _Arian_ in religion, and partly heathen. There
was little intermixture by marriage between the two classes of
inhabitants. _Lombard_ and _Roman_ was each governed by his
own system of law. Later, especially under the kings _Liutprand_,
_Rachis_, and _Aistulf_ (749-756), this antagonism was much
lessened, and the Roman law gained a preponderating influence in the
Lombard codes. Gradually the power of the independent Lombard duchies
increased. The strength of the Lombard kingdom was thus reduced. The
Lombards more and more learned the arts of civilized life from the
Romans, and shared in the trading and industrial pursuits of the
cities. Their gradual conversion to Catholic Christianity brought the
two peoples still nearer together. It was within half a century of the
Lombard conquest that _Gregory I._ (Gregory the Great) held the
papal office (590-604).

AFTER JUSTINIAN.--During the century and a half that followed the
death of Justinian, the history of the Byzantine court and empire is
an almost unbroken tale of crime and degeneracy. The cruelty of such
emperors as _Phocas_ (602-610) and _Justinian II_. surpasses
the brutality of Nero and Domitian. The reign of _Heraclius_ is
the only refreshing passage in this dreary and repulsive record. He
led his armies in person in a series of campaigns against _Chosroes
II_., the Persian king. At the very time when Constantinople was
besieged in vain by a host of Persians and Avars, he conducted his
forces into the heart of the Persian Empire; and in a great battle
near _Nineveh_ in 627, he won a decisive victory. With the reign
of _Heraclius_, the transient prosperity of the Greek Empire
comes to an end. It was exhausted, even by its victories. Overwhelmed
with taxation, it was ruined in its trade and industry. Despotism in
the rulers, sensuality and baseness in rulers and subjects, undermined
public and private virtue. In addition to other enemies on every side,
it was attacked by the _Arabians_; and _Heraclius_ lived to
see the loss of _Syria_ and of _Egypt_, and the capture of
_Alexandria_, by these new assailants.

CONTROVERSY ON IMAGE WORSHIP.--The period of theological debate, when
at its height in the fourth and fifth centuries, whatever
extravagances of doctrinal zeal attended it, dealt with themes of
grave importance; and controversy was often waged by men of high
ability and moral worth. After that time, there succeeded to the
tempest an intellectual stagnation, under the blighting breath of
despotism, coupled with the effect of a lassitude, the natural sequel
of the long-continued disputation. But, in the eighth and ninth
centuries, a new controversy took place, which convulsed the Eastern
Empire, and extended to the West. The matter in dispute was the use of
images in worship. Pictorial representations had been gradually
introduced in the earlier centuries, but had been opposed, especially
in Egypt and in the African Church. After the time of
_Constantine_, they came by degrees into universal use. This
formed a ground of reproach on the part of the _Mohammedans_. The
warfare upon images was begun by _Leo III_., the Isaurian
(717-741), a rough soldier with no appreciation of art, who issued an
edict against them. The party of "image-breakers," or
_iconoclasts_, had numerous adherents; and the opposite party of
"image-worshipers," who had a powerful support from the monks in the
convents, were ardent and inflexible in withstanding the imperial
measures. Neither the remonstrances of _John of Damascus_, the
last of the Greek Fathers, nor of the Roman bishop, made an impression
on _Leo_. The agitation spread far and wide. Subsequent emperors
followed in his path. At length, however, the Empress _Irene_
(780-802) restored image-worship; and, in 842, the Empress
_Theodora_ finally confirmed this act. In the controversy,
religious motives were active, but they were mingled on both sides
with political considerations. The alienation of feeling on the part
of the Roman bishops was one cause of the separation of Italy from the
Greek Empire.

LITERATURE AND CULTURE.--While there was a prevalence of illiteracy in
the West, there continued in the Eastern Empire an interest in
letters, and a respect for classical literature. Devoted Greek monks
taught the Gospel to the _Bulgarians_ and to the Slavonian tribes
on its borders. _Cyril_ and _Methodius_, faithful
missionaries, gave the Bible to the _Moravians_ in their own
tongue. In the seventh century, _John of Damascus_ compiled from
the Greek Fathers a celebrated treatise on theology. But the period of
original thought in theology, as elsewhere, had passed by. This work
of the Damascene was made up chiefly of excerpts from the Fathers
before him. In earlier days the church in the East had been served by
erudite theologians of great talents and of great excellence, such as
_Basil the Great_ (328-379), _Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of
Nazianzum_ (326-390); all of whom were liberal-minded men,
strenuous defenders of orthodox doctrine, and yet not unfriendly to
philosophical study. Of even wider fame was _John Chrysostom_
(347-407), a preacher of captivating eloquence and of an earnest
Christian spirit, whose censure of the vices of the Byzantine court
provoked the wrath of the Empress _Eudoxia_, and twice drove him
into banishment. In the declining days of the empire, literary effort
was mainly confined to compilations and comments. _Eusebius_, in
the fourth century, had written a _History of the Church_, and a
_Chronicle_, or General History; and, a century later (about
432), _Zosimus_ composed a _History_ in a spirit of
antipathy to Christianity and of sympathy with the old religion. To
_Procopius_ (who died about 565) we owe an interesting history of
the times of _Justinian_. After the seventh century, all traces
of life and spirit vanish from the pages of the Byzantine
historians. In mathematics and astronomy, in architecture and
mechanics, the Byzantine Greeks were the teachers of the Arabians and
of the new peoples of the West. The Byzantine style of architecture
was of a distinct type, and was widely diffused.

THE SLAVONIC TRIBES.--In the sixth century the _Slavonian_ tribes
come into view. The _Avars_ stirred up such a commotion among
those tribes as the Huns had created among the Germans. The
_Slaves_ were driven to the _northwest_, where later they
came into relations with Germany; and to the _southwest_, where,
as conquerors and as learners, they stood, in some degree, in relation
to the Eastern Empire, in the same position as that of the Germans in
reference to the Western. North and East of the Adriatic arose
Slavonian States, as _Servia, Croatia, Carinthia. Istria_ and
_Dalmatia_, except the cities on the coast, became Slavonic. The
Slaves displaced the old _Illyrian_ race. In the seventh and
eighth centuries, _Macedonia_ and _Greece_ were largely
occupied by Slavonians. The _Bulgarians_ were a Turanian people,
who mixed with the Slavonians, and adopted their language. In 895 the
_Magyars_, a Turanian people, crowded into _Dacia_ and
_Pannonia_; and thus the _Bulgarians_ were confined to the
lands south of the Danube. The _Magyars_ formed the kingdom of
_Hungary_. The Slavonian _Russians_ were cut off from the
Southern tribes of the same race.



CHAPTER IV.  MOHAMMEDANISM AND THE ARABIC CONQUESTS.


CONDITION OF ARABIA.--In the sixth century the influence of the Greek
and of the Persian Empires, especially of the Persian, was prevalent
in Arabia. It was then inhabited mostly by tribes either distinct or
loosely bound together, and contained no independent state of any
considerable importance. The Arabs of that day had "all the virtues
and vices of the half-savage state, its revenge and its rapacity, its
hospitality and its bounty." In the _Hejaz_ district--situated
between fertile and more civilized _Yemen_, or Arabia Felix, in
the south-west of the peninsula and the Sinaitic region,--and in
_Nejd_ to the east of Hejaz, which were the two districts in
which Islam and the Arabian Empire took their rise, dwelt tribes whose
common sanctuary was the _Kaaba_ at _Mecca_, in the wall of
which was the quadrangular black stone kissed by all devotees, and
supposed to have been received from the angel Gabriel. The religion of
the Arabs was polytheism in many different forms, in which
idol-worship was prominent; but all agreed in acknowledging one
supreme God, _Allah_, in whose name solemn oaths were taken. Once
in the year the tribes gathered in Mecca for their devotions; and a
great fair in the vicinity, attended by a poetical contest, made the
city prosperous. The town was made up of separate _Septs_, or
patriarchal families, each under its own head, of which septs the
_Omayyads_ were of principal importance, and had charge of the
_Kaaba_. _Mohammed_ belonged to the _Hashimites_,
another and poorer branch of the leading tribe of _Koreish_. The
_Koreishites_, by their trading-journeys to Syria, had acquired
more culture then others, whether Bedouins, or residents of
_Medina_. At the time when _Mohammed_ was born, which was
probably in 572, the religion of the Arabs had sunk into idolatry or
indifference. There were three hundred and sixty images in the
Kaaba. But there were some who were called _hanifs_, who were
serious and earnest, and turned away from idolatrous worship. Besides
the _Sabian_ religion of the Persian sun-worshipers, the leading
tenets and rites of Christianity and of Judaism, both in the
degenerate types which they assumed on the Syrian borders, were not
unfamiliar to Arabs dwelling in the caravan routes on the borders of
the Red Sea.

CAREER OF MOHAMMED.--_Mohammed_ was early left an orphan under
the care of his uncle _Abu Talib_. In his youth he tended sheep,
and gathered wild berries in the desert. In his twenty-fifth year he
became the commercial agent of a wealthy widow, _Khadija_, made
journeys for her into Palestine and Syria,--where he may have received
religious knowledge and impressions from Christian monks and Jewish
rabbis,--and, after a time, married her. He is described as having a
commanding presence, with piercing eyes, fluent in speech, and with
pleasing ways. Eventually he came into close contact with the
_hanifs_. He followed the custom of retiring for meditation and
prayer to the lonely and desolate _Mount Hira._ A vivid sense of
the being of one Almighty God and of his own responsibility to God,
entered into his soul. A tendency to hysteria in the East a disease of
men as well as of women--and to epilepsy helps to account for
extraordinary states of body and mind of which he was the subject. At
first he ascribed his strange ecstasies, or hallucinations, to evil
spirits, especially on the occasion when an angel directed him to
begin the work of prophesying. But he was persuaded by _Khadija_
that their source was from above. He became convinced that he was a
prophet inspired with a holy truth and charged with a sacred
commission. His wife was his first convert. His faith he called
_Islam_, which signifies "resignation to the divine will." His
cousin _Ali_, his friend _Abubekr_, and a few others,
believed in him. There is no doubt that the materials of Mohammed's
creed were drawn from Jewish and Christian sources: _Abraham_ was
the _hanif_, whose pure monotheism he claimed to re-assert; but
the animating spirit was from within. The sum of his doctrine was,
that there is only one God, and that Mohammed is the apostle of God.

AFTER THE HEGIRA.--The _Koreishites_, the rulers and the elders,
persecuted him. They flung out the reproach, that his adherents were
from the poor or from the rank of slaves. This provoked him to
denounce them, and to threaten them with the Divine judgment and with
perdition. He lost his uncle in 619: his wife had died before. He had
found sympathy with his claims from pious men from _Medina_. They
offered him an asylum. Thither he went in 622, the date of his
_Hijira_, or flight from Mecca, from which the Mohammedan
calendar is reckoned. At Medina he won influence: he was frequently
resorted to as an adviser, and as a judge to settle disputes. His
activity in this direction was beneficent. His injunctions respecting
the rights of property, and the protection due to women, were, in the
main, discreet and wholesome. Naturally and speedily he became a
political leader as well as a religious reformer. This new course on
which he entered made a breach between him and the _Jews_, whom
he had hoped to conciliate. He drew off from fellowship with them,
made _Friday_ the principal day of public worship, and Mecca its
principal seat. For the Jewish fast he substituted the month of
_Ramadan_. His plan was to cement together the Arab tribes,
superseding the old tie of blood by the new bond of fellowship in
adherence to him. The project of a holy war to conquer and to crush
the idolaters, and to establish his own authority, was the means to
this end. _Mecca_ was the first object of assault. He attacked
and plundered a Meccan caravan in 623. The next year he defeated the
_Koreishites_ in the battle of _Bedr_. In the battle of
_Ohod_ (625) his followers were worsted. Other conflicts ensued,
with attacks on the _Jews_ in the intervals, until, in 630, he
entered _Mecca_ at the head of ten thousand men, and destroyed
all the idols. This event secured the adhesion of the Arabian tribes,
together with the chiefs of _Yemen_ and of the other more
civilized districts. Hearing that the Emperor _Heraclius_ was
proposing to attack him, he went forth to meet him, but found that the
rumor was false. He was preparing a new expedition against the
_Greeks_ when he died, in 632.

CHARACTER OF MOHAMMED.--From the time of the flight of Mohammed to
Medina, the prophet turned more and more into the politician. Under
the circumstances, this was, perhaps, an almost inevitable change. But
one consequence was the bringing out of his natural vindictiveness,
and the transformation of the enthusiast into the fanatic. Beginning
as the prophet of Arabia, he came to think that he was the prophet of
the whole world. There was a call to a wider warfare against
idolatry. A crusade, partly political and partly religious, involved a
mixture of craft and cruelty which exhibit his character in a new
light. Yet it is probable that he always sincerely felt that his work
in general was one to which he was called of God. Even the prosaic
regulations and "orders of the day," which are placed in the
_Koran_, if not the reproduction, in cataleptic visions, of his
previous thoughts, may have been regarded by him as having a divine
sanction. The extent of possible self-deception in so extraordinary a
combination of qualities, it is not easy to define. His conduct was,
for the most part, on a level with his precepts. There was one
exception; he allowed not more than four wives to a disciple: he
himself, at one time, had eleven. While _Khadija_ lived he was
wedded to her alone.

THE KORAN.--The Koran is regarded as the word of God by a hundred
millions of disciples. It is very unequal in style. In parts it is
vigorous, and here and there imaginative, but generally its tone is
prosaic. Its narrative portions are chiefly about scriptural persons,
especially those of the Old Testament. Mohammed's acquaintance with
these must have been indirect, from rabbinical and apocryphal
sources. _Adam_, _Noah_, _Abraham_, _Moses_, and
_Christ_ are acknowledged as prophets. The deity of Christ and
the doctrine of the Trinity are repudiated. The miracles of Jesus are
acknowledged. Mohammed does not claim for himself miraculous
power. Predestination is taught, but this became a conspicuous tenet
of Moslems after the death of the founder. The immortality of the soul
is admitted, the pains of hell are threatened to the wicked and to
"infidels;" and a sensual paradise is promised to the faithful,
although it is declared that higher spiritual joys are the lot of the
most favored. The faith of Mohammed was, in substance, Judaism, the
religion of the Old Testament; power being set before holiness,
however, in the conception of God, and the supernatural mission of
_Mohammed_ substituted for the future Messianic reign of
righteousness and peace, and coupled with the emphatic proclamation of
the last judgment. The law in the Koran is a civil as well as a moral
code. Notwithstanding his countenance of sensuality by his own
practice, as well as by his legalizing of polygamy, and his notion of
paradise, Mohammed elevated the condition of woman among the
Arabs. Before there was unbridled profligacy: now there was a
regulated polygamy. Severe prohibitions are uttered against thieving,
usury, fraud, false witness; and alms-giving is emphatically
enjoined. Strong drink and gambling were prohibited.

The gem of the Koran is "The Lord's Prayer of the Moslems:" "In the
name of God, the compassionate Compassioner, the Sovereign of the day
of judgment. Thee do we worship, and of Thee do we beg
assistance. Direct us in the right way; in the way of those to whom
Thou hast been gracious, in whom there is no wrath, and who go not
astray."

THE ARABIC CONQUESTS: SYRIA, PERSIA, EGYPT.--Mohammed made no
provision for the succession. The _Caliphs_, or "successors,"
combined in themselves civil, military and religious authority. They
united the functions of emperor and pope. _Ali_, the husband of
_Fatima_, Mohammed's favorite daughter, had hoped to succeed
him. But, by the older companions of the prophet, _Abubekr,_
Mohammed's father-in-law was appointed. The _Shiites_ were
supporters of Ali, while the _Sunnites_, who adhered to "the
traditions of the elders," were against him. These two parties have
continued until the present day; the _Persians_ being
_Shiites_, and the _Turks, Sunnites_. Mohammed, before he
died, was inflamed with the spirit of conquest. Full of the fire of
fanaticism, mingled with a thirst for dominion and plunder, the
Arabians rapidly extended their sway. These warriors, to their credit
be it said, if terrible in attack, were mild in victory. Their two
principal adversaries were the _Eastern Empire_ and
_Persia_. Mohammedanism snatched from the empire those provinces
in which the Greek civilization had not taken deep root, and it made
its way into Europe. It conquered _Persia_, and became the
principal religion of those Asiatic nations with which history mainly
has to do. Mohammed had made a difference in his injunctions between
heathen, apostates, and schismatics, all of whom were to embrace Islam
or to perish, and Jews and Christians, to both of whom was given the
choice of the Koran, tribute, or death. They must buy the right to
exercise their religion, if they refused to say that "Allah is God,
and Mohammed is His prophet." _Omar_ (634-644), the next caliph
after _Abubekr_, and a leader distinguished alike for his
military energy and his simplicity of manners and life, first brought
all Arabia, which was impelled as much by a craving for booty as by
religious zeal, into a cordial union under his banner. Then he carried
the war beyond the Arabian borders. _Palestine_ and _Syria_
were wrested from the Greek Empire; the old cities of _Jerusalem,
Antioch_, and _Damascus_ fell into the hands of the impetuous
Saracens. A mosque was erected on the site of Solomon's Temple. The
_Persian Empire_ was invaded, and, after a series of sanguinary
battles, especially the battle of _Cadesia_ (636), followed by
the battle of _Nehavend_ (641), was destroyed. _Ctesiphon_,
with all its riches, was captured, and _Persepolis_ was
sacked. The last king of the line of _Sassanids_, _Yezdegerd
III_., having lived for many years as a fugitive, perished by the
hand of an assassin (652). Meantime _Egypt_ had submitted to the
irresistible invaders under _Amr_, who was aided by the Christian
sect of the _Copts_, out of hostility to the Greek Orthodox
Church. After a siege of fourteen months, _Alexandria_ was taken;
but it is probably not true that the library was burned by
_Omar's_ order. In the disorders of the times, the great
collections of books had probably, for the most part, been dispersed
and destroyed. Six friends of Mohammed, selected by _Omar_, chose
_Othman_ (644-656) for his successor, who stirred up enmity by
his pride and avarice. Under him the Christian _Berbers_ in
Africa were won over to the faith of Islam, and paved the way for its
further advance.

THE OMAYYADS: CONQUEST OF AFRICA AND SPAIN.--_Othman_ was
assassinated by three fanatics, and _Ali_ was then raised to the
caliphate; but _Muawiyah_, representing the family of the
_Omayyads_, made himself the head of an opposing party, and,
after the assassination of _Ali_, became sole caliph (661). He
removed the seat of the caliphate to _Damascus_. He carried the
Arabian conquests as far as the _Indus_ and _Bokhara_. He
created a fleet on the Mediterranean, under an "Admiral," that is, a
commander on the sea. In seven successive years he menaced
Constantinople with his navy. At a later time, in 717, under the
caliph _Soliman_, another great attempt was made on the capital
of the Greek Empire. With an army of a hundred and twenty thousand
men, he traversed Asia Minor and the Hellespont, and was supported in
his attack by a fleet of eighteen hundred sail. But the energetic
defense, which was aided by the use of "the Greek fire,"--an
artificial compound which exploded and burned with an unquenchable
flame,--caused the grand expedition to fail; and the Eastern Empire
had another long lease of life. The successors of _Muawiyah_
accomplished the subjugation of Africa. They were invited by the
native inhabitants, who groaned under the burdens of taxation laid on
them by the Greek emperors. About A.D. 700 the Arab governor,
_Musa_, completed the conquest of the African dominion of the
Greeks as far as the Atlantic. The amalgamation of the _Berbers_
with the other inhabitants of that region, and with the _Arabs_,
resulted in the race called _Moors_. At this time the Spanish
Visigothic kingdom, which had become Catholic (586-601), was much
enfeebled, and a prey to discord. Under _Tarik_--from whom
_Gibraltar_, or the mountain of _Tarik_ near which he
landed, is named--the Arabs crossed into Spain, and for the first time
found themselves face to face with the barbarians of the North. In the
great battle of _Xeres de la Frontera_, near the
_Guadalquivir_, in 711, which lasted for three days, the fate of
the Visigothic kingdom was decided. Eight years were occupied in
conquering Spain. In 720 the Saracens occupied _Septimania_ north
of the Pyrenees, a dependency of the Gothic kingdom. Gaul now lay open
before them. The Mohammedan power threatened to encircle Christendom,
and to destroy the Church and Christianity itself. In the plains
between _Tours_ and _Poitiers_, the Saracens were met by the
Austrasian Franks under _Charles Martel_ (732). The impetuous
charges of the Saracen cavalry were met and beaten back by the
infantry of the _Franks_, which confronted them like an iron
wall. The Mohammedan defeat saved Christian Europe from being trampled
under foot by the Mussulman; it saved the Christian people of the
_Aryan_ nations from being subjugated by the _Semitic_
disciples of the Koran. At the same time that Spain was overrun, the
Turkish lands on the east of the Caspian were subdued. The old
antipathy between the Iranians and Turanians, the Schiite Persians and
the Sunnite Turks, was afterwards carried into Europe by the Ottoman
Moslems.

THE ABBASSIDES: BAGDAD.--Misgovernment embittered the faithful against
the rule of the _Omayyads_ in _Damascus_, although Syria had
become a source of higher culture for the Arabians: there they became
acquainted with Greek learning. The adherents of _Ali_ found
vigorous champions in the _Abbassides_, who, as
_Hashimites_, laid claim to the caliphate. One of them, _Abul
Abbas_, was made caliph by the soldiers in 750. The fierce cruelty
of his party against the _Omayyads_ led to the murder of all of
them except _Abderrahman_, who fled to Africa, and, in 755,
founded an independent caliphate at _Cordova_. The
_Abbassides_ attached themselves to the _Sunnite_
creed. Under _Almansor_, the brother and successor of _Abbas,
Bagdad_, a city founded by _Almansor_ (754-775) on the banks
of the Tigris, was made the seat of the caliphate, and so continued
until the great Mongolian invasion in 1258. Bagdad was built on the
west bank of the Tigris, but, by means of bridges, stretched over to
the other shore. It was protected by strong, double walls. It was not
only the proud capital of the caliphate: it was, besides, the great
market for the trade of the East, the meeting-place of many nations,
where caravans from China and Thibet, from India, and from Ferghana in
the modern Turkestan, met throngs of merchants from Armenia and
Constantinople, from Egypt and Arabia. There trading-fleets gathered
which carried the products of the North and West down the great rivers
to the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. _Bagdad_ was to the
caliphs what _Byzantium_ was to Constantine, or _Alexandria_
to the Ptolemies. It became the grandest city in the world. Canals to
the number of six hundred ran through it, and a hundred and five
bridges bound its two parts together. It was furnished with many
thousand mosques and as many baths.  The palace of the caliphs
comprised in itself all the splendor which Asiatic taste and
extravagance could collect and combine in one edifice.

THE EASTERN CALIPHATE.--Deprived of the western extremity of their
empire, the _Abbassides_ still ruled over _Asia_ and
_Africa_. In their luxurious and splendid court, the caliphs,
served by a vast retinue of officers with the _Vizier_ at their
head, copied the magnificence of the ancient Persians. The most famous
of the caliphs of Bagdad is _Harun-al-Rashid_, or "Aaron the
Just" (786-809). His name is familiar even to children as the
wonderful hero of the "Arabian Nights." His reign, like that of
_Solomon_ in ancient Judæa, was considered in after times the
golden age of the caliph dominion. As in the case of
_Charlemagne_, poetry and romance invested his character and
reign with all that can give glory and honor to a king and a
sage. Brilliant pictures were drawn of the boundless wealth and luxury
of his court, and of his admirable piety and wisdom. About him there
was assembled a host of jurists, linguists, and poets. Three hundred
scholars traveled at his expense through different lands. Righteous
judgments were ascribed to him, and oracular sayings.  He was made the
ideal ruler of Oriental fancy. His real character fell much below the
later popular conception. He behaved like an Eastern despot towards
all his kindred who stood in his way. The Persian family of
_Barmecides_ he exterminated, when his passionate attachment to
one of them turned to hatred on account of an obscure affair connected
with the harem. Stories told by Western chroniclers of his relations
with _Charlemagne_ require to be sifted. The Greek emperor
_Nicephorus_, who had rashly defied him, he addressed as the
"Roman dog." Nine times _Harun_ invaded the Greek Empire, left
its provinces wasted as by a hurricane, and extorted from it a tribute
which he obliged the emperors, who repented of their daring, to pay in
coin stamped with his image. His best distinction is in the liberal
patronage which he, no doubt, extended to learning. In this he was
imitated by his son _Al Mamun_ (813-833), who founded numerous
schools, and expended vast sums in behalf of science and letters. The
caliphate was weakened by the introduction of the _Turks_,
somewhat as the Roman Empire fared from its relations with the
Germans. _Motasem_ (833-842), the eighth of the Abbassides,
brought in a Turkish guard of forty thousand slaves, purchased in
_Tartary_. These soldiers, instead of remaining servants, became
lawless masters, and disposed of the throne as the prætorians at Rome
had done. The palace of the caliphs was filled with
violence. Revolution and anarchy, kept up during two centuries, broke
the caliphate into fragments. Conspiracies and insurrections were the
order of the day. _Africa_ had detached itself in the time of
_Harun-al-Rashid_. In _Asia_ various independent dynasties
arose, formed mostly by Turkish governors of provinces.

THE TURKISH EMIRS.--In the eleventh century, the _Seljukian
Turks_ despoiled the Arabs of their sovereignty in the East. The
caliph at _Bagdad_ gave up all his temporal power to _Togrul
Bey_ (1058), and retained simply the spiritual headship over
orthodox Mussulmans. To the Turk who bore the title _Emir al
Omra_, was given the military command. He was what the Mayor of the
Palace had been among the Franks. In 1072 his son, _Malek Shah_,
made _Ispahan_ his capital, and governed Asia from China to the
vicinity of Constantinople.

THE FATIMITE CALIPHATE.--In the ninth and tenth centuries the
_Aglabites_ (800-909), whose capital was _Cairoan_ (in
Tunis), were dominant in the Western Mediterranean, established
themselves, in their marauding expeditions, in _Corsica,
Sardinia_, and _Sicily_, and several times attacked Italy. In
909 they, with the _Edrisites_, adherents of _Ali_, in
_Fez_, formed, under a Fatimite chief, _Moez_, with Egypt,
the African Caliphate, the seat of which was at _Cairo_
(968). The Fatimite caliphs extended their power over Syria. The most
famous of the caliphs of _Cairo_ was _Hakem_ (996-1020), a
monster of cruelty, who claimed to be the incarnation of Deity. These
caliphs claimed to be the descendants of _Ali_ and of
_Fatima_. Their dynasty was extinguished by _Saladin_ in
1171.

THE CALIPHS OF CORDOVA.--In Spain the caliphs of _Cordova_
allowed to the Christians freedom of worship and their own laws and
judges. The mingling of the conquerors with the conquered gave rise to
a mixed _Mozarabic_ population. The _Franks_ conquered the
country as far as the _Ebro_ (812). Under _Mohammed
I_. (852), the Saracen governors of the provinces sought to make
themselves independent; but the most brilliant period of the caliphate
of Cordova followed, under _Abderrahman III_. (912-961). In the
eleventh century there was anarchy, produced by the African guard of
the caliphs, which played a part like that of the Turkish guard at
_Bagdad_, and by reason of the rebellion of the governors. In
1031 the last descendant of the _Omayyads_ was deposed, and in
1060 the very title of caliph vanished. The caliphate gave place to
numerous petty Moslem kingdoms. The African Mussulmans came to their
help, and thus gave the name of _Moors_ to the Spanish
Mohammedans. Their language and culture, however, remained Arabic. The
Arabian conquests had moved like a deluge to the _Indus_, to the
borders of _Asia Minor_, and to the _Pyrenees_. In Syria
they were not generally resisted by the people. Egypt, for the same
reason, was an easy conquest. It took the Moslems sixty years to
conquer _Africa_. In three years nearly all Spain was theirs; and
it was not until seven hundred years after this time that they were
utterly driven out of that country.

THE MOSLEM GOVERNMENT--The Moslem civilization rested on the
Koran. Grammar, lexicography, theology, and law stood connected at
first with the study and understanding of the Sacred Book. The
_Caliph_ was the fountain of authority. There was a fixed system
of taxation, the poll-tax and land-tax being imposed only on
non-Moslem subjects. All Moslems received a yearly pension, a definite
sum determined by their rank. The empire was divided into provinces,
each governed by a _Prefect_, who was a petty sovereign, subject
only to the _Caliph_. The _Generals_ were appointed by the
caliph, by the prefects, or by the _Vizier_, who was the prime
minister. The _Judges (cadis)_ were appointed by the same
officers. There was a court of appeal over which the caliph
presided. There were inspectors of the markets, who were also censors
of morals. The _Imam_ had for his function to recite the public
prayers in the mosque. The leader of the yearly pilgrimage to Mecca
was an officer of the highest dignity.

THEOLOGY: LAW: LITERATURE.--The Mohammedans entered into discussions
of theology, which gave rise to differences, and to schools and
sects. The nature of the Deity, predestination, the future life, were
subjects of profound and subtle inquiry. More than once, pantheistic
doctrine was broached by speculative minds, such as _Avicenna_
and _Averrhoes_. In Persia, _Súfism_, a form of mysticism,
made great progress. It extolled the unselfish love of God, and a
contemplative and ascetic life. _Law_ was studied; and on the
basis of the _Koran_, and of reasonings upon it, systems of
jurisprudence were created. _Science_ and _Literature_ kept
pace with legal studies. _Poetry_ flourished through the whole
period of the Eastern caliphate. There were, also, Persian poets who
hold an important place in the history of literature, of whom
_Firdousi_ (about 940 to 1020) and _Saadi_ (who died in
1291) are the most eminent.  Under the _Abbassides_ in Syria,
through Christian scholars and by translations, the Arabians became
acquainted with the Greek authors. They cultivated geography. The
Moslems were students of astronomy, and carried the study of
mathematics, which they learned from the Greeks and Hindus, very
far. But they apparently felt no interest in the poets, orators, and
historians of antiquity. In the study of _Aristotle_, and in
metaphysical philosophy, they were proficients. Medicine, also, they
cultivated with success. They delved in _Alchemy_ in the search
for the transmutation of metals.

COMMERCE AND THE ARTS.--The Moslems engaged actively in commerce. They
acquired much skill in various branches of mechanical art. The weapons
of _Damascus_ and of _Toledo_, the silks of _Granada_,
the saddles of _Cordova_, the muslins, silks, and carpets of the
Moslem dominions in the East, were highly prized in Christian
countries. They manufactured paper. Forbidden to represent the human
form in painting and sculpture, their distinction in the fine arts is
confined to architecture. Peculiar to them is the _Arabesque_
ornamentation found in their edifices: the idea of the arch was
borrowed from the Byzantine style. One of their most famous monuments
is the mosque at _Cordova_. The ruins of the _Alhambra_, in
Spain, a palace and a fortress, illustrate the richness and elegance
of the Saracenic style of building.

THE ARABIAN MIND.--Neither in architecture, nor in any other
department, were the Arabs in a marked degree original. They invented
nothing. They were quick to learn, and to assimilate what they
learned. They were apt interpreters and critics, but they produced no
works marked by creative genius. Many of the scholars at the court of
the caliphs were Christians and Jews. Yet _Bagdad, Samarcand, Cairo,
Grenada, Cordova_, were centers of intellectual activity and of
learning when the nations of Western Europe had not escaped from the
barbarism resulting from the Teutonic invasions.

  LITERATURE.--Lives of Mohammed by MUIR, SPRENGER (German), Irving:
  _Encycl. Brit._, Art. _Mohammedanism_; Kuenen, _National
  Religions and Universal Religions;_ Nöldeke,
  _Gesch. d. Quorans_ (1860); Muir, _The Corân_ (1878);
  R. B. Smith, _Mohammed and Mohammedanism_ (1875); Stobart,
  _Islam and its Founder_; Ockley, _History of the Saracens_
  (sixth edition, 1857); FREEMAN, _History and Conquests of the
  Saracens_ (1870).



THE CARLOVINGIAN HOUSE


PIPIN of Heristal, _d._ 714.
|
+--Charles Martel, _d._ 741.
   |
   +--PIPIN the Short, king 752-768.
      |
      +--CHARLEMANGE, 768-814 (emperor 800).
      |  |
      |  +--Pipin, King of Italy, _d._ 810.
      |  |  |
      |  |  +--BERNARD, _d._ 818.
      |  |
      |  +--Charles, King of Franconia.
      |  |
      |  +--LOUIS the Pious, 814-840.
      |     |
      |     | LOTHARINGIA
      |     |
      |     +--LOTHAR I, 843-855.
      |     |  |
      |     |  +--LOUIS II, 855-875
      |     |  |  |
      |     |  |  +--Hermingarde, _m._
      |     |  |     BOSO I, King of Provence, 879-887
      |     |  |     |
      |     |  |     +--LOUIS, 887-905 (emperor 901) _m._ Eadgifu,
      |     |  |        daughter of Edward the Elder
      |     |  |
      |     |  +--Lothar II, _d._ 869.
      |     |  |
      |     |  +--Charles, _d._ 863
      |     |
      |     | GERMANY
      |     |
      |     +--LOUIS the German, 843-876.
      |     |  |
      |     |  +--CARLOMAN, _d._ 880.
      |     |  |  |
      |     |  |  +--ARNULF, King of Germany, 887-899 (emperor 896).
      |     |  |     |
      |     |  |     +--LOUIS the Child, 900-911.
      |     |  |
      |     |  +--LOUIS the Younger. d 880.
      |     |  |
      |     |  +--CHARLES the Fat (emperor 881-887), _d._ 888.
      |     |
      |     | FRANCE
      |     |
      |     +--CHARLES the Bald, 843-877 (emperor 875).
      |        |
      |        +--LOUIS II, 877-879.
      |           |
      |           +--LOUIS III, 879-882
      |           |
      |           +--Carloman, 879-884
      |           |
      |           +--CHARLES the Simple, _m._ Eadgifu,
      |              daughter of Edward the Elder
      |              |
      |              +--LOUIS IV (D'Outremer), 936-954.
      |                 |
      |                 +--Matilda, _m._ CONRAD the Peaceful.
      |                 |  |
      |                 |  +--RUDOLPH III, 993-1032
      |                 |
      |                 +--LOTHAR, 954-986.
      |                 |  |
      |                 |  +--LOUIS V, 986-987.
      |                 |
      |                 +--Charles, Duke of Lower Lorraine, _d._ 994.
      |
      +--Carloman, 768-771.



RIVAL KINGS OF FRANCE NOT OF THE CARLOVINGIAN LINE.


Robert the Strong, _d._ 866.
|
+--EUDES, king 887-893.
|
+--ROBERT, king 922-923.
   |
   +--Emma, _m._ RUDOLPH of Burgundy; king 923-926.
   |
   +--Hugh the Great (father of Hugh Capet).



PERIOD II.  FROM THE CARLOVINGIAN LINE OF FRANK KINGS TO THE
ROMANO-GERMANIC EMPIRE.  (_A.D. 751-962._)



CHAPTER I.  THE CARLOVINGIAN EMPIRE TO THE DEATH OF CHARLEMAGNE
(A.D. 814).


PIPIN THE SHORT.--The great event of the eighth century was the
organization and spread of the dominion of the _Franks_, and the
transfer to them of the Roman Empire of the West. Three Frank
princes--_Charles Martel_, _Pipin the Short_, and
_Charlemagne_, or _Karl the Great_--were the main
instruments in bringing in this new epoch in European history. They
followed a similar course, as regards the wars which they undertook,
and their general policy. _Charles Martel_, the conqueror of the
Saracens at _Poitiers_, rendered great services to the Church;
but he provoked the lasting displeasure of the ecclesiastics by his
seizures of church property. He rewarded his soldiers with
archbishoprics. _Pipin_, however, was earnestly supported by the
clergy. He had the confidence and favor of the Franks, and in 751,
with the concurrence of Pope _Zacharias_, deposed _Childeric
III._, and assumed the title of king. The long hair of
_Childeric_, the badge of the Frank kings, was shorn, and he was
placed in a monastery. In 752 _Pipin_ was anointed and crowned at
_Soissons_ by _Boniface_, the bishop of _Mentz_, who
exerted himself to restore order and discipline in the Frank Church,
which had fallen into disorder in the times of Charles Martel.

PIPIN IN ITALY.--The controversy with the Greeks about the use of
images had alienated the popes from the Eastern Empire. The
encroachments of the Lombards threatened Rome itself, and were a
constant menace to the independence of its bishops. Pope _Stephen
III_. resorted to _Pipin_ for help against these aggressive
neighbors; and, in 754, _Stephen_ solemnly repeated, in the
cathedral of St. Denis, the ceremony of his coronation. The
Carlovingian usurpation was thus hallowed in the eyes of the people by
the sanction of the Church. The alliance between the Papacy and the
Franks, so essential to both, was cemented. Pipin crossed the Alps in
754, and humbled _Aistulf_, the Lombard king; but, as Aistulf
still kept up his hostility to the Pope, Pipin once more led his
forces into Italy, and compelled him to become tributary to the Frank
kingdom, and to cede to him the territory which he had won from the
Greek Empire,--the exarchate of _Ravenna_ and the
_Pentapolis_, or the lands and cities between the Apennines and
the Adriatic, from _Ferrara_ to _Ancona_. This territory the
Frank king formally presented to St. Peter. Thus there was founded the
temporal kingdom of the popes in Italy. _Pipin_ was called
_Patricius_ of Rome, which made him its virtual sovereign,
although the office and title implied the continued supremacy of the
Eastern Empire. He united under him all the conquests which had been
made by _Clovis_ and his successors. His sway extended over
_Aquitaine_ and as far as the Pyrenees. It was the rule of the
_Teutonic_ North over the more _Latin_ South, which had no
liking for the Frank sovereignty.

CHARLEMAGNE: THE SAXONS AND SARACENS.--_Pipin_ died in 768. By
the death of his younger son, Carloman, his older son, _Charles_,
in 771 became the sole king of the Franks. Charlemagne is more
properly designated _Karl the Great_, for he was a German in
blood and speech, and in all his ways. He stands in the foremost rank
of conquerors and rulers. His prodigious energy and activity as a
warrior may be judged by the number of his campaigns, in which he was
uniformly successful. The eastern frontier of his dominions was
threatened by the _Saxons_, the _Danes_, the _Slaves_,
the _Bavarians_, the _Avars_. He made eighteen expeditions
against the Saxons, three against the Danes, one against the
Bavarians, four against the Slaves, four against the Avars. Adding to
these his campaigns against the Saracens, Lombards, and other peoples,
the number of his military expeditions is not less than
fifty-three. In all but two of his marches against the Saxons,
however, he accomplished his purpose without a battle. That he was
ambitious of conquest and of fame, is evident. That he had the rough
ways of his German ancestors, and was unsparing in war, is equally
certain. Yet he was not less eminent in wisdom than in vigor; and his
reign, on the whole, was righteous as well as glorious. The two most
formidable enemies of Charlemagne were the _Saxons_ and the
_Saracens_. The Saxon war "was checkered by grave disasters, and
pursued with undismayed and unrelenting determination, in which he
spared neither himself nor others. It lasted continuously--with its
stubborn and ever-recurring resistance, its cruel devastations, its
winter campaigns, its merciless acts of vengeance--as the effort which
called forth all Charles's energy for thirty-two years" (772-804). The
Saxons were heathen. The conquest of them was the more difficult
because it involved the forced introduction of Christianity in the
room of their old religion. More than once, when they seemed to be
subdued, they broke out in passionate and united revolt. Their
fiercest leader in insurrection was _Witikind_. A last and
terrible uprising, in consequence of the slaughter of forty-five
hundred Saxons on the _Aller_ as a punishment for breach of
treaty, was put down in 785, when _Witikind_ submitted, and
consented to receive Christian baptism. During the progress of the
Saxon war, at the call of the Arab governor of _Saragossa_ for
aid against the caliph _Abderrahman_, Charles marched into Spain,
and conquered Saragossa and the whole land as far as the
_Ebro_. On his return, in the valley of _Ronceveaux_, the
Frank rear guard was surprised and destroyed by the
_Basques_. There fell the Frank hero _Roland_, whose gallant
deeds were a favorite subject of mediæval romances. The duchy of
_Bavaria_ was abolished after a second revolt of its duke,
_Tassilo_ (788). One of the most brilliant of Charlemagne's wars
was that against the Hunnic _Avars_ (791). Their land between the
_Ems_ and _Raab_ he annexed to his empire. Bavarian
colonists were planted in it. Enormous treasures which they had
gathered, in their incursions, from all Europe, were captured, with
their "Ring," or palace-camp. The Slavonic tribes were kept in
awe. _Brittany_ was subjugated in 811. In the closing years of
Charles's reign, the _Danes_ became more and more aggressive and
formidable. He visited the northern coasts, made _Boulogne_ and
_Ghent_ his harbors and arsenals, and built fleets for defense
against the audacious invaders.

CHARLEMAGNE IN ITALY.--Some of the most memorable incidents in
Charlemagne's career are connected with Italy. While he was busy in
the Saxon war, he had been summoned to protect Pope _Hadrian
I_. (772-795) from the attack of the Lombards. To please his
mother, _Charles_ had married, but he had afterwards divorced,
the daughter of the Lombard king _Desiderius_. She was the first
in the series of Charlemagne's wives, who, it is said, were nine in
number. By the divorce he incurred the resentment of Desiderius, who
required the Pope to anoint the sons of _Carloman_ as kings of
the Franks. In 772 Charlemagne crossed the Alps by the Mont Cenis and
the St. Bernard, captured _Pavia_, and shut up Desiderius in a
Frank monastery. The king of the Franks became king of the
_Lombards_, and lord of all Italy, except the _Venetian
Islands_ and the southern extremity of _Calabria_, which
remained subject to the Greeks. The German king and the Pope were now,
in point of fact, dominant in the West. A woman, _Irene_, who had
put out the eyes of her son that she herself might reign, sat on the
throne at Constantinople. This was a fair pretext for throwing off the
Byzantine rule, which afforded no protection to Italians. Once more
_Charles_ visited Italy, to restore to the papal chair _Leo
III._, who had been expelled by an adverse party, and, at Charles's
camp at _Paderborn_, had implored his assistance. On Christmas
Day in the year 800, during the celebration of mass in the old
Basilica of St. Peter, _Leo III._ advanced to _Charlemagne_,
and placed a crown on his head, saluting him, amid the acclamations of
the people, as Roman emperor.

MEANING OF CHARLES'S CORONATION.--The coronation of Charlemagne made
him the successor of Augustus and of Constantine. It was not imagined
that the empire had ever ceased to be. The Byzantine emperors had been
acknowledged in form as the rulers of the West: not even now was it
conceived that the empire was divided. In the imagination and feeling
of men, the creation of the Caesars remained an indivisible unity. The
new emperor in the West could therefore only be regarded as a rival
and usurper by the Byzantine rulers; but Charlemagne professed a
friendly feeling, and addressed them as his brothers,--as if they and
he were exercising a joint sovereignty. In point of fact, there had
come to be a new center of wide-spread dominion in Western Europe. The
diversity in beliefs and rites between Roman Christianity and that of
the Greeks had been growing. The popes and Charlemagne were united by
mutual sympathy and common interests. The assumption by him of the
imperial title at their instance, and by the call of the Roman people,
was the natural issue of all the circumstances.

CHARLES'S SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.--Charlemagne showed himself a
statesman bent on organization and social improvement. There was a
system of local officers. The border districts of the kingdom were
made into _Marks_, under _Margraves_ or _Marquesses_,
for defense against the outlying tribes. One of them, to the east of
Bavaria, was afterwards called _Austria_. _Dukes_ governed
provinces, some of which afterwards became kingdoms. Their power the
emperor tried to reduce. The empire was divided into districts, in
each of which a _Count_ (_Graf_) ruled, with inferior
officers, either territorial or in cities. _Bishops_ had large
domains, and great privileges and immunities. The officers held their
places at the king's pleasure: they became possessed of landed
estates, and the tendency was, for the offices to become hereditary.

The old German word _Graf_ is of uncertain derivation, but means
the same as _count_ (from the Latin _comes_). _Mark_ is
a word found in all the Teutonic languages. From the signification of
_boundary_, it came to be applied, like its synonym _march_,
to a frontier district. A _margrave_ (_Mark-Graf_) was a
_mark-count_, or an officer ruling for the king in such a
district. A _viscount_ (_vicecomes_) was an officer
subordinate to a _count_. _Pfalz_, meaning originally
_palace_ (from the Latin _palatium_), was the term for any
one of the king's estates. The _palsgrave_ (_Pfalz-Graf_)
was first his representative in charge of one of these domains. The
_stallgrave_ (_Stall-Graf_) corresponded to the
_constable_ (_comes stabuli_) in English and French. It
signifies the officer in charge of the king's _stables_, the
groom. He had a military command. A later designation of the same
office is _marshal_ (from two old German words, one of which
means a _horse_, as seen in our word _mare_, having the same
etymology, and the other means a _servant_).

Imperial deputies, or _missi_, lay and ecclesiastical together,
visited all parts of the kingdom to examine and report as to their
condition, to hold courts, and to redress wrongs. There were appeals
from them to the imperial tribunal, over which the _Palsgrave_
presided. Twice in the year great _Assemblies_ were held of the
chiefs and people, to give advice as to the framing of laws. The
enactments of these assemblies are collected in the
_Capitularies_ of the Frank kings. In the Church, Charlemagne
tried to secure order, which had sadly fallen away, and had given
place to confusion and worldliness. He himself exercised high
ecclesiastical prerogatives, especially after he became emperor.

LEARNING AND CULTURE.--One of the chief distinctions of Charlemagne is
the encouragement which he gave to learning. In his own palace at
_Aachen_ (_Aix_), he collected scholars from different
quarters. Of these the most eminent is _Alcuin_, from the school
of York in England. He was familiar with many of the Latin writers,
and while at the head of the school in the palace, and later, when
abbot of St. Martin in _Tours_, exerted a strong influence in
promoting study. _Charlemagne_ himself spoke Latin with facility,
but not until late in life did he try to learn to write. It was his
custom to be read to while he sat at meals. Augustine's _City of
God_ was one of the books of which he was fond. In the great sees
and monasteries, schools were founded, the benefits of which were very
soon felt.

CHARLES'S PERSONAL TRAITS.--Charlemagne was seven feet in height, and
of noble presence. His eyes were large and animated, and his voice
clear, but not so strong as his frame would have led one to
expect. His bearing was manly and dignified. He was exceedingly fond
of riding, hunting, and of swimming. _Eginhard_, his friend and
biographer, says of him, "In all his undertakings and enterprises,
there was nothing he shrank from because of the toil, and nothing that
he feared because of the danger." He died, at the age of seventy, on
Jan. 28, 814. He had built at _Aix la Chapelle_ a stately church,
the columns and marbles of which were brought from Ravenna and
Rome. Beneath its floor, under the dome, was his tomb. There he was
placed in a sitting posture, in his royal robes, with the crown on his
head, and his horn, sword, and book of the Gospels on his knee. In
this posture his majestic figure was found when his tomb was opened by
_Otto III_., near the end of the tenth century. The marble chair
in which the dead monarch sat is still in the cathedral at _Aix_:
the other relics are at _Vienna_. The splendor of Charlemagne's
reign made it a favorite theme of romance among the poets of Italy: a
mass of poetic legends gathered about it.

EXTENT OF THE EMPIRE.--Charlemagne's empire comprised all Gaul, and
Spain to the Ebro, all that was then Germany, and the greater part of
Italy. Slavonic nations along the Elbe were his allies. Pannonia,
Dacia, Istria, Liburnia, Dalmatia,--except the sea-coast towns, which
were held by the Greeks,--were subject to him. He had numerous other
allies and friends. Even _Harunal-Rashid_, the famous Caliph of
Bagdad, held him in high honor. Among the most valued presents which
were said to have come from the Caliph were an elephant, and a curious
water-clock, which was so made, that, at the end of the hours, twelve
horsemen came out of twelve windows, and closed up twelve other
windows. This gift filled the inmates of the palace at _Aix_ with
wonder.

CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE.--The number of free Franks diminished under
Charlemagne. They were thinned out in the wars, or sunk into
vassalage. The warnings and rebukes in the Capitularies, or body of
laws, show that the upper clergy were often sensual and greedy of
gain. The bishops would often lead in person their contingent of
troops, until they were forbidden to do so by law. Nine-tenths of the
population of Gaul were slaves. Charlemagne made _Alcuin_ the
present of an estate on which there were twenty thousand
slaves. Especially in times of scarcity, as in 805 and 806, their lot
was a miserable one. At such times, they fled in crowds to the
monasteries. The social state was that of feudalism "in all but the
development of that independence in the greater lords, which was
delayed by the strength of Karl, but fostered, at the same time, by
his wars and his policy towards the higher clergy."

CONVERSION OF GERMANY: BONIFACE.--The most active missionaries in the
seventh and eighth centuries were, from the British islands. At first
they were from Ireland and Scotland. _Columban_, who died in 615,
and his pupil Gallus, labored, not without success, among the
_Alemanni_. Gallus established himself as a hermit near Lake
Constance. He founded the Abbey of _St. Gall_. The Saxon
missionaries from England were still more effective. The most eminent
of these was _Winfrid_, who received from Rome the name of
_Bonifacius_ (680-755). He converted the _Hessians_, and
founded monasteries, among them the great monastery of
_Fulda_. There his disciple, _Sturm_, "through a long series
of years, directed the energies of four thousand monks, by whose
unsparing labors the wilderness was gradually reclaimed, and brought
into a state of cultivation." _Boniface_ had proved the impotence
of the heathen gods by felling with the axe an aged oak at
_Geismar_, which was held sacred by their worshipers. Among the
_Thuringians_, _Bavarians_, and other tribes, he extirpated
paganism by peaceful means. He organized the German Church under the
guidance of the popes, and, in 743, was made archbishop of
_Meniz_, and primate. But his Christian ardor moved him to carry
the gospel in person to the savage _Frisians_, by whom he was
slain. He thus crowned his long career with martyrdom.

CONVERSION OF THE SCANDINAVIANS.--The apostle of the Scandinavians was
_Ansgar_ (801-865). The archbishopric of _Hamburg_ was
founded for him by _Louis the Pious_, with the papal consent;
but, as Hamburg was soon plundered by pirates, he became bishop of
_Bremen_ (849). In that region he preached with success. Two
visits he made to _Sweden_, the first with little permanent
result; but, at the second visit (855), the new faith was tolerated,
and took root. The triumph of the religion of the cross, which
_Ansgar_ had planted in _Denmark_, was secured there when
_Canute_ became king of England. The first Christian king in
Sweden was _Olaf Schooskonig_ (1008). In _Norway_,
Christianity was much resisted; but when _Olaf the Thick_, who
was a devoted adherent of the Christian faith, had perished in battle
(1033), his people, who held him in honor, fell in with the church
arrangements which he had ordained; and he became _St. Olaf_, the
patron saint of Norway.

THE BENEDICTINES.--_Benedict_, born at _Nursia_, in
_Umbria_, in 480, the founder of the monastery of _Monte
Cassino_, north-west of Naples, was the most influential agent in
organizing monasticism in Western Europe. He was too wise to adopt the
extreme asceticism that had often prevailed in the East, and his
judicious regulations combined manual labor with study and devotion.
They not only came to be the law for the multitude of monasteries of
his own order, but also served as the general pattern, on the basis of
which numerous other orders in later times were constituted. His
societies of monks were at first made up of laics, but afterwards of
priests. The three vows of the monk were _chastity_, including
abstinence from marriage; _poverty_, or the renunciation of
personal possessions; and _obedience_ to superiors. The
Benedictine cloisters long continued to be asylums for the distressed,
schools of education for the clergy, and teachers of agriculture and
the useful arts to the people in the regions where they were
planted. Their abbots rose to great dignity and influence, and stood
on a level with the highest ecclesiastics.



CHAPTER II.  DISSOLUTION OP CHARLEMAGNE'S EMPIRE: RISE OF THE KINGDOMS
OF FRANCE, GERMANY, AND ITALY.


DIVISIONS IN THE EMPIRE.--The influence of _Charlemagne_ was
permanent; not so his empire. It had one religion and one government,
but it was discordant in language and in laws. The Gallo-Romans and
the Italians spoke the Romance language, with variations of
dialect. The Germans used the Teutonic tongue. Charlemagne left to the
Lombards, to the Saxons, and to other peoples, their own special
laws. The great bond of unity had been the force of his own character
and the vigor of his administration. His death was, therefore, the
signal for confusion and division. The tendency to dismemberment was
aided by the ambition of the princes of the imperial family. The
_Austrasian_ Franks, to whom Charlemagne belonged, craved
unity. The _Gallo-Romans_ in the West, the _Teutons_ in the
East, aspired after independence.

_Louis the Pious_ (814-840), Charlemagne's youngest son,--who, in
consequence of the death of his elder brothers, was the sole successor
of his father,--lacked the energy requisite for so difficult a
place. He was better adapted to a cloister than to a throne. He had
been crowned at _Aix_ before his father's death; but he consented
to be crowned anew by Pope _Stephen IV_. at _Rheims_, in
816. His troubles began with a premature division of his states
between his sons, _Lothar_, _Pipin_, and _Louis_. His
nephew, _Bernhard_, who was to reign in Italy in subordination to
his uncle, rebelled, but was captured and killed (818). In order to
provide for his son _Charles the Bald_, whose mother
_Judith_ he had married for his second wife, he made a new
division in 829. The elder sons at once revolted against their father,
and _Judith_ and her son were shut up in a cloister
(830). _Louis_ the son repented, the Saxons and East Franks
supported the emperor, and he was restored. In 833 he took away
_Aquitaine_ from Pipin, and gave it to _Charles_. The
rebellious sons again rose up against him. In company with Pope
_Gregory IV_., who joined them, they took their father prisoner
on the plains of Alsace, his troops having deserted him. The place was
long known as the "Field of Lies." He was compelled by the bishops to
confess his sins in the cathedral at _Soissons_, reading the list
aloud. Once more _Louis_ was released, and forgave his sons; but
partition after partition of territory, with continued discord,
followed until his death. The quarrels of his surviving sons,
_Lothar_, _Louis the German_, and _Charles the Bald_,
brought on, in 841, the great battle of _Fontenailles_. The
contest was occasioned by the ambition of _Lothar_, the eldest,
who claimed for himself the whole imperial inheritance. There was
great carnage, and _Lothar_ was defeated. The bishops present saw
in the result a verdict of God in favor of his two adversaries. The
result was the _Treaty of Verdun_ for the division of the empire.

TERMS OF THE TREATY OF VERDUN.--_Louis the German_ took the
Eastern and German Franks, and _Charles the Bald_ the Western and
Latinized Franks. _Lothar_, who retained the imperial title,
received the middle portion of the Frank territory, including Italy
and a long, narrow strip of territory between the dominions of his
brothers, and extending to the North Sea. This land took later the
name of _Lotharingia_, or _Lorraine_. It always had the
character of a border-land. While _Louis's_ share comprised only
German-speaking peoples, _Charles's_ kingdom was made up almost
exclusively of Gallo-Roman inhabitants; while under _Lothar_ the
two races were mingled. This division marks the birth of the
_German_ and _French_ nations as such. The German-speaking
peoples in the East, who were affiliated in language, customs, and
spirit, more and more grew together into a nation. In like manner, the
subjects of the Western kingdom more and more were resolved into a
Franco-Roman nationality. _Lothar_ ruled at Aix-la-Chapelle, and
was styled emperor; but each of the other kingdoms was independent,
and the empire of Charlemagne was dissolved. Only for a short time,
under _Charles the Fat_ (881-887), nearly the whole monarchy of
Charlemagne was united under one scepter. When he was deposed it was
again broken in pieces; and four distinct kingdoms emerged,--those of
the Eastern and Western Franks, "the forerunners of Germany and
France," and the kingdoms of Italy and of Burgundy, in South-eastern
Gaul, which were sometimes united and sometimes
separate. _Lotharingia_ was attached now to the Eastern and now
to the Western Frank kingdom. In theory there was not a severance, but
a sharing, of the common possession which had been the object of
contention.

EASTERN CARLOVINGIANS.--_Charles the Fat_ was a weak and sluggish
prince. He offered no effectual resistance to the destructive ravages
of the Normans, or Scandinavian Northmen. He was deposed in 887, and
died in the following year on an island in the Lake of Constance. His
successor, the grandson of _Louis the German_, _Arnulf_,
duke of Carinthia, became king of the Germans, (887-899) and emperor;
and, after his short reign, the line of Louis died out in _Louis the
Child_, the weak son of _Arnulf_ (900-911). The house of
Charlemagne survived only among the Western Franks.

During the reign of Louis the Child, _Hatto_ (I.), archbishop of
_Mentz_ and primate of Germany, was regent and guardian of the
king. He was a bold defender of the unity of the empire. He was
charged, truly or falsely, with taking the life of _Adalbert_, a
Frank nobleman whom he had enticed into his castle. There was a
popular tradition that the devil seized Hatto's corpse, and threw it
into the crater of Mount Ætna. The mistake is often made of connecting
the popular legend of the "Mouse-tower" at _Bingen_ on the Rhine,
with him. It was told of a later Hatto (_Hatto II._), who was
likewise archbishop of _Mentz_ (968). He was charged with
shutting up the poor in a barn, in a time of famine, and of burning
them there. As the story runs, he called them "rats who ate the corn."
Numberless mice swam to the tower which he had built in the midst of
the stream, and devoured him. _Southey_ has put the tale into a
ballad,--"God's Judgment on a Wicked Bishop."

KINGDOM OF FRANCE.--In 841 _Rouen_ fell into the hands of the
Normans, and _Paris_ lay open to their attacks. In 861 _Charles
the Bald_ invested a brave soldier, _Robert the Strong_, whose
descent is not known, with the county of Paris, that he might resist
the invaders. He held the country between the Seine and the Loire,
under the name of the _Duchy of France_. The other
_Francia_, east of the Rhine, continued to be an important part
of Germany, the district called _Franconia_. Robert was the
greatgrandfather of _Hugh Capet_, the founder of the kingdom of
_France_. Under the imbecile _Charles the Fat_, the
audacious Northmen (885-886) laid siege to _Paris_. It was
_Odo_, or _Eudes_, count of Paris, who led the citizens in
their heroic and successful resistance. Him the nobles of France chose
to be their king. His family were called "Dukes of the French." Their
duchy--_Western_ or _Latin Francia_--was the strongest state
north of the Loire. The feudal lords were growing mightier, and the
imperial or royal power was becoming weaker. After _Odo_ of Paris
was elected to the Western kingdom, there followed a period of about a
hundred years during which there was a king sometimes from his house
and sometimes from the family of the Carlovingians. The latter still
spoke German, and, when they had the power, reigned at _Laon_ in
the northeastern corner of the kingdom. _Odo_ ruled from 888
until 898. He had to leave the southern part of France
independent. During the last five years of his life he was obliged to
contend with _Charles the Simple_ (893-929), who was elected king
by the Carlovingian party of the north. The most noted of the
Carlovingian kings at _Laon_ was _Louis_ "from beyond seas"
(936-954), Charles's son, who had been carried to England for
safety. His reign was a constant struggle with _Hugh the Great_,
duke of the French, the nephew of King Odo. _Hugh_ would not
accept the crown himself. On the death of _Louis V_. (986-987),
the direct line of Charlemagne became extinct. The only Carlovingian
heir was his uncle, _Charles_, _duke of Lorraine_. His claim
the barons would not recognize, but elected _Hugh Capet_, duke of
France, to be king, who, on the 1st (or the 3d) of July, 987, was
solemnly crowned in the cathedral of Noyon, by the archbishop of
Rheims. Just at this juncture, when the contest was between the dukes
of the French and _Charles of Lorraine_, the Carlovingian
claimant to the sovereignty, the adhesion and support of Duke
_Richard_ of Normandy (943-996) was of decisive effect. The
Normans had been on the side of _Laon_; now they turned the scale
in favor of the elevation of the Duke of France. The German party at
_Laon_ could not withstand the combined power of _Rouen_ and
_Paris_. Thus with _Hugh Capet_, the founder of the Capetian
line, the kingdom of _France_ began, having _Paris_ for its
capital; and the name of _France_ came gradually to be applied to
the greater part of Gaul. But when _Hugh Capet_ became king, the
great feudal states were almost independent of the royal
control. Eight were above the rest in power and extent. "The counts of
_Flanders_, _Champagne_, and _Vermandois_, and the
dukes of _Normandy_, _Brittany_, _Burgundy_, and
_Aquitaine_, regarded themselves as the new king's peers or
equals." _Lorraine_, _Arles_, and _Franche
Comté_--parts of modern France--"held of the emperor, and were, in
fact, German."  _Hugh Capet's_ dukedom was divided by the
Seine. He was lay abbot of St. Denis, the most important church in
France.

THE GERMAN KINGDOM.--With the death of _Louis the Child_ (911)
the German branch of the Carlovingian line was extinguished.  The
Germans had to choose a king from another family. Germany, like
France, was now composed of great fiefs. But there were two parties,
differing from one another in their character and manners. The one
consisted of the older Alemannic and Austrasian unions, where the
traces of Roman influence continued, where the large cities were
situated, and the principal sees. Here were formed the duchies of
_Swabia_ and _Bavaria_, and _Franconia_ (Austrasian
France). To the other, consisting chiefly of the duchy of
_Saxony_, were attached _Thuringia_ and a part of
_Frisia_. In France the royal power, at the start, was so weak,
that, not being dreaded, it was suffered to grow. In Germany the royal
power was so strong that there was a constant effort to reduce
it. Hence in France the result was centralization; in Germany the
tendency was to division. In France the long continuance of the family
of _Hugh Capet_ made the monarchy _hereditary_. In Germany
the frequent changes of dynasty helped to make it _elective_.

CONRAD I.--When Louis died, _Conrad_ of Franconia (911-918) was
chosen king by the clerical and secular nobles of the five duchies, in
which the counts elevated themselves to the rank of dukes,--Franconia,
Saxony, Lorraine, Swabia, and Bavaria. Germany thus became an elective
kingdom; but since, as a rule, the sovereignty was continued in one
family, the electoral principle was qualified by an hereditary
element. _Conrad_ began the struggle against the great
feudatories, which went on through the Middle Ages. The dukes always
chafed under the rule of a king; yet, for the glory of the nation and
for their own safety against attacks from abroad, they were anxious to
preserve it from extinction. The _Hungarians_, to whom _Louis
the Child_ had consented to pay tribute, renewed their
incursions. They marched in force as far as
_Bremen_. _Conrad_ had wished to reduce the power of Saxony,
and to detach from it Thuringia. He was constantly at war with his own
subjects. Yet on his death-bed he showed his disinterested regard to
the interests of the kingdom. He called to him his brother
_Eberhard_, and charged him to carry his crown and crown jewels
to his enemy _Henry_, duke of the Saxons, who was most capable of
defending the country against the Hungarian invaders.

ITALY.--After the empire of _Charles the Fat_ was broken up, a
strong anti-German feeling was manifest in Italy. The people wanted
the king of Italy, and, if possible, the emperor of the Romans, to be
of their own nation. But they could not agree: there was a violent
contest between the supporters of _Berengar_ of Friuli and the
supporters of _Guido_ of Spoleto. _Arnulf_ came twice into
Italy to quell the disturbance, and on his second visit, in 896, was
crowned emperor. Civil war soon broke out again. Within twenty years
the crown had been given to five different aspirants. They were
Germans, or were Italians only in name. _Berengar I_. (888-924)
was crowned emperor by the Pope, but had to fight against a
competitor, _Rudolph_, king of Burgundy, whom the turbulent
nobles set up in his place. _Berengar_ was finally defeated and
assassinated. His grandson, _Berengar II_. (of Ivrea) (950-961),
had to fly to Germany (943) to escape a competitor for the throne,
_Hugh_, count of Provence, brother of _Ermengarde_,
Berengar's step-mother, to whom she had given the crown. His relations
with _Otto I_. (the Great) led to very important consequences, to
be narrated hereafter.

STATE OF LEARNING IN THE TENTH CENTURY.--Under Charles the Bald, there
were not wanting signs of intellectual activity. _John Scotus
Erigena_,--or John Scot, Erinborn,--who was at the head of his
palace-school, was an acute philosopher, who, in his speculations in
the vein of New Platonism, tended to pantheistic doctrine. His
opinions were condemned at the instance of _Hincmar_, the eminent
archbishop of Rheims. But after the deposition of _Charles the
Fat_ (887), there followed a period of darkness throughout the
West. The universal political disorder was enough to account for this
prevalent ignorance. But, in addition, the Latin language ceased to be
spoken by the people, while the new vernacular tongues were not
reduced to writing. Latin could only be learned in the schools; and
these fell more and more into decay, in the confusion of the
times. The mental stimulus which the study of the Latin had
communicated, there was nothing, as yet, in the new languages to
replace.

THE PAPACY IN THE NINTH AND TENTH CENTURIES.--While Italy was under
the rule of _Justinian_ and his successors, the popes were
subject to the tyranny of the Eastern emperors. After the Lombard
conquest, their position, difficult as it was on account of the small
protection afforded them from Constantinople, was favorable to the
growth of their influence and authority. By their connection with
_Pipin_ and _Charlemagne_, they were recognized as having a
spiritual headship, the counterpart of the secular supremacy of the
emperor. The election of the Pope was to be sanctioned by the emperor,
and that of the emperor by the Pope. But _Charlemagne_ was
supreme ruler over all classes and persons in Italy, as in his own
immediate dominions. In the disorder that ensued upon his death, the
imperial authority in all directions was reduced. The Frank bishops
were frequently appealed to as umpires among the contending
Carolingian princes. The growth of the power of the great bishops
carried in it the exaltation of the highest bishop of all, the Roman
pontiff. A _pallium_, or mantle, was sent by the Pope to all
archbishops on their accession, and was considered to be a badge of
the papal authority. In the earlier part of the ninth century, there
appeared what are called the _pseudo-Isidorian decretals_,
consisting of forged ecclesiastical documents purporting to belong to
the early Christian centuries, which afforded a sanction to the
highest claims of the chief rulers of the Church. These are
universally known to be an invention; but, in that uncritical day,
this was not suspected. They contained not much in behalf of
hierarchical claims which had not, at one time or another, been
actually asserted and maintained. In the spirit of the decretals Pope
_Nicholas I._ (858-867) acted, when this energetic pontiff
overruled the iniquitous decision of two German synods, and obliged
_Lothar_, king of Lotharingia, to take back his lawful wife,
_Theutberga_, whom he had divorced out of regard to a mistress,
_Waldrada_. In the tenth century (904-962), when Italy, in the
absence of imperial restraint, was torn by violent factions, the
Papacy was for half a century disposed of by the _Tuscan_ party,
and especially by two depraved women belonging to it, _Theodora_,
and her daughter _Maria_ (or _Marozia_). The scandals
belonging to this dismal period in the history of the papal
institution are to be ascribed to the anarchy prevailing in Italy, and
to the vileness of the individuals who usurped power at Rome.



CHAPTER III.  INVASIONS OF THE NORTHMEN AND OTHERS: THE FEUDAL SYSTEM.


INCURSIONS OF THE NORTHMEN.--The _Scandinavians_, or
_Northmen_, were a Teutonic people, by whom were gradually formed
the kingdoms of _Denmark_, _Norway_, and
_Sweden_. Their incursions, prior to _Charlemagne_, were
towards the Rhine, but at length assumed more the character of
piracy. They coasted along the shores in their little fleets, and lay
in wait for their enemies in creeks and bays; whence they were called
_vikings_, or children of the bays. By degrees they ventured out
farther on the sea, and became bolder in their depredations. They sent
their light vessels along the rivers of France, and established
themselves in bands of five or six hundred at convenient stations,
whence they sallied out to plunder the neighboring cities and country
places. They did not _cause_, but they _hastened_, the fall
of the Frank Empire. In 841 they burned _Rouen_; in 843 they
plundered _Nantes_, _Saintes_, and
_Bordeaux_. _Hastings_, a famous leader of these hardy
sea-robbers, sailed along the coast of the Spanish peninsula, took
_Lisbon_ and pillaged it, and burned _Seville_. Making a
descent upon _Tuscany_, he captured, by stratagem, and plundered
the city of _Luna_, which he at first mistook for Rome. In 853
the daring rovers captured _Tours_, and burned the Abbey of
St. Martin; and, three years later, they appeared at
_Orleans_. In 857 they burned the churches of _Paris_, and
carried away as captive the abbot of St. Denis. As pagans they had no
scruple about attacking churches and abbeys, to which fugitives
resorted for safety and for the hiding of their treasures. _Robert
the Strong_ fell in fighting these marauders (866). Their
devastations continued down to the year 911, in the reign of
_Charles the Simple_; then the same arrangement was made which
the Romans had adopted in relation to the Germanic invaders. By the
advice of his nobles, _Charles_ decided to abandon to the
Northmen, territory where they could settle, and which they could
cultivate as their own. Rolf, or _Rollo_, one of their most
formidable chiefs, accepted the offer; and the Northmen established
themselves (911) in the district known afterwards as
_Normandy_. _Rollo_ received baptism, wore the title of
duke, and thus became the liege of King _Charles_, who reigned at
_Laon_, and whom he loyally served. Later the Normans joined
hands with _ducal_ France, and helped _Paris_ to throw off
its dependence on _royal_ France and the house of Charlemagne
which had ruled at _Laon_. It was by Norman help that the duchy
of France was raised to the rank of a kingdom, and _Hugh Capet_,
in the room of being a vassal of kings of German lineage, became the
founder of French sovereigns. Under the Normans, tillage flourished;
and the feudal system was established with greater regularity than
elsewhere.

THE DANES IN ENGLAND.--When, in 827, _Egbert_, the king of
_Wessex_, united all the Saxons in England under his rule, the
Danish attacks had already begun. In his later years these ravages
increased. _Alfred_ (871-901) was reduced to such straits in 878,
that, with a few followers, he hid himself among the swamps and woods
of Somersetshire. It was then, according to the legend, that he was
scolded by the woman, who, not knowing him, had set him to watch her
cakes, but found that he, absorbed in other thoughts, had allowed them
to burn. Later, _Alfred_ gained advantages over the Danes; but,
in the treaty that was made with them, they received, as vassals of
the West Saxon king, _East Anglia_, and part of _Essex_ and
_Mercia_. Already they had a lodgment in _Northumberland_,
so that the larger part of England had fallen into Danish hands. The
names of towns ending in _by_, as _Whitby_, are of Danish
origin. _Alfred_ compiled a body of laws called _dooms_,
founded monasteries, and fostered learning. He himself translated many
books from the Latin. His bravery in conflict with the Danes enabled
him to spend his last years in quiet. _Athelstan_, the grandson
of _Alfred_ (925-940), was victorious over the Danes, and over
the Scotch and Welsh of the North. Under _Edgar_ (959-975), the
power of England was at its height. He kept up a strong fleet; but, in
the time of _Aethelred II_. (the Unready), the Danish invasions
were renewed. He and his bad advisers adopted the practice of buying
off the invaders at a large price. In 994 _Swegen_ invaded the
country. He had been baptized, but had gone back to heathenism. In
1013 England was completely conquered by him. _Aethelred_ fled to
_Duke Richard the Good_ of Normandy.

CANUTE.--The son of Aethelred, _Edmund_, surnamed
_Ironside_, after the death of _Swegen_, kept up the war
with his son Cnut, or _Canute_. After fighting six pitched
battles with him, _Edmund_ consented to divide the kingdom with
him; but in the same year (1016) the English king died. _Canute_
(1017-1035) now became king of all England. He had professed
Christianity, and unexpectedly proved himself, after his accession, to
be a good ruler. One of the legends about him is, that he once had a
seat placed for himself by the seashore, and ordered the rising tide
not to dare to wet his feet. Not being obeyed by the dashing waves, he
said, "Let all men know how empty and worthless is the power of kings,
for there is none worthy of the name but He whom heaven, earth, and
sea obey by eternal laws." After that he never wore his crown, but
left it on the image of Jesus on the cross. _Canute_ inherited
the crown of _Denmark_, and won _Norway_ and part of
_Sweden_; so that he was the most powerful prince of his
time. His sons, however, did not rule well; and in 1042 the English
chose for king one of their own people, _Edward_, called _the
Confessor_, the son of _Aethelred_. In the time of Canute, the
power of the Danes, and of the Northmen generally, was at its
height. Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and England were ruled by them; and
Scandinavian princes by descent governed in Normandy and in
Russia. Although a most vigorous race, the Northmen showed a wonderful
facility in adopting the language and manners of the people among whom
they settled. The effect of their migrations was to diminish the
strength and importance of their native countries which they had left.

OTHER SETTLEMENTS OF NORTHMEN.--The Northmen made many other voyages
which have not yet been mentioned. As early as 852 there was a
Scandinavian king in _Dublin_. They early conquered the
_Shetland Isles_, the _Orkneys_, and the _Hebrides_. On
the northern coast of Scotland, they founded the kingdom of
_Caithness_, which they held to the end of the twelfth
century. _Iceland_ was discovered by the Northmen, and was
settled by them in 874. About the same time _Greenland_ was
discovered, and towards the end of the tenth century a colony was
planted there. This led to the discovery of the mainland of America,
and to the occupation, for a time, of _Vinland_, which is
supposed to have been the coast of New England. In _Russia_,
where the Northmen were called _Varangians_, _Rurik_, one of
their leaders, occupied _Novgorod_ in 862, and founded a line of
sovereigns, which continued until 1598.

INCURSIONS OF SARACENS.--The _Saracens_ were marauders in Italy,
as the Northmen were in France. From _Cairoan_ (in Tunis), as we
have seen, they sent out their piratical fleets, which ravaged Malta,
Sicily, and other islands of the Mediterranean. These corsairs,
checked for the moment by the fleets of Charlemagne, afterwards began
anew their conquests. From Sicily, of which they made themselves
masters in 831, they passed over to the Italian mainland. Among their
deeds are included the burning of _Ostia_, _Civita Vecchia_,
and the wealthy abbey of _Monte Cassino_, They landed on the
shores of Provence, established a military colony there, pillaged
_Arles_ and _Marseilles_, and continued their depredations
in Southern France and Switzerland.

INCURSIONS OF HUNGARIANS.--The _Magyars_, called by the Greeks
_Hungarians_, a warlike people of the Turanian group of nations,
crossed the Carpathian Mountains about 889. They overran the whole of
Hungary and Transylvania. In 900, in the course of their predatory
invasions, they penetrated into Bavaria, and the king of Germany paid
them tribute. They carried their incursions into Lombardy and into
Southern Italy. They even crossed the Rhine, and devastated Alsace,
Lorraine, and Burgundy. Such terror did they excite that their name
remained in France a synonym of detestable ferocity.

CHARACTER OF THE LATER INVASIONS.--The incursions in the ninth century
differed from the great Germanic invasions which had subverted the
Roman Empire. The Northmen and the Saracens moved in small bands,
whose main object was plunder, and not either permanent conquest, or,
as was the aim of the Arabians, the spread of a religion by the
sword. The _Hungarians_ alone established themselves in the
valley of the Theiss and the Danube, after the manner of the Franks,
the Burgundians, and the Goths; and there they remained. The great
effect of the last invasion was to accelerate the breaking up of
political unity, and the introduction of feudal organization, or the
preponderance of local rule as opposed to centralized power.



THE NORTHMEN IN ENGLAND AND ITALY.

Later than the events narrated above, there were two great
achievements of the Northmen, which it is most convenient to describe
here, although they occurred in the eleventh century. They are the
conquest of England, and the founding of the kingdom of Naples and
Sicily.



I. THE NORMAN CONQUEST OF ENGLAND.

The NORMAN INVASION.--The duchy of Normandy had become very strong and
prosperous, and, under the French-speaking Northmen, or Normans, had
grown to be one of the principal states in Western
Europe. _Edward_, king of England, surnamed the _Confessor_,
or Saint (1042-1066) had been brought up in Normandy, and favored his
own Norman friends by lavish gifts of honors and offices. The party
opposed to the foreigners was led by _Godwin_, earl of the West
Saxons. After being once banished, he returned in arms; and Norman
knights and priests were glad to escape from the country. Edward's
wife was _Edith_, daughter of Godwin. They had no children; and
on his death-bed he recommended that Earl _Harold_, the son of
Godwin, should be his successor. The Normans claimed that he had
promised that their duke, _William_, should reign after him. It
was said that _Harold_ himself, on a visit to William, had,
either willingly or unwillingly, sworn to give him his
support. _Edward_, who was devout in his ways, though a negligent
ruler, was buried in the monastery called Westminster, which he had
built, and which was the precursor of the magnificent church bearing
the same name that was built afterwards by King _Henry
III_. _Harold_ was now crowned. Duke _William_, full of
wrath, appealed to the sword; and, under the influence of the
archdeacon _Hildebrand_, Pope _Alexander II_. took his side,
and sanctioned his enterprise of conquest. At the same time the north
of England was invaded by the king of the Norwegians, a man of
gigantic stature, named _Hardrada_. The Norman invaders landed
without resistance on the shore of _Sussex_, on the 28th of
September, 1066, and occupied _Hastings_. _Harold_ encamped
on the heights of _Senlac_. On the 14th of October the great
battle took place in which the Normans were completely victorious. The
English stood on a hill in a compact mass, with their shields in front
and a palisade before them. They repulsed the Norman charges. But the
Normans pretended to retreat. This moved the Saxons to break their
array in order to pursue. The Normans then turned back, and rushed
through the palisade in a fierce onset. An arrow pierced the eye of
_Harold_, and he was cut to pieces by four French knights. The
Norman duke, _William the Conqueror_, was crowned king on
Christmas Day; but it was four years before he overcame all
resistance, and got full control over the country. The largest estates
and principal offices in England he allotted to Normans and other
foreigners. The crown of _William_ was handed down to his
descendants, and gradually the conquerors and the conquered became
mingled together as one people.



EFFECT OF THE NORMAN CONQUEST.

CHARACTER OF THE SAXONS.--The Saxons at the time of the Conquest were
a strong and hardy race, hospitable, and fond of good cheer, which was
apt to run into gluttony and revels. Their dwellings were poor,
compared with those of the better class of Normans. They were
enthusiastic in out-door sports, such as wrestling and hunting. They
fought on foot, armed with the shield and axe. The common soldier,
however, often had no better weapon than a fork or a sharpened
stick. The ordeals in vogue, as a test of guilt and innocence when one
was accused of a crime, were, plunging the arm into boiling water, or
holding a hot iron in the hand for three paces. _London_ was fast
growing to be the chief town, and eclipsing _Winchester_, the old
Saxon capital. A king like _Alfred_, and scholars like
_Bede_ and _Alcuin_, not to speak of old chronicles and
ballads, show that literature was valued; but the Danish invasions in
_Northumberland_, where schools and letters had flourished, did
much to blight the beginnings of literary progress.

THE NORMAN SPIRIT AND INFLUENCE.--The tapestry at _Bayeux_
represents in a series of pictures the course of the Norman conquest.
There we see the costume of the combatants. The Norman gentlemen were
mounted, and fought with lance and sword. Of their bravery and
military skill, their success affords abundant proof. Although the
Normans were victors and masters in England, not only was the conquest
gradual, but the result of it was the amalgamation of the one people
with the other. The very title of _conqueror_, attached to
William, was a legal term (_conquaestor_), and meant
_purchaser_ or _acquirer_. There was an observance of legal
forms in the establishment and administration of his government. The
_folkland_, or the public land, was appropriated by him, and
became crown-land. So all the land of the English was considered to be
forfeited, and estates were given out liberally to Norman
gentlemen. The nobility became mainly Norman, and the same was true of
the ecclesiastics and other great officers. All the land was held as a
grant from the king. In 1085 the making of _Domesday_ was
decreed, which was a complete statistical survey of all the estates
and property in England. The object was to furnish a basis for
taxation. The _Domesday Book_ is one of the most curious and
valuable monuments of English history. Among the changes in law made
by William was the introduction of the Norman wager of battle, or the
duel, by the side of the Saxon methods of ordeal described above. In
most of the changes, there was not so much an uprooting as a great
transformation of former rules and customs.

ENGLAND AND THE CONTINENT.--One of the most important results of the
Norman Conquest was the bringing of England into much more intimate
relations with the continent. The horizon of English thought and life
was widened. One incidental consequence was the closer connection of
the English Church with the Papacy. Foreign ecclesiastics, some of
them men of eminence and of learning, were brought in. It was this
connection with the continent that led England to take so important a
part in the Crusades.

THEN NORMAN GOVERNMENT.--As regards feudalism, one vital feature of
it--the holding of land by a military tenure, or on condition of
military service--was reduced to a system by the conquest. But
_William_ took care not to be overshadowed or endangered by his
great vassals. He levied taxes on all, and maintained the place of
lord of all his subjects. He was king of the English, and sovereign
lord of the Norman nobles. He summoned to the _Witan_, or Great
Assembly, those whom he chose to call. This summons, and the right to
receive it, became the foundation of the _Peerage_. Out of the
old Saxon _Witan_, there grew in this way the _House of
Lords_. The lower orders, when summoned at all, were summoned in a
mass; afterwards we shall find that they were called by
representatives; and, in--the end, when the privilege of appearing in
this way was converted into a right, the _House of Commons_ came
into being. In like manner, the _King's Court_ gradually came to
be, in the room of the Assembly itself, a judicial and governing
Committee of the Assembly. From this body of the king's immediate
counselors emerged in time the _Privy Council_ and the _Courts
of Law_. Out of the Privy Council grew, in modern times, the
_Cabinet_, composed of what are really "those privy councilors
who are specially summoned." Committees of the National Assembly, in
the course of English history, acquired "separate being and separate
powers, as the legislative, judicial, and executive branches of the
government." Thus the English Constitution is the product of a steady
growth.

MINGLING OF BLOOD AND LANGUAGES.--A multitude of Normans emigrated
into England, especially to _London_. The Normans became
Englishmen, as a natural consequence. But they affected the spirit and
manners of the people by whom they were absorbed. By opening avenues
for French influence, _chivalry_, with its peculiar ideas and
ways, was brought into England. But it must never be forgotten that
the _Normans_ were kinsfolk of the Saxons. Both conquerors and
conquered were Teutons. The conquest was very different, in this
particular, from what the conquest of Germany by France, or of France
by Germany, would be. The French language which the Normans spoke had
been acquired by them in their adopted home across the channel. To
this source the _Latin_ element, or words of Latin etymology, in
our English tongue is mainly due. The loss of the old Saxon
inflections is another marked change; but this is not due, to so large
an extent, solely to the influence of Norman speech. But the English
language continued to be essentially Teutonic in its structure. For a
long time the two tongues lived side by side. At the end of the
twelfth century, if French was the language of polite intercourse,
English was the language of common conversation and of popular
writings. Learned men spoke, or could speak, and they wrote, in Latin.

NORMAN BUILDINGS.--The Normans built the cathedrals and castles. Down
to the eleventh century, the _Romanesque_, or "round-arched"
architecture, derived from Italy, had been the one prevalent style in
Western Europe. In the modification of it, called the _Norman_
style, we find the round arch associated with massive piers and narrow
windows. _Durham_ cathedral is an example of the Norman
Romanesque type of building. The Norman conquerors covered England
with _castles_, of which the White Tower of London, built by
William, is a noted specimen. Sometimes they were square, and
sometimes polygonal; but, except in the palaces of the kings, they
afforded little room for artistic beauty of form or decoration. They
were erected as fortresses, and were regarded by the people with
execration as strongholds of oppression.



II. THE NORMANS IN ITALY AND SICILY.

THE NORMAN KINGDOM OF NAPLES AND SICILY.--Early in the eleventh
century, knights from Normandy wandered into Southern Italy, and gave
their aid to different states in battle against the Greeks and
Saracens. In 1027 the ruler of Naples gave them a fertile district,
where they built the city of _Aversa_. By the reports of their
victories and good fortune, troops of pilgrims and warriors were
attracted to join them. The valiant sons of the old count,
_Tancred_ of _Hauteville_, were among the number. They
supported the Greek viceroy in an attack on the Arabs in Sicily; but,
on his failing duly to reward them, they turned against him, and
conquered _Apulia_ for themselves. Under _Robert Guiscard_
(1057-1085), they made themselves masters of all Southern Italy. They
had already defeated Pope Leo IX. at _Civitella_, and received
from him as fiefs their present and anticipated conquests in Apulia,
Calabria, and Sicily. Twelve years after, _Robert_, with the help
of his brother _Roger_, wrested Sicily, with its capital,
_Palermo_, from the Saracens, who were divided among themselves
(1072). The seaports of _Otranto_ and _Bari_ were also taken
by _Robert_. He even entered on the grand scheme of conquering
the Byzantine Empire, but his death frustrated this endeavor. His
nephew _Roger II_. (1130-1154) took the remaining possessions of
the Greeks in Southern Italy and Sicily, united them in the kingdom of
Naples and Sicily, and received from the Pope the title of king. In
this kingdom the feudal system was established, and trade and industry
flourished. In culture and prosperity it surpassed all the other
Italian communities. At _Salerno_ was a famous school of medicine
and natural science; at _Amalfi_ and _Naples_ were schools
of law. But the Norman nobility was corrupted and enervated by the
luxury of the South, and by the influence of Mohammedan customs, and
modes of thought. During fifty-six years _Roger_ and his two
successors, _William the Bad_ (1154-1166) and _William the
Good_ (1166-1189), ruled this flourishing kingdom, which then fell
by inheritance to the _Hohenstaufen_ German princes. On the
mainland and in Sicily, numerous stately buildings and ruined castles
and towers point back to the romantic period of Norman rule.

NORMAN TRAITS.--It is a remarkable fact, that the Normans, although so
distinguished as rovers and conquerors, have vanished from the face of
the earth. They were lost in the kingdoms which they founded. They
adopted the languages of the nations which they subdued. But while in
England they were merged in the English, and modified the national
character, this effect was not produced in Italy and Sicily. In Sicily
they found Greek-speaking Christians and Arabic-speaking Mussulmans;
and Italians came into the island in the track of the conquerors. The
Normans did not find there a nation as in England; and they created
not a nation, but a kingdom of a composite sort, beneficent while it
lasted, but leaving no permanent traces behind. "The Normans in
Sicily," says Mr. Freeman, "so far as they did not die out, were
merged, not in a Sicilian nation, for that did not exist, but in the
common mass of settlers of Latin speech and rite, as distinguished
from the older inhabitants, Greek and Saracen." Independent,
enterprising, impatient of restraint, gifted with a rare imitative
power which imparted a peculiar tinge and a peculiar grace to whatever
they adopted from others, they lacked originality, and the power to
maintain their own distinctive type of character and of speech.

Mr. Freeman has eloquently described the spread of the Normans, "the
Saracens of Christendom," in all corners of the world. They fought in
the East against the Turks. "North, south, east, the Norman lances
were lifted." The Norman "ransacked Europe for scholars, poets,
theologians, and artists. At Rouen, at Palermo, and at Winchester he
welcomed merit in men of every race and every language." "And yet that
race, as a race, has vanished." "The Scottish Brace or the Irish
Geraldine passed from Scandinavia to Gaul, from Gaul to England, from
England to his own portion of our islands; but at each migration, he
ceased to be Scandinavian, French, or English: his patriotism was in
each case transferred to his new country, and his historic being
belongs to his last acquired home." Norman blood was in the veins of
the Crusaders who first stood on the battlements of Jerusalem, and of
the great German emperor, _Frederic II_.



THE NORMANS.


TANCRED OF HAUTEVILLE.
|
+--Robert Guiscard, Duke of Apulia, _d._ 1085.
|
|  SICILY
|
+--ROGER, the Great Count, _d._ 1101
   |
   +--Roger (of Apulia, 1127; king, 1130), 1101-1154.
      |
      +--WILLIAM I the Bad, 1154-1166,
      |  _m._ Margaret, daughter of Garcia IV of Navarre.
      |  |
      |  +--WILLIAM II the Good, 1166-1189,
      |     _m._ Joanna, daughter of Henry II of England.
      |
      +--CONSTANCE (_d._ 1198),
         _m._ Emperor Henry VI.



THE FEUDAL SYSTEM.

ORIGIN OF FEUDALISM.--When the Franks conquered Gaul, they divided the
land among themselves. This estate each free German held as
_allodial_ property, or as a _free-hold_. The king took the
largest share. His palaces were dwellings connected with large farms
or hunting-grounds, and he went with his courtiers from one to
another. To his personal followers and officers he allotted
lands. These _benefices_, it seems, were granted at first with
the understanding that he might resume them at will. As holders of
them, the recipients owed to him personal support. Other chiefs, and
land-owners of a minor grade, took the same course. This was the germ
of _feudalism_. More and more it grew to be the characteristic
method of living and of government in Western Europe after the fall of
Charlemagne's empire. The inheritors of his dominion were not the
kings of France, of Germany, or of Italy, but the numerous feudal
lords. Against the invasions of the Norman, Saracen, and Hungarian
plunderers, the kings and the counts proved themselves incapable of
defending territory or people. Meantime, the principle of
heredity--the principle that benefices should go down from father to
son, or to the next heir--had gained a firm footing. Another fact was
that the royal offices became hereditary, and were transmitted to the
heirs of allodial property. Thus the exercise of government and the
possession of land were linked together. In times of danger, small
proprietors more and more put themselves under the protection of the
richer and stronger: that is, _allodial_ property became
_feudal_. This custom had begun long before, in the decadence of
the Roman empire, when not only poor freemen, but also men of moderate
means, ruined by taxation, put themselves under the protection of the
great, and settled on their lands. They became thus _colons_
(_coloni_). In the later times of disorder of which we are now
speaking, farmhouses in the country gave place to fortified
_castles_ on hill-tops or other defensible sites, about which
clustered in villages the dependents of the lord, who tilled his land,
fought for him, and, in turn, were protected by him.

THE SUBSTANCE OF FEUDALISM.--"Feudality recognizes two principles, the
land and the sword, riches and force,--two principles on which every
thing depends, to which every thing is related, and which are united
and identified with one another; since it is necessary to possess land
in order to have the right to use the sword in one's own name (that is
to say, to have the right of private war), and since the possession of
land imposes the duty of drawing the sword for the suzerain, and in
the name of the suzerain of whom the land is held." Feudalism is a
social system in which there is a kind of _hierarchy_ of lands in
the hands of warriors, who hold of one another in a gradation. There
is a chain reaching up from the tower of the simple gentleman to the
royal _chateau_, or castle. In this social organization, there
are the two grand classes of the _seigneurs_ and the
_serfs;_ but the _seigneur_, even if he be a king, may also
hold fiefs as a _vassal_.

SUZERAIN AND VASSAL.--The _suzerain_ and the _vassal_, or
_liege_, were bound together by reciprocal obligations. The
vassal owed (1) military service on the demand of the lord; (2) such
aid as the suzerain called for in the administration of justice within
his jurisdiction; (3) other aids, such as, when he was a prisoner, to
pay the ransom for his release; and pecuniary contributions when he
armed his eldest son, and when he married his eldest daughter. These
were legal or required aids. They took the place of _taxation_ in
modern states. There were other things that the vassal was expected to
do which were _gracious_ or _voluntary_. If the liege died
without heirs, or forfeited the fief by a violation of the conditions
on which it was held, it reverted to the lord. The liege was
_invested_ with the fief. He knelt before the suzerain, put his
hands within the hands of the suzerain, and took an oath to be his
_man_. This was _homage_,--from _homo_ in the Latin,
and _homme_ in French, signifying _man_. The suzerain might
at any time require its renewal. Under the feudal system, every thing
was turned into a fief. The right to hunt in a forest, or to fish in a
river, or to have an escort on the roads, might be granted as a fief,
on the condition of loyalty, and of the _homage_ just described.

PRIVATE WAR.--The vassal had the right to be tried by his peers; that
is, by vassals on the same level as himself. He might, if treated with
injustice, go to the superior: he might appeal to the suzerain of his
immediate lord. But suzerains preferred to take justice into their own
hands. Hence the custom of _private war_ prevailed, and of
judicial combats, or _duels_, so common in the middle ages.

ENTANGLEMENTS OF FEUDALISM.--Many suzerains were mutually vassals,
each holding certain lands of the other. The same baron often held
lands of different suzerains, who might be at war with each other, so
that each required his service. The sovereign prince might be bound to
do homage to a petty feudal lord on account of lands which the prince
had inherited or otherwise acquired. The power of the suzerain
depended on a variety of circumstances. The king might be weak, since
feudalism grew out of the overthrow of royal power. The king of
_France_, with the exception of titular prerogatives and some
rights with regard to churches, which were often disputed, had no
means of attack or defense beyond what the _duchy_ of France
furnished him. Yet logically and by a natural tendency, the king was
the supreme suzerain. "Feudalism carried hid in its bosom the arms by
which it was one day to be struck down."

ECCLESIASTICAL FEUDALISM.--The clergy were included in the feudal
system. The bishop was often made the _count_, and, as such, was
the suzerain of all the nobles in his diocese. Cities were often under
the suzerainty of bishops. Besides their tithes, the clergy had
immense landed possessions. The abbots and bishops often availed
themselves of the protection of powerful vassals, of whom they were
the suzerains. On the other hand, bishops, who were also themselves
_dukes_ or _counts_, sometimes did homage for their
temporalities to lay suzerains, especially to the king. In
_France_ and in _England_, in the middle ages, the feudal
clergy possessed a fifth of all the land; in _Germany_, a
third. The church, through bequests of the dying and donations from
the living, constantly increased its possessions. It might be
despoiled, but it could defend itself by the terrible weapon of
excommunication.

SERFS AND VILLAINS.--In the eleventh century Europe was thus covered
with a multitude of petty sovereigns. Below the body of rulers, or the
holders of fiefs, was the mass of the people. These were the
_serfs_,--the tillers of the ground, who enjoyed some of the
privileges of freemen, and who, since they were attached to the
_seigneurie_, could not be sold as slaves. The _villains_
were a grade above the serfs. The term (from _villæ_) originally
meant _villagers_. They paid rent for the land which the
proprietor allowed them to till; but they were subject, like the
serfs, to the will of the suzerain; and the constant tendency was for
them to sink into the inferior condition. _Slavery_, as
distinguished from serfdom, gradually passed away under the
emancipating spirit fostered by Christianity and the Church.

THE INHERITANCE OF FIEFS.--At first the _Salic_ principle, which
excluded females from inheriting fiefs, prevailed. But that gave way,
and daughters were preferred in law to collateral male relatives. When
a female inherited, the fief was occupied by the suzerain up to the
time of her marriage. It never ceased to be under the protection of
the sword. In _France_, the right of primogeniture was
established, but with important qualifications, which varied in
different portions of the country. The eldest, however, always had the
largest portion. In _Germany_, the tendency to the division of
fiefs was more prevalent. Among the _Normans _ in _England_,
and under their influence in _Palestine_, the law of inheritance
by the eldest was established in its full rigor.

SPIRIT OF FEUDALISM.--Feudalism had more vitality than the system of
absorbing all the land by a few great proprietors, which existed in
the period of the decline of the Roman Empire. Individuality, courage,
the proud sense of belonging to an aristocratic order, were widely
diffused among the numerous feudal landowners. The feeling of loyalty
among them was a great advance upon the blind subjection of the slave
to his master. But the weight of feudalism was heavy on the lower
strata of society. The lord was an autocrat, whose will there was
neither the power nor the right to resist, and who could lay hold of
as much of the labor and the earnings of the subject as he might
choose to exact. The petty suzerain, because his needs were greater,
was often more oppressive than the prince. The serf could not change
his abode, he could not marry, he could not bequeath his goods,
without the permission of his lord.



THE SAXON, FRANCONIAN, AND HOHENSTAUFEN IMPERIAL HOUSES.


HENRY I [1] 918-936.
|
+--OTTO I, 936-973, Emperor, 962, _m._
|  1, Eadgyth, _d._ of Edward the Elder;
|  |
|  +--Liutgarde.
|
|  2, Adelheid, [2] _d._ of Rudolph II, King of Burgundy.
|  |
|  +--OTTO II, 973-983, _m._
|     Theophania, daughter of Romanus II, Eastern Emperor.
|     |
|     +--OTTO III, 983-1002.
|
+--Henry the Wrangler, Duke of Bavaria.
   |
   +--Henry the Wrangler.
      |
      +--(St.) HENRY II, 1002-1024, _m._ Cunigunda of Luxemburg.


CONRAD I, [1] 911-918.
|
+--C. Werner (?) _m._ daughter.
   |
   +--Conrad the Red, (killed at the Lechfeld, 955) _m._
      Liutgarde, daughter of Eadgyth and Otto I.
      |
      +--Otto.
         |
         +--Henry.
            |
            +--CONRAD II, the Salic, 1024-1039, _m._
               Gisela, d. of Hermann II, Duke of Swabia.
               |
               +--HENRY III, 1039-1056, _m._
                  1, Gunhilda, daughter of Cnut;
                  2, Agnes, daughter of William, Count of Poitiers.
                  |
                  +--HENRY IV, 1056-1106, _m._
                     1, Bertha, daughter of Otto, Marquis of Susa;
                     |
                     +--HENRY V, 1106-1125, _m._
                     |  Matilda, d. of Henry I of England.
                     |
                     +--Agnes, _m._
                        1, Frederick of Hohenstaufen,
                        Duke of Swabia, 1080-1105;
                        |
                        +--Frederick the One-eyed,
                           Duke of Swabia, d. 1147, _m._
                           1, Judith, daughter of Henry the Black.
                           |
                           +--FREDERICK I, Barbarossa, 1152-1190.
                           |  |
                           |  +--HENRY VI, 1190-1197, _m._
                           |  |  Constance of Sicily, _d._ 1198.
                           |  |  |
                           |  |  +--FREDERICK II, 1214-1250, _m._
                           |  |     1, Constance, d. of
                           |  |     Alfonso II of Aragon;
                           |  |     |
                           |  |     +--CONRAD IV, 1250-1254, _m._
                           |  |     |  Elizabeth, daughter of
                           |  |     |  Otto II of Bavaria.
                           |  |     |  |
                           |  |     |  +--Conradin, _d._ 1268.
                           |  |     |
                           |  |     +--Manfred,[5] _d._ 1266.
                           |  |
                           |  |     2, Iolande de Brienne;
                           |  |
                           |  |     3, Isabella, d. of
                           |  |     John of England.
                           |  |
                           |  +--PHILIP, 1198-1208, _m._
                           |     Irene, d. of Isaac II,
                           |     Angelus, Eastern Emperor.
                           |     |
                           |     +--Beatrix, _m._
                           |        OTTO IV,[4] 1208-1214,
                           |        _d._ 1218.
                           |
                           +--CONRAD III,[3] 1137-1152.

                        2, Leopold III, Marquis of Austria,
                        _d._ 1136.

                     2, Adelaide, a Russian princess.


1  Conrad I and Henry I seem to have been related. By one account their
mothers were the daughters of Emperor Arnulf.

2  Widow of Lothar, King of Italy.

3  Elected 1127 in opposition to Lotharl accepted as his successor.

4  Elected in opposition to Philip; accepted as his successor, 1208;
ruined by battle of Bouvines.

5  King of Naples and Sicily after Conrad IV; killed in battle at
Benevento against Charles of Anjou. Manfred's mother was Bianca Langia,
daughter of a Lombard noble.



PERIOD III.  FROM THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE ROMANO-GERMANIC EMPIRE TO
THE END OF THE CRUSADES. (A.D. 962-1270.)



CHAPTER I.  THE CHURCH AND THE EMPIRE: PREDOMINANCE OF THE EMPIRE:
TO THE CRUSADES, A.D. 1096.


I. KINGS AND EMPERORS OF THE SAXON HOUSE (918-1024).

HENRY THE FOWLER (918-936).--The envoys who carried to Duke _Henry of
Saxony_ the announcement of his election as king of Germany are said
to have found him in the Hartz Mountains with a falcon on his wrist:
hence he was called _Henry the Fowler_. He is a great figure in
mediæval history, and did much to make Germany a nation. He won back
_Lorraine_, which had broken off from the kingdom. With it the
_Netherlands_--Holland, Flanders, etc.--came to Germany. He united
all the five great dukedoms, and governed with wisdom and moderation. At
the end of five years, the _Hungarians_ poured in with irresistible
force. There was no alternative but to conclude with them a truce for
nine years, during which he was to pay tribute. He set to work at once,
however, to strengthen the defenses of his kingdom. He built walled
towns and fortresses in the eastern districts of _Saxony_ and
_Thuringia_, and drafted one out of nine of the men from the
population in the marches for military service. The fortresses were to
be kept stored with provisions. The oldest towns of Saxony and of
Thuringia are of this date. Then he disciplined his soldiers, and
trained them to fight, like the Hungarians, on horseback. He conquered
the Slavonian _Wends_ who dwelt east of the _Elbe_ and the
_Saale_, and established the margraviate of _Meissen_ to repel
their attacks. His victory over the Slaves at _Lenzen_ (929) made
the north-eastern frontiers of Germany secure. _Eadgyth_, the
daughter of _Edward_, king of England, was given in marriage to his
eldest son, _Otto_. Henry now felt himself strong enough to throw
off the Hungarian yoke, and answered with defiance their demand for the
annual tribute. The struggle with them was hard; but they were
completely vanquished at _Merseburg_ in 933, and their camp taken.
Henry founded the mark of _Schleswig_ as a defense against the
_Danes_. This wise and vigorous monarch laid the foundations of the
German Empire. He was not only a mighty warrior: he built up industry
and trade. He was buried at _Quedlinburg_ in the abbey which he had
founded.

OTTO I.: THE PALSGRAVES.--Otto I. (936-973) carried forward with equal
energy the work which his father had begun. Having been chosen king by
the German princes and chiefs at _Aix_, he was presented to the
people in the church by the archbishop of Mentz; and they gave their
assent to the election by raising the hand. Otto had a contest before
him to maintain the unity of the kingdom. He aimed to make the office of
duke an office to be allotted by the king, and thus to sap the power of
his turbulent lieges. The dukes of Bavaria and Franconia, with Lorraine,
and with the support of _Louis IV._, king of France, rose in arms
against him. He subdued them; and the great duchies which had revolted
against him becoming vacant, he placed in them members of his own
family. He confirmed his authority by extending the power of the
_palsgraves_, or _counts palatine_,--royal officers who
superintended the domains of the king in the several duchies, and
dispensed justice in his name. He favored the great ecclesiastics as a
check to the aspiring lay lords. He invested the bishops and abbots with
ring and staff, and they took the oath of fealty to him.

WARS OF OTTO I--Against the _Hungarians_, Otto achieved a
triumph. He gained a victory over them at _Augsburg_ in 955, in
which they were said to have lost a hundred thousand men. This put an
end to their incursions into Germany. He was likewise the victor in
conflict with _Slavonians_. He subdued _Boleslav I._ of
Bohemia, who had thrown off the German suzerainty, and obliged him to
pay a tribute. Under the pious _Boleslav II._, Christianity was
established there, and a bishopric founded at Prague (967). The _Duke
of Poland_ was forced to do homage to him, and to permit the founding
of the bishopric of _Posen_. Against the Danish king, _Harold_
the Blue-toothed, he carried his arms to the sea, the northern boundary
of _Jutland_. He erected three new bishoprics among the Danes, and
founded the archbishopric of _Magdeburg_, with subordinate sees in
the valleys of the Elbe and the Oder. These achievements gave Otto great
renown in Western Europe. The kings sent ambassadors to him, and
presents came from the sovereigns at Constantinople and Cordova.

OTTO I. IN ITALY.--Otto now turned his eyes to Italy. After
_Arnulf_, the Carlovingian emperor, left Italy (in 896), that
country had been left to sixty years of anarchy. The demoralization and
disorder of Italy, the profligacy of the Romans and of the pontiffs,--
every thing being then subject to the riotous aristocratic factions,
--rendered unity impossible. For a time (926-945) _Hugh of
Provence_ was called king: then followed his son _Lothar_
(945-950). The next Italian king, _Berengar II._ of Ivrea (950),
who, like his two predecessors, was an offshoot of the Carlovingian
house, tried to force _Adelheid_, the beautiful young widow of
Lothar, into a marriage with his son Adalbert. She (being then nineteen
years of age) escaped with great difficulty from the prison where she
was confined, took refuge in the castle of Canossa, and appealed to the
great _Otto_, king of the Germans, for help,--to Otto, "that model
of knightly virtue which was beginning to show itself after the fierce
brutality of the last age." He descended into Italy, married the injured
queen, and obliged _Berengar_ to own him as suzerain
(951). _Berengar_ proved faithless and rebellious. Once more
_Otto_ entered Italy with an overpowering force, and was proclaimed
king of the Lombards at _Pavia_. Pope _John XII_. had proposed
to him to assume the imperial office. He was crowned, with his queen, in
St. Peter's, in 962. He had engaged to confirm the gifts of previous
emperors to the popes. When _John XII._ reversed his steps, allied
himself with _Berengar_, and tried to stir up the Greeks, and even
the Hungarians, against the emperor, _Otto_ came down from
Lombardy, and captured Rome. He caused John to be deposed by a synod for
his crimes, and _Leo VIII._ to be appointed in his place
(963). But, while Otto was again absent, Leo was driven out by the
Romans, and John returned; but, soon after, he died. The Romans then
elected _Benedict_ pope. Otto captured Rome once more, deposed him,
and restored _Leo_. Benedict was held in custody, and died in
Hamburg. On a third journey to Italy, in 966, Otto crushed the factions
which had so long degraded Rome and the Church. On this occasion, he
negotiated a marriage between _Theophano_, a Greek princess, and
his son, also named _Otto_. Thus he acquired the southern extremity
of Italy.

THE HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE.--_Otto_ had taken Charlemagne for his
model. The "Holy Roman Empire of the German nation," the great political
institution of the middle ages, was now established. In theory it was
the union of the world-state and the world-church,--an undivided
community under Emperor and Pope, its heaven-appointed secular and
spiritual heads. As an actual political fact, it was the political union
of _Germany_ and _Italy_, in one sovereignty, which was in the
hands of the German king. The junction of the two peoples was not
without its advantages to both. It was, however, fruitful of evils. The
strength of Germany was spent in endless struggles abroad, which stood
in the way of the building up of a compact kingdom at home. For Italy it
was the rule of foreigners, of which she might feel the need, but to
which she was never reconciled.

OTTO II.: OTTO III.: HENRY II.--_Otto II._ (973-983) was highly
gifted intellectually, but lacked his father's energy and decision.
_Henry_ the Quarrelsome, duke of Bavaria, revolted, but was put
down, and deprived of his duchy. Otto obliged _Lothar_, the West
Frankish king, to give up his claim to Lotharingia, which he attempted
to seize. Otto, in 980, went to Italy, and, in the effort to conquer
Southern Italy from the Greeks and Saracens, barely escaped with his
life. This was in 982. He never returned to Germany. While _Otto
III._ (983-1002) was a child, his mother, _Theophano_, was
regent for a time in Germany, and his grandmother, _Adelheid_, in
Italy. One of Otto's tutors was _Gerbert_, an eminent scholar and
theologian. The proficiency of the young prince caused him to be styled
the "Wonder of the World." He was crowned emperor in Rome in 996, when
he was only sixteen years old. He dreamed of making Rome once more the
center of the world, for his interest was chiefly in Italy. But his
schemes were ended by his early death. At this time and afterward, there
was deep agitation manifested in Europe, owing to the general
expectation that before long the world would come to an end. On this
account pilgrims flocked to Rome. _Henry II._ (1002-1024), as
nearest of kin to the Saxon house, was the next emperor. Besides waging
war with his own insurgent lieges, he had to carry on a contest for
fourteen years with _Bokslav_, king of Poland, who had to give up
_Bohemia_ and _Meissen_. He founded the bishopric of
_Bamberg_ (1007). From this time the German kings, before their
coronation as emperors, took the title of _King of the Romans_.
The highest nobles were styled "Princes."  The nobles lived in the
castles, which were built for strongholds, as the power of the lords
grew, and private wars became more common.


II. THE FRANCONIAN OR SALIAN EMPERORS (1024-1125).

CONRAD II.: BURGUNDY: the POLES.--At a great assembly of dukes, counts,
and prelates at _Oppenheim_ on the Rhine, _Conrad_, a
Franconian nobleman (_Conrad II._), was elected emperor
(1024-1039). He was in the prime of life, and went to work vigorously to
repress disorder in his kingdom. He had the support of the cities, which
were now increasing in importance. At his coronation in Rome, in 1027,
there were two kings present, _Canute_ of England and Denmark, and
_Rudolph III._ of Burgundy (or _Arles_, as the kingdom was
called which had been formed by _Rudolph II._, by uniting
_Burgundy_ with a great part of _Provence_). After the death
of _Rudolph_, who had appointed _Conrad_ his successor, the
emperor was crowned king of _Arles_, which remained thus attached
to Germany. But at a later time the _Romance_, or non-German
portions, were absorbed by _France_. The _Duchy_ of Burgundy,
a fief of the French king, was not included in the kingdom. The
_Poles_ invaded Germany in great force. _Miesko_, their
leader, was repelled, and obliged to do homage for his crown, and to
give up _Lusatia_, which had been received by _Boleslav_ from
_Henry II_. In Italy, _Conrad_ issued an edict making the
smaller fiefs there hereditary. He seems to have designed to do away
with dukes, and to make the allegiance of all vassals to the king
immediate.

HENRY III.: THE TRUCE OF GOD.--With _Henry III_. (1039-1056) the
imperial power reached its height. He was for a time duke of
_Bavaria_, _Swabia_, and _Franconia_, as well as
emperor.  In _Hungary_ he conquered the enemies of _Peter_
the king, and restored him to the throne, receiving his homage as
vassal of the empire. He had great success in putting down private
war. In 1043 he proclaimed a general peace in his kingdom. He favored
the attempt to bring in the _Truce of God_. This originated in
_Aquitaine_, where the bishops, in 1041, ordered that no private
feuds should be prosecuted between the sunset of Wednesday and the
sunrise of Monday, the period covered by the most sacred events in the
life of Jesus. This "truce," which was afterwards extended to embrace
certain other holy seasons and festivals, spread from land to land. It
shows the influence of Christianity in those dark and troublous
times. Although it was imperfectly carried out, it was most beneficent
in its influence, and specially welcome to the classes not capable of
defending themselves against violence.

SYNOD OF SUTRI.--In 1046 _Henry_ was called into Italy by the
well-disposed of all parties, to put an end to the reign of vice and
disorder at Rome. He caused the three rival popes to be deposed by a
synod at _Sutri_, and a German prelate, _Suidger_, bishop of
_Bamberg_, to be appointed under the name of _Clement II_.,
by whom he was crowned emperor. After Clement died, Henry raised to
the Papacy three German popes in succession. While in the full
exercise of his great authority, and when he was not quite forty years
of age, he died.

HENRY IV.: HIS CONTESTS IN GERMANY.--_Henry IV_. (1056-1106), at
his father's death, was but six years old. He had been crowned king at
the age of four. _Agnes_ of Poitou, his mother, the regent, had
no ability to curb the princes, who were now released from restraint,
and eager for independence. By a bold stratagem, an ambitious prelate,
_Hanno_, archbishop of Cologne, carried off the young king, and
assumed the guardianship over him. He had a rival in the person of
_Adalbert_, archbishop of Bremen, whom Henry liked best, as being
more indulgent and complaisant, and who at length became his chosen
guide. But in 1066 the princes caused _Adalbert_ to be banished
from court. They obliged _Henry_ to marry _Bertha_, the
daughter of the margrave of Turin, to whom he had been betrothed by
his father. The union was repugnant to him, and he sought a divorce;
although her patience eventually won the victory, and she became a
cherished wife. _Henry_, arrived at man's estate, was involved in
a contest with three of the great dukes. It was evident that he meant
to tread in the footsteps of his father, and to reduce the princes to
submission. Hostility arose, especially between the young king and the
_Saxons_, who did not relish the transfer of the imperial office
to the _Franconian_ line. The passionate and wilful disposition
of _Henry_, and his sensual propensities, were his worst
enemies. The strongholds which he erected among the _Saxons_, in
themselves a menace, were made haunts of his boon companions and
comrades in the chase. The extortion and depredations to which the
Saxons were a prey provoked a great insurrection, which at first
prevailed; but the excesses of the elated insurgents--as seen, for
example, in the plundering and burning of churches--caused a
reaction. Henry suppressed the revolt, and dealt with the Saxons with
the utmost harshness, treating their dukedom as conquered
territory. The Saxon chiefs were now in durance: his enemies on every
side had willingly yielded, or were prostrate. The hour seemed to have
come for Henry to exercise that sovereignty as Roman emperor over
Church and State which his father had wielded; but he found himself
confronted by a new and powerful antagonist in the celebrated Pope
Hilde-brand, or _Gregory VII_. (1073-1085).

HILDEBRAND: INVESTITURES.--The state of affairs in the Roman Church
had called into existence a party of reform, the life and soul of
which was _Hildebrand_. He was the son of a carpenter of
_Soano_, a small town in Tuscany, and was born in 1018. He was
educated in a monastery in Rome, and spent some time in France, in the
great monastery of _Cluny_. He became the influential adviser of
the popes who immediately preceded him. The great aim of Hildebrand
and of his supporters--one of the most prominent of whom was the
zealous _Peter Damiani_, bishop of Ostia--was to abolish
_simony_ and the _marriage of priests_. By _simony_ was
meant the purchase and sale of benefices, which had come to prevail in
the different countries. The old church laws requiring _celibacy_
had been disregarded, and great numbers of the inferior clergy were
living with their wives. In Hildebrand's view, there could be no
purity and no just discipline in the Church without a strict
enforcement of the neglected rule. The priests must put away their
wives. Connected with these reforms was the broader design of wholly
emancipating the Church from the control of the secular power, and of
subordinating the State to the Church. For this end there must be an
abolition of _investiture_ by lay hands. This demand it was that
kindled a prolonged and terrible controversy between the emperors and
the popes. The great ecclesiastics had temporal estates and a temporal
jurisdiction, which placed them in a feudal relation, and made them
powerful subjects. It was the custom of the kings to invest them with
these temporalities by giving to them the ring and the staff. This
enabled the kings to keep out of the benefices persons not acceptable
to them, who might be elected by the clergy. On the other hand, it was
complained that this custom put the bishops and other high
ecclesiastics into a relation of dependence on the lay authority; and,
moreover, that, the _ring_ and _staff_ being badges of a
spiritual function, it was sacrilegious for a layman to bestow them.

CONTEST OF HILDEBRAND AND HENRY IV.--In the period of lawlessness at
Rome, Hildebrand had welcomed the intervention of _Henry III._,
and even of _Henry IV._, at the beginning of his reign. But this
he regarded as only a provisional remedy made necessary by a desperate
disorder. On acceding to the Papacy, he began to put in force his
leading ideas. The attempt to abolish the marriage of priests was
resisted, and stirred up great commotion in all the countries. The
legates of the Pope set themselves to stem the tide of opposition by
inveighing, in addresses to the common people, against the married
clergy, as unfit to minister at the altar. By this means, a popular
party in favor of the reform was created. In 1075, in a synod at
_Rome_, Hildebrand pronounced the ban against five councilors of
_Henry IV._ for simony. At the same time he threatened
_Philip_ of France with a similar penalty. He forbade princes to
invest with any spiritual office. To oaths of allegiance he did not
object, but to any investiture of a spiritual kind. Gregory selected
_Henry IV._ as the antagonist with whom to fight out the
battle. Henry's ecclesiastical appointments were not simoniacal in
fact, although they violated the papal decrees against simony. His
real offense was his determination to make the appointments himself.
Moreover, in 1075, he ventured to name Germans to the sees of Ferno
and Spoleto. Unfortunately he was weakened by the disaffection of the
German princes, and, most of all, of the _Saxons_. The fire of
rebellion in Saxony had not been quenched: it was still
smouldering. _Gregory_ summoned _Henry_ to Rome to answer to
the charges made against him. In three German synods held in 1076, the
incensed emperor caused empty accusations to be brought against the
Pope, and a declaration to be passed deposing him. He sent to the
pontiff a letter filled with denunciation, and addressed "to the false
monk, Hildebrand." Gregory issued decrees excommunicating
_Henry_, deposing him, and declaring his subjects free from their
obligation of allegiance. It was the received doctrine, that a heretic
or a heathen could not reign over Christian people. The discontented
German princes took sides with Gregory. In an assembly at
_Tribur_ in 1076, they invited the Pope to come to
_Augsburg_, and to judge in the case of _Henry_: he was to
live as a private man; and, if he remained excommunicate for a year,
he was to cease to be king altogether.

HUMILIATION OF HENRY IV.--_Henry_ was now as anxious for
reconciliation with the Pope as before he had been bold in his
defiance.  In the midst of winter, with his wife and child and a few
attendants, he crossed the Mt. Cenis pass, undergoing extreme
difficulty and hardship, and presented himself as a penitent before
Gregory, who had arrived, on his way to _Augsburg_, at the
strongly fortified castle of _Canossa_. The Pope kept him waiting
long, it is said, barefoot and bareheaded in the court-yard of the
castle. Finally he was admitted and absolved, but only on the
condition that _Gregory_ was to adjust the matters in dispute
between the emperor and his subjects.

CONTINUED CONFLICT.--When Henry found that his imperial rights were
still withheld, his fiery spirit rebounded from this depth of
humiliation. The _Lombards_, with whom Gregory was unpopular,
joined him. A majority of the German princes, adhering to the Pope, in
1077 elected _Rudolph_, duke of Swabia, emperor. The Pope took up
his cause, and in 1080 once more excommunicated and deposed
_Henry_. The emperor proclaimed anew, through synods, the Pope's
deposition, and things were back in the former state. The emperor's
party appointed a counter-pope, _Guibert_, archbishop of Ravenna,
under the name of _Clement III_. _Rudolph_ was killed in
battle (1080). _Henry's_ power now vastly increased. He invaded
Italy (1081), and laid waste the territory of _Matilda_, countess
of _Tuscany_, a fast friend of Gregory. In 1084 he captured
Rome. The Pope had found a defender in _Robert Guiscard_, the
Norman duke of Lower Italy, whom he had excommunicated, but whom (in
1080) he forgave, and took into his service. _Robert_ released
Gregory, who had been besieged in the Castle of
St. Angelo. _Hildebrand_ died at Salerno, May 25, 1085. When near
his end he uttered the words which are inscribed on his tomb: "I have
loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore do I die in exile."
Of the rectitude of his intentions, there is no room for doubt,
whatever view is taken of the expediency of his measures. He united
with an unbending will the power of accommodating himself to
circumstances, as is witnessed in his treatment of _Robert
Guiscard_, and in his forbearance towards _William the
Conqueror_, king of England, with whom he did not wish to break.

Of this great pontiff, Sir James Stephen says: "He found the Papacy
dependent on the empire: he sustained it by alliances almost
commensurate with the Italian peninsula. He found the Papacy electoral
by the Roman people and clergy: he left it electoral by a college of
papal nomination. He found the emperor the virtual patron of the holy
see: he wrested that power from his hands. He found the secular clergy
the allies and dependants of the secular power: he converted them into
the inalienable auxiliaries of his own. He found the higher
ecclesiastics in servitude to the temporal sovereigns: he delivered
them from that yoke to subjugate them to the Roman tiara. He found the
patronage of the Church the mere desecrated spoil and merchandise of
princes: he reduced it within the dominion of the supreme pontiff. He
is celebrated as the reformer of the impure and profane abuses of his
age: he is more justly entitled to the praise of having left the
impress of his own gigantic character on the history of all the ages
which have succeeded him."

LAST DAYS OF HENRY IV.--In 1085 Henry IV. returned to Germany, having
been crowned emperor by his Pope, _Clement III_. The _Saxons_
were tired of strife; and, on the assurance that their ancient
privileges should be restored, they were pacified. _Hermann_ of
Luxemburg, whom they had recognized as their king, had resigned the
crown (1088). The last days of _Henry_ were clouded by the
rebellion of his sons, first of _Conrad_ (1093), and then of
_Henry_ (1104), who was supported by the Pope, _Paschal
II_. The emperor was taken prisoner, and obliged to sign his own
abdication at _Ingelheim_ in 1105. The duke of Lotharingia and
others came to his support, and a civil war was threatened; but
_Henry_ died at _Lüttich_ in 1106. His body was placed in a
stone coffin, where it lay in an unconsecrated chapel, at _Spires_,
until the removal of the excommunication (1111).

CONCORDAT OF WORMS.--_Henry V_. (1106-1125) was not in the least
disposed to yield up the right of investiture. Hence he was soon
engaged in a controversy with _Paschal II_. Henry went to Rome
with an army in 1110, and obliged the Pope to crown him emperor, and
to concede to him the right in question. When he went back to Germany,
the Pope revoked the concession, and excommunicated him. The German
princes, as might be expected, sided with the pontiff. The conflict in
Germany went on. The emperor's authority, which was established in the
South by means of his powerful supporters, was not secured in the
North; but, during the last three years of his life, he was at peace
with the Church. By the _Concordat of Worms_ in 1122, it was
agreed that investiture should take place in the presence of the
emperor or of his deputies; that the emperor should _first_
invest with the scepter, and then consecration should take place by
the Church, with the bestowal of the _ring_ and the
_staff_. All holders of secular benefices were to perform feudal
obligations.

LOTHAR OF SAXONY.--The princes over whom Henry V. had exercised a
severe control opposed the elevation of _Frederick_ of
Hohenstaufen, the son of his sister _Agnes_. At a brilliant
assembly at _Mentz_, _Lothar_ of Saxony was chosen emperor
(1125-1137). He allowed all the Pope's claims, and was crowned at Rome
by Innocent II., accepting the allodial possessions of _Matilda_
of Tuscany, as a fief from the pontiff. He carried on a war with the
Hohenstaufen princes, _Frederick_ of Swabia, and his brother
_Conrad_, who finally yielded. _Lothar_ was helped in the
conflict by _Henry the Proud_, the duke of Bavaria, who also
became duke of Saxony. Germany under _Lothar_ extended its
influence in the north and east.

CULTURE IN THE ELEVENTH CENTURY.--The tenth century, owing to causes
which have been explained, was a dark age. In the eleventh century
circumstances were more favorable for culture. Under the Saxon
emperors, intercourse was renewed with the Greek Empire. There was
some intercourse with the Arabs in Spain, among whom several of the
sciences were cultivated, especially mathematics, astronomy, and
medicine (p. 232). The study of the Roman law was revived in the
Lombard cities, and this had a disciplinary value. The restoration of
order in the Church, after the synod of _Sutri_ (1046), had
likewise a wholesome influence in respect to culture. There were
several schools of high repute in France, especially those at
_Rheims, Chartres, Tours,_ and in the monastery of _Bec_, in
Normandy, where _Lanfranc_, an Italian by birth, a man of wisdom
and piety, was the abbot.



CHAPTER II. THE CHURCH AND THE EMPIRE: PREDOMINANCE OF THE CHURCH: TO
THE END OF THE CRUSADES, A.D. 1270.


THE TWO RELIGIONS.--The Crusades were a new chapter in the long
warfare of Christendom with Mohammedanism. "In the Middle Ages, there
were two worlds utterly distinct,--that of the Gospel and that of the
Koran." In Europe, with the exception of Spain, the Gospel had sway;
from the Pyrenees to the mouths of the Ganges, the Koran. The border
contests between the two hostile parties on the eastern and western
frontiers of Christendom were now to give place to conflict on a
larger scale during centuries of invasion and war.

STATE OF THE GREEK EMPIRE.--The Greek Christian Empire lay between the
Christian peoples of the West and the dominion of the Arabs. That
empire lived on, a spiritless body. After _Justinian_, there is
an endless recurrence of wars with the Arabs, and with the barbarians
on the North, and of theological disputes, either within the empire
itself, or with the Church of the West. The Greeks complained that a
phrase teaching the procession of the Spirit from the Son had been
added in the West to the Nicene Creed. The Latins complained of the
use of leavened bread in the sacrament, of the marriage of priests,
and of some other Greek peculiarities. The separation of the two
churches was consummated when, in 1054, the legate of the Pope laid on
the altar of _St. Sophia_, at Constantinople, an anathema against
"the seven mortal heresies" of the Greeks.

ATTACKS OF RUSSIANS AND BULGARIANS.--Left to itself, the empire showed
some energy in repelling the attacks of the Russians and Bulgarians. A
number of capable rulers arose. The Russians, of the same race of
Northmen who had ravaged Western Europe, kept up their assaults until
their chief, _Vladimir_, made peace, accepted Christianity, and
married the sister of the emperor, Basil II. (988). The empire between
988 and 1014 was invaded twenty-six times by King _Samuel_ of
Bulgaria. But the Bulgarian kingdom was overthrown, in 1019, by
_Basil II_. In the twelfth century it regained its independence.

THE GREEK EMPERORS.--In the ninth century the Greeks made head against
the Arabs, especially by means of their navy. In the tenth century
_John I_. (_Zimisces_) crossed the Euphrates, and created
alarm in Bagdad. The tenacity of life in the Greek Empire was
surprising in view of the languishing sort of existence that it
led. After _Heraclius_, there were three dynasties, the last of
which, the _Macedonian_ (867-1056), produced three remarkable
men, _Nicephorus Phocas_, _Zimisces_, and _Basil
II_. But the dynasty of _Comneni_, which, in the person of
_Isaac I_., ascended the throne in 1057, had to combat a new and
vigorous enemy, the _Turks_, who had now made themselves masters
of Asia. One of this line of emperors, _Alexius I_., appealed to
the Germans for help. This had some influence in giving rise to the
first of the Crusades. In these conflicts the Latins bore the
brunt. The exhausted Greek Empire played a minor part.

CONQUESTS OF THE TURKS.--The Mussulman dominion of the _Arabs_
had become enfeebled. The _Ommiad_ dynasty at _Cordova_ had
disappeared under the assaults of Christians, and of the _Moors_
of Africa. The _Fatimite_ caliphs were confined to Egypt. The
rule of the _Abassids_ of Bagdad had been well-nigh demolished by
the Seljukian Turks in 1058. They founded in the eleventh century an
extensive empire. The sultan, _Alp Arslan_, took the emperor,
_Romanus IV. Diogenes_, prisoner (1071), and conquered
_Armenia_. _Malek Shah_ invaded Syria, Palestine, Jerusalem,
and carried his arms as far as Egypt, while a member of the Turkish
family of _Seljuk_ wrested Asia Minor from the Greeks, and
established the kingdom of _Iconium_, which was called
_Roum_, extending from Mount Taurus to the Bosphorus. After the
death of _Malek Shah_, there were three distinct sultanates,
_Persia_, _Syria_, and _Kerman_,--the last being on the
shores of the Indian Ocean.

THE PILGRIMS TO JERUSALEM.--The immediate occasion of the Crusades was
the hard treatment of the Christian pilgrims who visited the sepulcher
of Christ in Jerusalem. There the Empress _Helena_, the mother of
Constantine, had erected a stately church. Pilgrimages--which had
become more and more a custom since the fourth century--naturally
tended to the sacred places in Palestine. Especially was this the case
in the eleventh century, when piety had been quickened by the
_Cluny_ movement. In 1064 a great pilgrimage, in which seven
thousand persons, priests and laity, of all nations, were included,
under _Siegfried_, archbishop of _Mentz_, made its way
through Hungary to Syria. Not more than a third of them lived to
return. The reports of returning pilgrims were listened to with
absorbing interest, as they told of the spots to which the imagination
of the people was constantly directed. What indignation then was
kindled by the pathetic narrative of the insults and blows which they
had endured from the infidels who profaned the holy places with their
hateful domination! In the ninth century, under caliphs of the temper
of _Haroun Al-Raschid_, Christians had been well treated. About
the middle of the tenth century the Fatimite caliphs of Egypt were the
rulers at Jerusalem. _Hakem_ was fierce in his persecution, but
his successors were more tolerant. When the Seljukian Turks got
control there, the harassed pilgrims had constant occasion to complain
of insult and inhumanity.

THE CALL OF THE GREEKS.--The Greek emperor, _Alexius Comnenus_,
threatened by the Mussulmans on the opposite bank of the Bosphorus,
sent his call for succor to all Christian courts. Two popes,
_Sylvester II._ and _Gregory VII._, had in vain exhorted the
princes to rise in their might, to do away with the wrong and the
shame which the disciples of Jesus were suffering at the hands of his
enemies.

MOTIVES TO THE CRUSADES.--After this, only a spark was needed to
kindle in the Western nations a flame of enthusiasm. The summons to a
crusade appealed to the two most powerful sentiments then
prevalent,--the sentiment of _religion_ and that of
_chivalry_. The response made by faith and reverence was
reinforced by that thirst for a martial career and for knightly
exploits which burned as a passion in the hearts of men. The peoples
in the countries formed by the Germanic conquests were full of vigor
and life. Outside of the Church, there was no employment to attract
aspiring youth but the employment of a soldier. Western Europe was
covered with a net-work of petty sovereignties. Feudal conflicts,
while they were a discipline of strength and valor, were a narrow
field for all this pent-up energy. There was a latent yearning for a
wider horizon, a broader theater of action. Thus the Crusades
profoundly interested all classes. The Church and the clergy, the
lower orders, the women and the children, shared to the full in the
religious enthusiasm, which, in the case of princes and nobles, took
the form of an intense desire to engage personally in the holy war, in
order to crush the infidels, and at the same time to signalize
themselves by gallant feats of arms. There was no surer road to
salvation. There was, moreover, a hope, of which all in distressed
circumstances partook, of improving their temporal lot.

THE COUNCIL OF CLERMONT.--The prime author of the first Crusade was
Pope _Urban II_. He authorized an enthusiast, _Peter the
Hermit_, of Amiens, to travel on an ass through Italy and Southern
France, and to stir up the people to the great undertaking of
delivering the Holy Sepulcher. With an emaciated countenance and
flashing eye, his head bare, and feet naked, and wearing a coarse
garment bound with a girdle of cords, he told his burning tale of the
inflictions endured by the pilgrims. At the great council of
_Clermont_, in 1095, where a throng of bishops and nobles, and a
multitude of common people who spoke the Romanic tongue, were
assembled, _Urban_ himself addressed the assembly in a strain of
impassioned fervor. He called upon everyone to deny himself, and take
up his cross, that he might win Christ. Whoever would enlist in the
war was to have a complete remission of penances,--a "plenary
indulgence." The answer was thundered forth, "God wills it."
Thousands knelt, and begged to be enrolled in the sacred bands. The
red cross of cloth or silk, fastened to the right shoulder, was the
badge of all who took up arms. Hence they were called _crusaders_
(from an old French word derived from _crucem_, Lat. acc. of
_crux_, a cross).

THE UNDISCIPLINED BANDS.--The farmer left his plow, and the shepherd
his flock. Both sexes and all ages were inspired with a common
passion. Before a military organization could be made, a disorderly
host, poorly armed and ill-provided, led by _Peter the Hermit_
and _Walter the Penniless_, a French knight, started for
Constantinople by way of Germany and Hungary. They were obliged to
separate; and, of two hundred thousand, it is said that only seven
thousand reached that capital. These perished in Asia Minor. They left
their bones on the plain of _Nicoea_, where they were found by
the next crusading expedition.

FIRST CRUSADE (1096-1099).--"The Crusades were primarily a Gaulish
movement:" in French-speaking lands, the fire of chivalric devotion
was most intense. The first regular army of soldiers of the cross
departed by different routes under separate chiefs. First of these was
_Godfrey of Bouillon_, duke of Lower Lorraine, the bravest and
noblest of them all. With him were his brothers, _Baldwin_, and
_Eustace_, count of Boulogne. Prominent among the other chiefs
were _Hugh_, count of Vermandois; _Robert_, duke of
Normandy, who had pawned his duchy to his brother, _William II_.,
the king of England; _Robert_, count of Flanders; _Raymond_,
count of Toulouse; _Bohemond_ of Tarentum, son of Robert
Guiscard; and _Tancred_, Robert Guiscard's nephew. The Spaniards
were taken up with their own crusade against the Moors. In consequence
of the late absorbing struggles between emperors and popes, the
Germans and Italians did not now embark in the enterprise. The
relation of the Norman dynasty in England to the conquered Saxons
prevented the first crusading host from receiving substantial aid from
that country. The leaders of the army finally consented to become the
feudal dependents of the emperor _Alexius_ while they should be
within his borders, and to restore to him such of their conquests as
had been lately wrested by the Turks from the Eastern
Empire. _Alexius_ was more alarmed than gratified on seeing the
swarm of warriors which he had brought into his land. After a siege of
seven weeks, _Nicea_ was surrendered, not, however, into the
hands of the European soldiers who had conducted the siege, but to the
shrewd _Alexius_. At _Doryleum_, in a desperate battle the
Turks were defeated; but, on their march eastward, they wasted the
lands which they left behind them. The crusaders suffered severely
from disease consequent on the heat. A private quarrel broke out
between _Tancred_ and _Baldwin_. _Baldwin_, invited to
_Edessa_ by the Greek or Armenian ruler, founded there a Latin
principality. After besieging _Antioch_ for several months, by
the treachery of a renegade Christian, _Bohemond_, with a few
followers, was admitted into the city. The Christians slew ten
thousand of its defenders; but, three days after, _Antioch_ was
shut in by a great army of Turks under the sultan _Kerboga_. The
crusaders were stimulated by the supposed discovery of the "holy
lance," or the steel head of the spear which had pierced the side of
Jesus. The Turks were vanquished, and the citadel of Antioch was
possessed by _Bohemond_. The wrangling chieftains were now
compelled by the army to set out for Jerusalem. When they reached the
heights where they first caught a glimpse of the holy city, the
crusaders fell on their knees, and with tears of joy broke out in
hymns of praise to God. But, not accustomed to siege operations, and
destitute of the machines and ladders requisite for the purpose, they
found themselves balked in the first attempts to capture the city. Yet
after thirty days, their needs having been meantime in a measure
supplied, _Jerusalem_ was taken by storm (July 15, 1099). The
infuriated conquerors gave the rein to their vindictive passions. Ten
thousand Saracens were slaughtered. The Jews were burned in the
synagogues, to which they had fled. When the thirst for blood and for
plunder was sated, feelings of penitence and humility took possession
of the victors. The leaders, casting aside their arms, with bared
heads and barefoot, entered into the church of the Holy Sepulcher, and
on their bended knees thanked God for their success. After debate, the
princes united in choosing _Godfrey of Bouillon_ as ruler of the
city. He would not wear a royal crown in the place where the Saviour
of the world had worn on his bleeding forehead a crown of thorns. He
designated himself Protector of the Holy Sepulcher. Shortly after, at
_Ascalon_, he won a great victory against the vastly superior
forces of the Egyptian sultan. Godfrey died the next year (1100), and
was succeeded by his brother _Baldwin_, who first took the title
of King of Jerusalem. The force of the Moslems, and the almost
incessant strife and division among the crusaders themselves, made the
kingdom hard to defend.

THE NEW KINGDOM.--Venice, Genoa, and Pisa had the most to do with the
defense and enlargement of the new kingdom. It was organized according
to the method of feudalism. It continued until the capture of
Jerusalem by _Saladin_ in 1187.

THE MILITARY ORDERS.--The principal supporters of the new kingdom at
Jerusalem were the orders of knights, in which were united the spirit
of chivalry and the spirit of monasticism. To the monastic vows of
chastity, poverty, and obedience, they added a fourth vow, which bound
them to fight the infidels, and to protect the pilgrims. These
military orders acquired great privileges and great wealth. Each of
them had its own peculiar apparel, stamped with a cross. The two
principal orders were the Knights of St. John, or the
_Hospitallers_, and the _Knights Templar_. The Hospitallers
grew out of a hospital established in the eleventh century near the
Holy Sepulcher, for the care of sick or wounded pilgrims. The order,
when fully constituted, contained three classes of members,--knights,
who were all of noble birth, priests and chaplains, and serving
brothers. After the loss of the Holy Land, the island of _Rhodes_
was given up to them. This they held until 1522, when they were driven
out by the Turks, and received from the emperor, _Charles V._,
the island of _Malta_. The Templars gained high renown for their
valor, and, by presents and legacies, acquired immense wealth. After
the loss of their possessions in Palestine, most of their members took
up their abode in _Cyprus_: from there many of them went to
France. Not a few of them became addicted to violent and profligate
ways. They were charged, whether truly or falsely, with unbelief, and
Oriental superstitions caught up in the East from their enemies. These
accusations, coupled with a desire to get their property, led to their
suppression by _Philip V._ in the beginning of the fourteenth
century. A third order was that of _Teutonic Knights_, founded at
Jerusalem about 1128. In the next century they subjugated the heathen
_Wends_ in Prussia (1226-1283).

WELFS AND WAIBLINGS.--The emperor _Lothar_ died on a journey back
from Italy in 1137. _Henry the Proud_, of the house of
_Welf_, to whom he had given the imperial insignia, hoped to be
his successor, and hesitated to recognize _Conrad
III_. (1137-1152) of the house of _Hohenstaufen_, who was
chosen. Conrad required him to give up _Saxony_, for the reason
that one prince could not govern two duchies. When he refused,
_Bavaria_, also, was taken from him, and given to _Leopold_,
margrave of Austria. This led to war, in which the king, as usual, was
strongly supported by the cities. Henry the Proud left a young son,
known later as _Henry the Lion_. Count _Welf_, the brother
of Henry the Proud, kept up the war in Bavaria. He was besieged in
_Weinsberg_. During the siege, it is said that his followers
shouted "_Welf_" as a war-cry, while the besiegers shouted
"_Waiblings_,"--_Waiblingen_ being the birthplace of
_Frederick_, duke of Swabia, brother of Conrad. These names,
corrupted into _Guelphs_ and _Ghibellines_ by the Italians,
were afterwards attached to the two great parties,--the supporters,
respectively, of the popes and the emperors. _Henry the Lion_
afterwards received _Saxony_; and the mark of _Brandenburg_
was given in lieu of it to _Albert the Bear_.

_Welf I._ was a powerful nobleman, who received from _Henry
IV_. the fief of _Bavaria_. When _Henry V_ died, the
natural heirs of the extinct Franconian line were his nephews,
_Frederick_ of _Hohenstaufen_, duke of Swabia, and
_Conrad_. But the Saxons supported the wealthy _Lothar_, who
was chosen emperor, and won over to his side _Henry the Proud_,
grandson of _Welf I._, to whom _Lothar_ gave his daughter in
marriage, and gave, also, the dukedom of _Saxony_, in addition to
his dukedom of _Bavaria_. In these events lay the roots of the
long rivalship between the _Welfs_ and the
_Hohenstaufens_. _Henry the Lion_, as stated above, was the
son of _Henry the Proud_.



GENEALOGY OF THE WELFS.


WELF, Duke of Bavaria, 1070-1101.
|
+--HENRY the Black, Duke of Bavaria, 1120-1126.
   |
   +--Judith, _m._ to Frederic, Duke of Swabia (d. 1147),
   |  the son of Agnes, who was the daughter of HENRY IV. FREDERIC I
   |  (Barbarossa) was the son of Judith, and this Frederic of Swabia.
   |  The Swabian dukes were called _Hohenstaufens_, from a
   |  castle on _Mount Staufen_ in Wurtemberg.
   |
   +--HENRY the Proud,
      Duke of Bavaria 1126, of Saxony 1137; deprived, 1138.
      |
      +--HENRY the Lion, _m_.
         Matilda, daughter of Henry II of England.
         |
         +--HENRY the Young, _d_. 1227.
         |
         +--OTTO IV, _d_. 1218.



SECOND CRUSADE (1147-1149).--The preacher of the second Crusade was
_St. Bernard_, whose saintly life and moving eloquence produced a
great effect. _Louis VII._ of France and _Conrad III._ were
the leaders. The expedition was attended by a series of calamities. The
design of recapturing _Edessa_ from _Noureddin_, the sultan of
Aleppo, was given up. The siege of _Damascus_ failed
(1148). _Conrad_ returned home with broken health. Soon after,
Damascus fell into the hands of _Noureddin_, who was a brave and
upright leader. Through one of his lieutenants, he conquered
Egypt. After his death, _Saladin_, who sprung from one of the
tribes of _Kurds_, and was in his service, rose to power there, and
set aside the Fatimite caliphate (1171). He was not less renowned for
his culture and magnanimity than for his valor. _Saladin_ united
under his scepter all the lands from Cairo to Aleppo. In the battle at
_Ramla_, not far from Ascalon (1178), the crusaders gained their
last notable victory over this antagonist, which served to prolong for
some years the existence of the kingdom of Jerusalem. Afterwards victory
was on his side: the crusaders were overthrown in the fatal battle of
_Tiberias_, and _Jerusalem_ was taken by him (1187). Thus the
Latin kingdom fell. The Saracen conqueror was much more humane after
success than the Christian warriors had been in like circumstances.

FREDERICK BARBAROSSA.--_Frederick I.--Barbarossa_, or Redbeard, he
was called in Italy--(1152-1190) was one of the grand figures of the
Middle Ages. He was thirty-one years of age at his election as emperor,
and had already been with the crusaders to the Holy Land. In him great
strength of understanding and a capacity for large undertakings were
combined with a taste for letters and art. His aim was to bring back to
the empire the strength and dignity which had belonged to it under the
Saxon and Franconian emperors. The rulers of _Bohemia_ and
_Poland_ he obliged to swear fealty as vassals. He put down private
war, and restored order in Germany. The palatinate on the Rhine,
formerly a part of Franconia, he gave to his half-brother _Conrad_,
who founded _Heidelberg_ (1155).

STRUGGLE WITH THE LOMABARD CITIES.--The principal conflict of Frederick
I. was in Italy, where he endeavored to restore the imperial supremacy
over the Lombard cities, which had grown prosperous and freedom-loving,
and were bent on managing their own municipal affairs. They had thrown
off the rule of bishops and counts. The burghers of _Milan_, the
principal town, had obliged the neighboring nobles and cities to form a
league with them. The smaller cities, as _Como_ and _Lodi_,
preferred the emperor's control to being subject to Milan. _Pavia_
clung to the empire. But most of the cities prized their independence
and republican administration. The Pope and the emperor were soon at
variance, and the cities naturally looked to the pontiff for sympathy
and leadership. In 1158 _Frederick_ again crossed the Alps, bent on
establishing the imperial jurisdiction as it had stood in the days of
Charlemagne. The study of the Roman law was now pursued with enthusiasm
at _Bologna_ and _Padua_. At a great assembly in the
_Roncalian Fields_, Frederick caused the prerogatives of the empire
to be defined according to the terms of the civil law. The emperor was
proclaimed as "lord of the world,"--_dominus mundi_. In the room of
the consuls, a _Podesta_ was appointed as the chief officer in each
city, to represent his authority. _Milan_, which had submitted,
revolted, but, after a siege of two years, was forced to surrender, and
was destroyed, at the emperor's command, by the inhabitants of the
neighboring cities (1162). In 1159 _Alexander III_. was elected
Pope by a majority of the cardinals. _Victor IV_. was chosen by the
imperial party, and was recognized at a council convened by
_Frederick_ at _Pavia_. On the death of Victor, another
anti-pope, _Paschal III_., was elected in his place; and, on the
fourth visit of Frederick to Italy (1166-1168), he conducted Paschal to
Rome. In 1167 the cities of Northern Italy, which maintained their cause
with invincible spirit, united in the _Lombard League_. They built
the strongly fortified place, _Alessandria_,--named after the
Pope,--and took possession of the passes of the Alps. The emperor, whose
army was nearly destroyed by a pestilence at Rome, escaped, with no
little difficulty and danger, to Germany.

FREDERICK I. AND POPE ALEXANDER III.--For nearly seven years Frederick
remained in Germany. He put an end to a violent feud which had been
raging between _Henry the Lion_ and his enemies (1168). In 1174 he
was ready to resume his great Italian enterprise. But he did not succeed
in taking _Alessandria_. All his efforts to induce _Henry the
Lion_ to come to his support failed. He was consequently defeated in
the battle of _Legnano_ (1176). The extraordinary abilities and
indefatigable energy of the great emperor had been exerted in the vain
effort, as he himself now perceived it to be, to break down the
resistance of a free people to a system which they felt to be an
obsolete despotism. A reconciliation took place at Venice in 1177
between Pope _Alexander III_. and Frederick, in which the latter
virtually gave up the plan which he had so long struggled to realize. It
was a day of triumph for the Papacy. At _Constance_, in 1183, a
treaty was made with the Lombard cities, in which their self-government
was substantially conceded, with the right to fortify themselves, and to
levy armies, and to extend the bounds of their confederacy. The
overlordship of the emperor was recognized. There was to be an imperial
judge in each town, to whom appeals in the most important causes might
be made. The "regalian rights" to _forage, food_, and
_lodging_ for the emperor's army, when within their territory, were
reduced to a definite form. The cities grew stronger from their newly
gained freedom; yet the loss of imperial restraint was, on some
occasions, an evil.

FREDERICK IN GERMANY.--After his return to Germany, Frederick deprived
_Henry the Lion_ of his lands; and when Henry craved his
forgiveness at the Diet of Erfurt in 1181, he was allowed to retain
_Brunswick_ and _Lüneburg_. He was to live for three years,
with his wife and child, at the court of his father-in-law, _Henry
II_., king of England. His son _William_, born there, is the
ancestor of the present royal family in England. In 1184 the emperor,
in honor of his sons, King _Henry_, and _Frederick_, duke of
Swabia, who were of age to become knights, celebrated at _Mentz_
a magnificent festival, where a great throng of attendants was
gathered from far and near. In a last and peaceful visit to Italy, his
son _Henry_ was married to _Constance_, the daughter of
_Roger II_., and the heiress of the Norman kingdom of Lower Italy
and Sicily.

THIRD CRUSADE (1189-1192).--The old emperor now undertook another
Crusade (1189), in which he was supported by _Philip
II_. (_Philip Augustus_), king of France, and _Richard_
the Lion-Hearted (_Cæur-de-Lion_), king of England, but of French
descent. Having spent the winter at _Adrianople_, Frederick
crossed into Asia Minor, and conquered _Iconium_. In his advance
he showed a military skill and a valor which made the expedition a
memorable one; but at the river Calycadnus in _Cilicia_, either
while bathing or attempting to cross on horseback, the old warrior was
swept away by the stream, and drowned (1190). His son _Frederick_
died during the siege of _Acre_. _Richard_ and _Philip_
quarreled, before and after reaching _Acre_, which surrendered in
1191. _Philip_ returned to France. _Richard_, with all his
valor, was twice compelled to turn back from Jerusalem. Nothing was
accomplished except the establishment of a truce with _Saladin_,
by which a strip of land on the coast, from _Joppa_ to
_Acre_, was given to the Christians, and pilgrimages to the holy
places were allowed. _Richard_ was distinguished both for his
deeds of arms and for his cruelty. On his return, he was kept as a
prisoner by _Leopold_, duke of Austria, by the direction of the
emperor, _Henry VI_., for thirteen months, and released on the
payment of a ransom, and rendering homage. He was charged with
treading the German banner in the filth at Acre. His alliance with the
_Welfs_ in Germany is enough to explain the hostility felt
towards him by the imperial party.

HENRY VI.: POPE INNOCENT III.--Henry VI. (1190-1197) had the prudence
and vigor of his father, but lacked his magnanimity. He was hard and
stern in his temper. Twice he visited Italy to conquer the kingdom of
the Two Sicilies, the inheritance of his wife. He waged a new war with
_Henry the Lion_ (1192-1194), which ended in a marriage of
_Agnes_, the emperor's cousin, with _Henry_, the son of
Henry. It was a project of the emperor to convert Germany and Italy,
with Sicily, into a hereditary monarchy; but the princes would not
consent. He aspired to incorporate the Eastern Empire in the same
dominion. While engaged in strife with the aged Pope, _Coelestin
II_., respecting the Tuscan lands of _Matilda_, which she had
bequeathed to the Church, the emperor suddenly died. His son
_Frederick_ was a boy only three years old. On the death of
_Coelestin II_., early in 1198, _Innocent III_., the ablest
and most powerful of all the popes, acceded to the pontifical
chair. Innocent was a statesman of unsurpassed sagacity and energy. He
was imbued with the highest idea of the pontifical dignity. He made
his authority felt and feared in all parts of Christendom. He exacted
submission from all rulers, civil and ecclesiastical. The Empress
_Constance_, in order to secure Italy for _Frederick_,
accepted the papal investment on conditions dictated by the
Pope. After her death _Innocent_ ruled Italy in the character of
guardian of her son. He dislodged the imperial vassals from the Tuscan
territory of _Matilda_, and thus became a second founder of the
papal state.

FOURTH CRUSADE (1202-1204).--Under the auspices of _Innocent
III_., a Crusade was undertaken by French barons, with whom were
associated _Baldwin_, count of Flanders, and _Boniface_,
marquis of Montferrat. Arrived at _Venice_, the crusaders were
not able to furnish to the Venetians the sum agreed to be paid for
their transportation. The Venetians, whose devotion was strongly
tempered with the mercantile spirit, under the old doge, _Henry
Dandolo_, greatly to the displeasure of the Pope, persuaded them to
assist in the capture of _Zara_, which the king of Hungary had
wrested from Venice. Then, at the call of _Alexius_, son of the
Eastern emperor, _Isaac Angelus_, they went with the Venetian
fleet to Constantinople, and restored these princes to the throne. The
result of the contentions that followed with the Greeks was the
pillage of Constantinople, and the establishment of the _Latin
Empire_ under _Baldwin_.  Principalities were carved out for
different chiefs; the Venetians taking several Greek coast towns, and
afterwards _Candia_ (Crete).  The patriarch of Constantinople had
to take his pallium from Rome. The Latin service was established in
the churches. There was no real union between the Greeks and the
invaders, but constant strife, until, in 1261, _Michael
Paloeologus_, the head of a Greek empire which had been established
at _Nicoea_, put an end to the Latin kingdom.

CHILDREN'S CRUSADE.--The failure of the stupendous undertakings for
the conquest of the infidels was attributed to the wicked wrangles,
and still more to the vicious lives, of the crusaders, whose defeat
was regarded as indicative of the frown of Heaven on their evil
courses. This feeling gave occasion to the Children's Crusade, in
1212. Many thousands of French and German boys made their way, in two
distinct expeditions, to _Marseilles_ and the seaports of Italy,
in order to be conveyed thence to the Holy Land. But few returned:
nearly all perished by the way, or were seized, and carried off to
slave-markets. The enterprise grew out of a wild construction of the
injunction of Jesus to let little children come to him.

OTTO IV.: CIVIL WAR IN GERMANY.--Frederick had been elected king; but,
on the death of his father, his claims were disregarded. The
_Hohenstaufens_ chose _Philip_, brother of Henry VI.: the
_Welfs_ appointed _Otto_, the second son of _Henry the
Lion_. Innocent claimed the right, not to appoint the emperor, but
to decide between the rival claimants. He decided, in 1201, in favor
of _Otto IV_. (1198-1214). _Philip's_ party, however, seemed
likely to succeed; but, in 1208, he was murdered. _Otto_, having
made large promises of submission to the Pope's requirements, was
crowned emperor, and universally acknowledged. When he failed to
fulfill his pledges, and began to assert the old imperial prerogatives
in Italy, he was excommunicated and deposed by Innocent (1210).

FREDERICK (II.) MADE KING.--Innocent was now led to take up the cause
of young _Frederick_ (1212). The latter won Germany over to his
side, and received the German crown at Aix-la-Chapelle in
1215. _Otto_ was restricted to his ancestral territory in
Brunswick.

CHARACTER OF FREDERICK II. (1214-1250).--_Frederick II._, on
account of his extraordinary natural gifts and his accomplishments,
was called _the wonder of the world_. He knew several languages,
and, in intercourse with the Saracens_ in Sicily, had acquired a
familiarity with the sciences. In many of his ideas of government he
was in advance of his time. But his reign was largely spent in a
contest with the Lombard cities and with the popes. He is styled by an
eminent modern historian, "the gay, the brave, the wise, the
relentless, and the godless Frederick." He was often charged with
skepticism in relation to the doctrines of the Church. The main ground
of this imputation seems to have been a temper of mind at variance
with the habit of the age,--a very moderate degree of reverence for
ecclesiastical authority, and the absence of the usual antipathy to
heresy and religious dissent.

FIFTH CRUSADE (1228-1229).--Having caused his son _Henry_ to be
elected king of Rome, _Frederick_, in 1220, left Germany for
fifteen years. It was the policy of the popes to keep the Sicilian
crown from being united with the empire, and the emperor from gaining
the supremacy in _Lombardy_. Frederick, at his coronation at
_Aix_, and afterwards, had engaged to undertake a crusade. But he
had postponed it from time to time. Pope _Honorius III_. had
patiently borne with this delay. But when Frederick, in 1227, was
about to start, and was prevented, as he professed, by the contagious
disease in his army, from which he himself was suffering, _Gregory
IX_., the next pope, placed him under the ban of the
Church. Nevertheless, the emperor, in the following year, embarked on
his crusade. His vigor as a soldier, and, still more, his tact in
conciliating the Saracens, enabled him to get possession of
_Jerusalem_. No bishop would crown an excommunicate, and he had
to put the crown on his own head. That he left a mosque unmolested was
a fresh ground of reproach. He negotiated an armistice with the
sultan, _Kameel_ (El Kámil), who ceded _Nazareth_ and a
strip of territory reaching to the coast, together with
_Sidon_. Fifteen years later (in 1244) _Jerusalem_ was
finally lost by the Christians.

CONTEST OF FREDERICK WITH THE POPES.--On his return to Italy,
Frederick drove the papal troops out of _Apulia_. In a personal
interview with _Gregory IX_. at _San Germane_, a treaty was
made between them, the ban was removed, and the treaty of Frederick
with the Sultan was sanctioned by the Pope. Frederick now displayed
his talent for organization in all parts of his empire. His
constitution for the Sicilian kingdom, based on the ruins of the old
feudalism, is tinged with the modern political spirit. His court,
wherever he sojourned, mingled an almost Oriental luxury and splendor
with the attractions of poetry and song. A sore trial was the revolt
of his son _Henry_ (1234), whom he conquered, and confined in a
prison, where he died in 1242. The efforts of Frederick to enforce the
imperial supremacy over the Lombard cities were met with the same
stubborn resistance from the _Guelfs_ which his grandfather had
encountered. In 1237 he gained a brilliant victory over them at
_Cortenuova_. But the hard terms on which Frederick insisted, in
connection with other transactions offensive to the Pope, called out
another excommunication from _Gregory IX_. (1239). The Genoese
fleet, which was conveying ecclesiastics to a council called by the
Pope at Rome, was captured by direction of _Frederick_; and the
prelates were thrown into prison. Pope _Innocent IV_. (1243-1254)
fled to _Lyons_, and there published anew the ban against the
emperor, declared him deposed, and summoned the Germans to elect
another emperor in his place. The ecclesiastical princes in Germany
chose _Henry Raspe_ (1246-1247), landgrave of Thuringia, who was
defeated by _Conrad_, Henry's son. The next emperor thus chosen,
_William of Holland_ (1247), made no headway in Germany. During
this period of civil war, many German cities gained their freedom from
episcopal rule, attained to great privileges, and came into an
immediate relation to the emperor. A fearful war raged in Italy
between the _Guelfs_ and _Ghibellines_, in the midst of
which _Frederick_ died, in the fifty-sixth year of his age. Had
he been as conscientious and as capable of curbing his passions and
appetites as he was highly endowed in other respects, he might have
been a model ruler. As it was; although his career was splendid, his
private life, as well as his public conduct, was stained with flagrant
faults.

THE SICILIAN KINGDOM.--The kingdom of the Two Sicilies was bravely
defended by _Manfred_, son of Frederick II, in behalf of young
_Conradin_, the son of the new emperor, _Conrad IV_. The
Pope gave the crown to _Charles of Anjou_, brother of _Louis
IX_. of France. _Charles_, after the fall of _Manfred_ at
_Beneventum_ (1266), gained the kingdom. _Conradin_ went to
Italy, but was defeated and captured in 1268, and was executed at
Naples. Such was the tragic end of the last of the
_Hohenstaufens_. The unbearable tyranny of the French led to a
conspiracy called the _Sicilian Vespers_ (1282); and, at Easter
Monday, at vesper time, the rising took place. All the French in
Sicily were massacred. _Peter of Aragon_, who had married the
daughter of _Manfred_, became king of Sicily. The dominion of
Charles of Anjou was restricted to Naples.

SPAIN.--The Spaniards had a crusade to carry forward in their own
land, which lasted for eight hundred years. In the tenth and eleventh
centuries, especially under _Abderrahman III_. (912-961), the
Moorish civilization was most brilliant. In _Cordova_, there were
six hundred mosques. There were said to be seventeen universities and
seventy large libraries in Spain. The caliph's fleets were dominant in
the Mediterranean. He was mild in his policy towards Jews and
Christians. In the eleventh century the caliphs gave themselves up to
luxury, and the control of their forces was in the hands of the
viziers. Of these, Almanzor, the general of _Hakem II_
(976-1013), was the most famous. He took the city of _Leon_, and
plundered the church of St. James of Compostella, the patron saint of
Spain. After this time the caliphate of _Cordova_ broke up into
numerous kingdoms. The Christian _Visigoths_ in the north-west
had built up the little kingdom of _Oviedo_, which later took the
name of _Leon_. The rest of Christian Spain was united under
_Sancho the Great_ (970-1035). To one of his sons, _Ferdinand
I_, he left _Castile_, to which _Leon_ and the
_Asturias_ were united; to another, _Aragon_; and, to a
third, _Navarre_ and _Biscay_. It was under _Ferdinand_
that the exploits of the Spanish hero, the _Cid_ (_Rodrigo
Diaz_ of Bivar), in conflict with the infidels, began. The complete
conquest of the Moors was prevented by the strife of the Christian
kingdoms with one another. Under _Alfonso VI_ (1072-1109), they
were all once more united.

GREAT DEFEAT OF THE MOORS.--The invasion of the _Almoravids_,
invited over from Africa by the Mussulman princes (1086), checked the
progress of the Christian conquest. These allies of the Arabs built up
a kingdom for themselves, reconquered _Valencia_, and taxed to
the utmost the power of the Christians to resist their progress. New
sects of fanatical Moslems, the _Almohads_, having conquered
Morocco, passed over into Spain. The Mohammedans were thus at war
among themselves, and were divided into three parties. Military orders
were established in Spain; and the kings of _Castile_,
_Leon_, and _Navarre_, aided by sixty thousand crusaders
from Germany, France, and Italy, defeated _Mohammed_, the chief
of the Almohads, with great slaughter, in a decisive battle near
Tolosa (1212). The Spanish crusade built up the little kingdom of
_Portugal_, and the states of _Castile_ and of
_Aragon_. They were destined to play an important part in the
history of commerce and discovery. The Spanish character owed some of
its marked traits to this prolonged struggle with the Moslems.

THE MONGOLIAN INVASIONS.--At the beginning of the thirteenth century,
_Genghis Khan_, the leader of Mongolian hordes which roamed over
the Asiatic plateau between China and Siberia, conquered China, and
overthrew the ruling dynasty. He subdued _Hindustan_ and the
empire of the _Chowares_, which had been founded by a
_Seljukian_ slave, and spread his power from the Caspian Sea
through Persia to India (1218). _Bokhara_ and _Samarcand_
were among the populous cities which were burned with all their
treasures by these ruthless invaders. Libraries were converted into
stalls for the horses of the brutal conquerors. The sons and
successors of _Genghis Khan_ swept over the countries north of
the Black Sea, captured _Moscow_ and _Kiev_, burned
_Cracow_, and pursued their murderous and devastating path over
_Poland_ and _Hungary_, At the battle of _Wahlstatt_
(1241), the Germans under _Henry the Pious_, duke of Liegnitz,
were defeated. The victories of the Tartars were frightful
massacres. It was a custom of the Mongols to cut off an ear of the
slaughtered enemy. It was said that at Liegnitz these trophies filled
nine sacks. The Mongol hosts retired from Europe. They attacked the
caliphate of _Bagdad_, a city which they took by storm, and
plundered for forty days. They destroyed the dynasty of the
_Abassids_. They marched into Syria, stormed and sacked
_Aleppo_, and captured _Damascus_. For a time the central
point of the Tartar conquests was the city or camping-ground of
_Karakorum_ in Central Asia. After a few generations their empire
was broken in pieces. The "Golden Horde," which they had planted in
_Russia_, on the east of the Volga, remained there for two
centuries. _Bagdad_ was held by the Mongols until 1400, when it
was conquered, and kept for a short time, by _Tamerlane_.

The religion of the Tartars was either _Lamaism_--a corrupted
form of Buddhistic belief and worship,--or _Mohammedanism_. In
China and Mongolia they were _Lamaists_: elsewhere they generally
adopted the faith of _Islam_. Their original religion was
_Shamaism_, a worship of spirits, akin to fetichism. The later
Mongol sovereigns, especially _Kublai Khan_, were ready to
promote peaceful intercourse with Europe. It was at this time that
_Marco Polo_ resided at their court.

SIXTH CRUSADE (1248-1254): SEVENTH CRUSADE (1270).-Two additional
Crusades were undertaken under the leadership of that upright and
devout king, _Louis IX_. of France. The first (1248-1254)
resulted in the taking of _Damietta_ in Egypt (1249); but the
next year _Louis_, with his whole army, was captured, and
obtained his release after much delay, by the surrender of his
conquests, and in return for a large ransom. Not disheartened by this
failure, the pious monarch, in 1270, sailed to _Tunis_, where he
and most of his army perished from sickness. In 1291 _Acre_, the
last town held by the Christians, was taken by the Egyptian
_Mamelukes_; and the Crusades came to an end.

EFFECTS OF THE CRUSADES.--The Crusades were a spontaneous movement of
Christian Europe. It was a great tide, which bore away all classes of
people. It lends to the Middle Ages an ideal and heroic character. An
overpowering sentiment, submerging calculation and self-interest,
swept over society. There was infinite suffering: countless lives were
the forfeit. The results, however, were beneficent, 1. It is true that
the conquests made in the East were all surrendered. The holy places
were given up. Yet the _Turks_ had received a check which was a
protection to Europe during the period when its monarchies were
forming, and were gaining the force to encounter them anew, and repel
their dangerous aggressions. 2. The Feudal System in Europe was
smitten with a mortal blow. Smaller fiefs, either by sale or by the
death of the holders, were swallowed up in the larger. The anarchical
spirit was counteracted. _Political unity_ was promoted. 3. There
was a lessening of the social distance between _suzerain_ and
_serf_. They fought side by side, and aided one another in common
perils. The consequence was an increase of sympathy. 4. There was
_an expansion of knowledge_. There was a widening of geographical
knowledge. An acquaintance was gained with other peoples and
countries. To the more civilized Saracens, the crusaders seemed brutal
and barbarous. The crusaders in turn were impressed with the superior
advancement and elegance of the Saracens. It was not the lord only who
beheld distant lands: the serf was taken from the soil to which he had
been tied. He drew stimulus and information from sojourning under
other skies. 5. A great impulse was given to trade and commerce. An
acquaintance was gained with new products, natural and artificial. New
wants were created. 6. The cities advanced in strength and wealth.
Important social consequences resulted from their growth.

WHY THE CRUSADES TERMINATED.--After the thirteenth century it was
impossible to rekindle the crusading enthusiasm. The fire had burned
out. It seemed as if the idea had exhausted itself in action. This
effect was due, (1) to the absence of novelty in such undertakings; (2)
to the long experience of the hardships belonging to them, which tended
to dampen the romantic zeal that had formed a part of the motive; (3) to
the disappointments following upon the practical failure of so
prodigious and costly exertions; (4) to an altered condition of public
feeling of a more general character. Antipathy to the infidel, the more
exclusive sway of religious sentiment, were giving way to a mingling of
secular aims and interests. There were new and wider fields of activity
at home. The mood of men's minds was no longer the same.

LUXURIES INTRODUCED BY THE CRUSADES.--The effect of the Crusades in
bringing in new comforts and luxuries, and in thus altering the style
of living, was remarkable. At the very outset, a great deal of money,
obtained by the sale or pawning of estates, was spent in the outfit of
the hundred thousand nobles, who, at the beginning, took the
cross. Costly furs, embroidered cushions, curtains of purple dye,
pavilions worked with gold, banners of purple or of cloth-of-gold,
showy costumes, and shining armor,--such was the splendor that met the
eyes of thousands who had never before beheld such a spectacle. The
journey to the East brought under the observation of the crusaders,
arts and fashions to which they had been strangers, They saw the
gilded domes and marble palaces of _Constantinople_, and the
treasures of ancient art which had been gathered within the walls of
that ancient capital. _Antioch_, with all its wealth, fell into
their hands. Later, the merchants of both religions followed in the
wake of the armies, and met one another. The superb fabrics of the
East were carried to the West by routes which now became safe and
familiar. The precious ores and tissues of _Damascus_, and the
beautiful glassware of _Tyre_, were conveyed to _Venice_,
and thence to places more distant. Silk stuffs of exquisite beauty
were brought from _Mosul_ and _Alexandria_. The elegance of
the East, with its rich fabrics, its jewels and pearls, was so
enchanting that an enthusiastic crusader termed it "the vestibule of
Paradise." It was not the nobles alone in the West who acquired these
attractive products of skill and industry.  The cities shared in
them. Even the lower classes partook of the change in the way of
living.

LIFE IN THE CASTLE.--Even in the earlier days of feudalism, the
seclusion of the castle was not without an influence in promoting
domestic intercourse and affection. A new sentiment respecting woman
sprang up in the Middle Ages, and was fostered by the honor which the
New Testament and the teaching of the Church rendered to saintly
women. A spirit of gallantry and devotion to woman, partly natural to
the Germanic race, and partly arising from causes like that just
named, sprang up in the midst of prevailing ignorance and perpetual
strife. In the course of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries life in
the castle is found to be very much improved. In the eleventh century
it lacked comfort, to say nothing of luxury. The lights were torches
of dry wood: even candles were not in general use. Houses in France,
England, and Germany commonly had thatched roofs. They were made of
logs covered with a sort of clay or mud. They were built with low and
narrow doors, and with small windows which admitted but little
light. In the middle of the smoky hall was a large, round
fireplace. There was no chimney, but only a funnel, which pierced the
ceiling. The seats were benches and stools. The feet of the family and
guests were kept warm by hay spread beneath them. In the later period
the substitution of dry rushes and straw was thought to be a marvelous
gain. Beds of straw were introduced into all the apartments of nobles,
and even of kings. To sleep on a straw couch was deemed a regal
luxury. One consequence of the Crusades was to introduce carpets and
hangings into the dwellings of the great.  Improved timepieces took
the place of the water-clocks, which were a wonder in the days of
Charlemagne. In the twelfth century the castle begins to look less
like a dungeon. Within and without, it ceases to wear so exclusively
the aspect of a fortress. The furniture has more beauty. In the great
hall are the large tables attached to the floor, the sideboards, the
cupboards, the stately chair of the lord, the couch with its canopy,
the chests for the wearing-apparel, the armor on the walls. In the
thirteenth century France was covered with chateaux, which, in the
case of princes and nobles of highest rank, had their spacious courts,
their stables, their lodgings for the servants. All these were within
the precincts of the palace. In the great hall were held the
assemblies of vassals, banquets, judicial trials. In the wealthiest
mansions, there was a main saloon on the floor above, reached by a
spiral stairway, and serving also for the principal bed-chamber. There
the stone floor gave place to marble of varied colors. Mosaics and
other ornaments were introduced. Sculptures, carvings, and mural
paintings decorated the apartments. Glass mirrors, imported by way of
Venice, began to supersede the mirrors of polished metal. Larger
windows, of painted glass, became common among the rich, in the room
of the small pieces of glass, or of alabaster, which had before served
to let in a few rays of light. Tallow candles came into vogue. Lamps
were not unknown. On great occasions, lanterns and wax candles were
used for a festive illumination. Chimneys were in use, and about the
vast fire-place the family group could gather. The hospitality of the
castle was often bountiful. The chase, the favorite amusement, gave
life and animation to the scene, and prepared the inmates for the
feast that followed. Minstrels enlivened the social gathering. Troops
of mountebanks and buffoons furnished amusement, and were sometimes
lavishly rewarded. There were singers and buffoons who were attached
permanently to the household. There were others who traveled from
place to place, and were even organized into corporations or
guilds. The _fool_, or _jester_, to whom a large license was
allowed, was long deemed a necessary adjunct of the
castle-hall. Carriages were little used; rank was indicated by the
accouterments of the war-horse or of the palfrey. From the twelfth
century onward, the improvement in the comforts of living was not
confined to the nobles and to rich burghers in cities. It was shared
by the rural classes, notwithstanding the miseries--such as
insecurity, and dangers of famine--that belonged to their condition.

  POVERTY AND DISEASE.--A French writer on the history of luxury,
  speaking of France in this period, says, "In the cities, we meet at
  once luxury, certain beginnings of prosperity, and frightful
  misery. _Beggary_ exists in a form the most hideous: there is
  an organization of it with grades, and a sort of hierarchy. In the
  face of sumptuous costumes, of chateaux better adorned, of the
  nascent wealth of industry, France included more than two thousand
  _lepers_, and knew not how to treat maladies born of the most
  imperfect hygiene and the most sordid filth. Such were the
  extremes. The course of general progress went forward between them."
  The condition of the poorest class in England was no better. "The
  absence of vegetable food for the greater part of the year, the
  personal dirt of the people, the sleeping at night in the clothes
  worn in the day, and other causes, made skin-diseases frightfully
  common. At the outskirts of every town in England, there were
  crawling about emaciated creatures covered with loathsome sores,
  living Heaven knows how. They were called by the common name of
  lepers; and probably the leprosy, strictly so called, was awfully
  common." Such being the life of the poor in villages, and in the
  absence of drainage and other modern safeguards of health, in large
  towns, it is no wonder that in the Middle Ages there were terrible
  pestilences, and that the average length of life was much less than
  at present.

ORIGIN AND NATURE OF CHIVALRY.--It was in the period of the crusades
that the mediaeval institution of chivalry was ennobled by receiving a
religious consecration. Chivalry is a comprehensive term, denoting a
system of ideas and customs that prevailed in the middle ages. In the
western kingdoms of Europe there was gradually formed a distinct class
of warriors of superior rank, who fought on horseback, and were
recognized as _knights_ by a ceremony of equipment with
arms. Among the customs of the ancient Germans, which are noticed by
Tacitus, and in which may be discovered the germs of chivalry, are the
remarkable deference paid to women, attendance of the aspiring youth
on a military superior,--out of which vassalship arose,--and the
formal receiving of arms on reaching manhood. At the outset,
knighthood was linked to feudal service: the knights were
landholders. In the age of Charlemagne, the warriors on horseback--the
_caballarii_--were the precursors, both in name and function, of
the _chevaliers_ of later times. The word _knight_, meaning
a youth or servant, and then a military attendant, came to be a term
of equivalent meaning. The necessary connection of knighthood with the
possession of fiefs was broken in the thirteenth century, through
changes in the circumstances of warfare. Knighthood became independent
of feudalism. It was a personal distinction, frequently bestowed as a
reward for brave deeds, and often conferred with elaborate ceremonies,
partly of a religious character. When the boy of gentle birth passed
from under the care of females, he first served as a _page_ or
valet at the court of a prince or the castle of a rich noble. Having
been thus trained in habits of courtesy and obedience, he was
advanced, not earlier than the age of fourteen, to the rank of
_squire_, and instructed in horsemanship and in the use of
weapons. He followed his master to the tournament and in battle, until
finally he was himself dubbed a _knight_, was clothed in armor of
steel, and took on him all the obligations and privileges of his
order. The introduction of hereditary surnames and of armorial
bearings served to distinguish the members of this order. He who was a
knight in one place was a knight everywhere.

There were different classes of knights. The "bachelor," who bore a
forked pennon, was below the "knight-banneret," who alone had the right
to carry the square banner. The banneret was required to have a certain
estate, and to be able to bring into the field a certain number of
lances, _i.e._, inferior knights with their men-at-arms and
foot-soldiers. Each knight was accompanied by his squire and personal
attendants. Not seldom two knights joined together in a brotherhood in
arms, pledging themselves to sustain each other in every peril.

THE VIRTUES OF KNIGHTHOOD.--There were characteristic obligations of
knighthood. One was _loyalty_, which included a strict fidelity
to all pledges, embracing promises made to an enemy. Another knightly
virtue was _courtesy_, which was exercised even towards a
foe. The spirit of _gallantry_, inspiring devotion to woman,
especially the chosen object of love, and protection to womanly
weakness, was always a cardinal trait of the chivalric
temper. _Courage_, which delighted in daring exploits, and sought
fields for the exercise of personal prowess, was an indispensable
quality of the knights. The ideal of chivalry was _honor_ rather
than benevolence. The influence of chivalry in refining manners was
very great; but, especially in its period of decline, it allowed or
brought in much cruelty and profligacy.  Its distinctive spirit could
find room for exercise only amid conflict and bloodshed, which it
naturally tended to promote.

CEREMONIES OF INVESTITURE.--When the knight was created according to
the complete form, he entered into a bath on the evening previous, was
instructed by old knights in "the order and feats" of chivalry, was
then clad in white and russet, like a hermit, passed the night in the
chapel in "orisons and prayers," and at daybreak confessed to the
priest, and received the sacrament. He then returned to his
chamber. At the appointed hour he was conducted to the hall, where he
received the spurs and was girded with the sword by the prince or
other lord who was to confer the distinction, by whom he was smitten
on the shoulder and charged to be "a good knight."  Thence he was
escorted to the chapel, where he swore on the altar to defend the
church, and his sword was consecrated.

JUDICIAL COMBATS.--The disposition to resort to single combats as a
judicial test of guilt or innocence was stimulated by the development
of chivalry. There were other ordeals long in vogue, by which it was
thought that Heaven would interpose miraculously to shield, and thus
to vindicate, the innocent, and to expose the criminal. Such were the
plunging of the hand into boiling water, the contact of the flesh with
red-hot iron or with fire, the lot, the oath taken on holy relics, the
reception of the Eucharist, which would choke the perjurer, and send
his soul to perdition. The ordeals were regulated and managed by the
clergy. Among the German, and also the Celtic tribes, there are traces
of the duel between combatants, for purposes of divination, or of
determining on which side in a controversy the right lay. The judicial
combat in mediaeval Europe became general. Champions, in cases where
the rights of women were in debate, and in other instances where the
wager of battle between the direct antagonists in a dispute was
impracticable, were selected, or volunteered, to try the issue in an
armed conflict. Sometimes professional champions, hired for the
occasion, were employed. The custom of judicial combats by degrees
declined. The municipalities and the spirit of commerce were averse to
it. It was opposed by the Emperor Frederic II. and by Louis IX. of
France. The influence of the Roman law helped to undermine it; but the
opposition of the Church was the most effectual agency in doing away
with it. The modern duel, which survived the judicial combat, is a
relic of the ancient custom of avenging private injuries, and of
proving the courage of the combatants between whom a quarrel had
arisen. In the opening of Shakespeare's play of Richard II., in the
quarrel of Mowbray and Bolingbroke, the idea of the judicial combat
mingles with the motives and feelings characteristic of the duel when
stripped of its religious aspect.


FRANCE.--DESCENDANTS OF HUGH CAPET

HUGH THE GREAT (_d_. 956), _m_.
3, Hedwiga, daughter of Henry I of Germany.
|
+--HUGH CAPET, 987-996.
   |
   +--ROBERT, 996-1031.
      |
      +--HENRY I,1031-1060.
         |
         +--PHILIP I, 1060-1108, _m_.
            Bertha, daughter of Florence I, Count of Holland.
            |
            +--LOUIS VI, 1108-1137.
               |
               +--LOUIS VII, 1137-1180,
                  _m_. 3, Alice, daughter of Theobold II,
                  Count of Champagne.
                  |
                  +--PHILIP II (Augustus), 1180-1223,
                     _m_. 1, Isabella, daughter of Baldwin V,
                     Count of Hainault.
                     |
                     +--LOUIS VIII, 1223-1226,
                        _m_. Blanche, daughter
                        of Alfonso IX of Castile.
                        |
                        +--(St.) Louis IX, 1226-1270,
                           _m_. Margaret, daughter of
                           Raimond Berengar IV, Count of Provence.
                           |
                           +--2, PHILIP III, 1270-1285,
                           |  _m_. 1, Isabella, daughter
                           |  of James I of Aragon.
                           |  |
                           |  +--PHILIP IV, 1285-1314,
                           |  |  _m_. Jeanne,
                           |  |  heiress of Champagne and Navarre.
                           |  |  |
                           |  |  +--LOUIS X, 1314-1316.
                           |  |  |
                           |  |  +--PHILIP V, 1316-1322.
                           |  |  |
                           |  |  +--CHARLES IV, 1322-1328.
                           |  |
                           |  +--Charles, Count of Valois  (_d_.
                           |     1325), founder of the house of
                           |     Valois, _m_. Margaret, daughter
                           |     of Charles II of Naples.
                           |     |
                           |     +--PHILIP VI, succeeded 1328.
                           |
                           +--Robert, Count of Clermont,
                              founder of the house of Bourbon.



ENGLAND.--FROM THE CONQUEST TO EDWARD I.


WILLIAM I, 1066-1087, _m._
Matilda, daughter of Baldwin V of Flanders
|
+--WILLIAM II (Rufus), 1087-1100.
|
|  (Malcolm Canmore _m._ St. Margaret)
|  |
|  +--Mary _m._ Eustace, Count of Boulogne
|  |
|  +--Maud
|  |
|  +--Matilda.
|       _m._
+--HENRY I, 1100-1135
|  |
|  +--MATILDA (_d._ 1167) _m._
|     1, Emperor Henry V;
|     2, Geoffrey Plantagenet,
|     Count of Anjou
|     |
|     +--HENRY II, 1154-1189 _m._
|        Eleanor of Aquitaine, etc.,
|        wife of Louis VII of France.
|        |
|        +--3, RICHARD I, 1189-1199.
|        |
|        +--5, JOHN, 1199-1216, _m._
|           Isabella of Angouleme
|           |
|           +--HENRY III, 1216-1272,
|              _m._ Eleanor, daughter of
|              Raymond Berengar IV of
|              Provence.
|              |
|              +--EDWARD I, succeeded 1272.
|
+--Adela, _m._ Stephen, Count of Blois.
   |
   +--STEPHEN, 1135-1154. _m._
      Maud, daughter of Malcolm Canmore and St. Margaret.



CHAPTER III. ENGLAND AND FRANCE: THE FIRST PERIOD OF THEIR RIVALSHIP
(1066-1217).


The emperors, the heads of the Holy Roman Empire, were the chief secular
rulers in the Middle Ages, and were in theory the sovereigns of
Christendom. But in the era of the Crusades, the kingdoms of England and
France began to be prominent. In them, moreover, we see beginnings of an
order of things not embraced in the mediaeval system. In France, steps
are taken towards a compact monarchy. In England, there are laid the
foundations of free representative government.

CONNECTION OF ENGLAND AND FRANCE.--For a long time the fortunes of
England and of France are linked together. The kings of the French, with
their capital at _Paris_, had been often obliged to contend with
their powerful liegemen, the dukes of Normandy, at _Rouen_. When
the Norman duke became king of England, he had an independent dominion
added to the great fief on the other side of the channel. It sometimes
looked as if England and France would be united under one sovereignty,
so close did their relations become.

DEATH OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR.--It was while _William the
Conqueror_, angry with the king of the French, was burning
_Mantes_, in the border-land between Normandy and France, that, by
the stumbling of his horse in the ashes, he was thrown forward upon the
iron pommel of his saddle, and received the hurt which ended, in the
next month, in his death (Sept., 1087). On his death-bed he was smitten
with remorse for his unjust conquest of England, and for his bloody
deeds there. He would not dare to appoint a successor: it belonged, he
said, to the Almighty to do that; but he hoped that his son
_William_ might succeed him. The burial service at _Caen_, in
the church which he had built, was interrupted by _Ascelin_, a
knight, who raised his voice to protest against the interment, for the
reason that the duke had wrongfully seized from his father the ground on
which the church stood. The family of William made a settlement with
Ascelin on the spot by paying a sum of money, and the service
proceeded. The whole ground was afterwards paid for. William had left
money for the rebuilding of the churches which he had burned at
_Mantes_. He gave his treasures to the poor and to the churches in
his dominions. These circumstances illustrate in a striking way how, in
the Middle Ages, ruthless violence was mingled with power of conscience
and a sense of righteous obligation.

WILLIAM RUFUS.--William the Conqueror was succeeded by his son,
_William Rufus_ (1087-1100), who was as able a man as his
father. He promised to be liberal, and to lay no unjust taxes; but he
proved to be--especially after the death of the good _Lanfranc_,
the archbishop of Canterbury--a vicious and irreligious king. The Norman
nobles would have preferred to have his brother _Robert_, who was
duke of Normandy, for their king; but the English stood by William. He
left bishoprics and abbacies vacant that he might seize the
revenues. One of his good deeds was the appointment of the holy and
learned _Anselm_ to succeed _Lanfranc_; but he quarreled with
_Anselm_, who withdrew from the kingdom. Normandy, which he had
tried to wrest from his elder brother _Robert_, was mortgaged to
him by the latter, in order that he might set out upon the first
Crusade. That duchy came thus into the king's possession. William, while
hunting in the New Forest, was killed, if not accidentally, then either,
as it was charged, by _Walter Tyrrel_, one of the party, or by some
one who had been robbed of his home when the New Forest was made. He was
found in the agonies of death, pierced by an arrow shot from a
cross-bow.

HENRY I. OF ENGLAND (1100-1135): LOUIS VI. (the FAT) OF FRANCE
(1108-1137): LOUIS VII. (1137-1180).--_Henry_ was the youngest son
of the Conqueror. His wife was English, and was a great-granddaughter of
Edmund Ironside. Her name was Edith, but she assumed the Norman name of
_Matilda_. Her mother Margaret, wife of Malcolm of Scotland, was of
the stock of the West Saxon kings. Thus the blood of Alfred, as well as
of William the Conqueror, flowed in the veins of the later English
kings. In the absence of his older brother _Robert_, who was in
Jerusalem, he took the crown, and put forth a _Charter of
Liberties_, promising the Church to respect its rights, and giving
privileges to his vassals which they in turn were to extend to their own
vassals. Robert came back from the Holy Land, and tried to wrest England
from his brother. He failed in the attempt. After this, _Henry_ got
possession of Normandy by the victory of _Tinchebrai_ in 1106, and
kept Robert a prisoner in Cardiff Castle until his death (1135).
_Louis the Fat_, king of France, espoused the cause of _William
of Clito_, son of Robert, but was beaten in 1119 at
_Brenneville_. Peace was made between the two kings; but in 1124
_Henry_ of England combined with his son-in-law, _Henry V._ of
Germany, for the invasion of France. _Louis_ called upon his
vassals, who gathered in such force that the emperor abandoned the
scheme. _Louis_ then undertook to chastise those great vassals who
had not responded to his summons. _William_, the duke of Aquitane,
seeing the power of the suzerain, came into his camp, and offered him
his homage. Louis inflicted a brutal punishment in Flanders, where the
count, _Charles the Good_, had been assassinated in 1127, and which
had failed to furnish its contingent in 1124. He obliged the Flemish
lords to elect as their count, _William Clito_, whose rule,
however, they presently cast off. _Louis the Fat_ united his son
_Louis_ in marriage with _Eleanor_, the only daughter of
_William (X.)_, the duke of Aquitaine, and thus paved the way for a
direct control over the South. The duchy of _Aquitaine_ included
_Gascony_ and other districts, and the suzerainty over _Auvergne,
Périgord,_ etc. _Louis the VII._ (1137-1180) was not able to
preserve the dominion, extending from the north to the south of France,
which he inherited. He plunged into a dispute with Pope _Innocent
II._ in relation to the church of _Bourges_, where he claimed
the right to name the archbishop. _St. Bernard_ took the side of
the Pope. _Suger_, abbot of St. Denis, an able minister, the
counselor of the last king, supported _Louis_. The king attacked
the lands of _Theobald_ of Champagne, who sided with the Pope, and
in his wrath burned the parish church of _Vitry_, with hundreds of
poor people who had taken refuge in it. His own remorse and the
excommunication of the Pope moved him to do penance by departing on a
Crusade. _Suger_, not liking the risk which the monarchy incurred
through the absence of the king, opposed the project. _St.
Bernard_ encouraged it. The Crusade failed of any important result;
but it helped to infuse a national spirit into the French soldiers, who
fought side by side with the army of the emperor, _Conrad III_. On
his return, on the alleged ground that _Eleanor_ was too near of
kin, he divorced her, and rendered back her dowry (1152).

LOUIS VII. OF FRANCE (1137-1180): STEPHEN (1135-1154) AND HENRY II. of
ENGLAND (1154-1189).--The king of England, _Henry I._, after the
death of his son by shipwreck, declared his daughter _Matilda_
his heir. She was the widow of _Henry V._, the emperor of
Germany. In 1127 she married _Geoffrey_, count of Anjou, surnamed
_Plantagenet_ on account of his habit of wearing a sprig of broom
(_genet_) in his bonnet. Henry left Matilda, whom he called the
"Empress," under the charge of his nephew, _Stephen of Blois_,
who got himself elected king by the barons or great landowners,--as
there was no law regulating the succession of the crown,--and was
crowned at Westminster. They had sworn, however, to support
Matilda. Her uncle _David_, king of Scots, took up her cause; but
the Scots were defeated at the _Battle of the Standard_ in
1138. England was thrown into utter disorder by these circumstances:
some of the barons fought on one side, and some on the other. There
were thieves along the highways, and the barons in their castles were
no better than the thieves. The empress landed in England in 1139, to
recover her rights.  In the civil war that ensued, _Stephen_ was
taken prisoner (1141); but _Matilda_, whose imperious temper made
her unpopular in London, was driven out of the city. _Stephen_
was released in exchange for the _Earl of
Gloucester_. _Matilda_ was at one time in great peril, but
contrived to escape in a winter night from Oxford Castle (1142). In
1153 peace was made, by which Stephen was to retain the kingdom, but
was to be succeeded by Matilda's eldest son.

CRUELTY OF THE NOBLES.--In the time of Stephen and Matilda, the barons,
released from the strong hand of his predecessor, were guilty of
atrocities which made the people mourn the loss of Henry.

"They built strong castles, and filled them with armed men. From these
they rode out as robbers, as a wild beast goes forth from its den. 'They
fought among themselves with deadly hatred, they spoiled the fairest
lands with fire and rapine; in what had been the most fertile of
counties they destroyed almost all the provision of bread.'  Whatever
money or valuable goods they found, they carried off. They burnt houses
and sacked towns, If they suspected any one of concealing his wealth,
they carried him off to their castle; and there they tortured him, to
make him confess where his money was. 'They hanged up men by their feet,
and smoked them with foul smoke. Some were hanged up by their thumbs,
others by the head, and burning things were hung on to their feet. They
put knotted strings about men's heads, and twisted them till they went
to the brain. They put men into prisons where adders and snakes and
toads were crawling, and so they tormented them. Some they put into a
chest short and narrow, and not deep, and that had sharp stones within,
and forced men therein so that they broke all their limbs. In many of
the castles were hateful and grim things called _rachenteges_,
which two or three men had enough to do to carry. It was thus made: it
was fastened to a beam, and had a sharp iron to go about a man's neck
and throat, so that he might noways sit or lie or sleep; but he bore all
the iron. Many thousands they starved with hunger.' The unhappy
sufferers had no one to help them. Stephen and Matilda were too busy
with their own quarrel to do justice to their subjects. Poor men cried
to Heaven, but they got no answer. 'Men said openly that Christ and his
saints were asleep.'"

DOMINIONS OF HENRY II.--_Henry_, the son of the empress and of
Count _Geoffrey_ of Anjou, was the first of the _Angevin_
kings of England. They had Saxon blood in their veins, but were
neither Norman nor Saxon, except in the female line. It was
eighty-eight years since the Conquest; and, although the higher
classes talked French, almost every one of their number was of mixed
descent. The line between Saxon and Norman was becoming effaced. A
vassal of the king of France, Henry held so many fiefs that he was
stronger than the king himself, and all the other crown vassals taken
together. From his father he had _Anjou_; from his mother,
_Normandy_ and _Maine_; the county of _Poitou_ and the
duchy of _Aquitaine_ he received by _Eleanor_, the divorced
wife of Louis VII., whom he married. Later, by marrying one of his
sons to the heiress of _Brittany_, that district, the nominal
fief of Normandy, came practically under his dominion. He was a
strong-willed man, who reduced the barons to subjection, and pulled
down the castles which had been built without the king's leave. It
might seem probable that the possessor of so great power would absorb
the little monarchy of France. But this was prevented by
long-continued discord in England,--discord in the royal family,
between the king and the clergy, and, later, between the king and the
barons. On the Continent, the king of England required a great and
united force to break the feudal bonds which grew stronger between the
king of France and the French provinces of England. We shall soon see
how France enlarged her territory, and how the English dominion on the
Continent was greatly reduced.

REFORMS OF HENRY.--In order to control the barons, he arranged with them
to pay money in lieu of military service. In this way they were
weakened. At the same time, he encouraged the small landowners to
exercise themselves in arms, which would prepare them for self-defense
and to assist the king. Moreover, he sent judges through the land to
hear causes. They were to ask a certain number of men in the county as
to the merits of the cases coming before them. These men took an oath to
tell the truth. They gradually adopted the custom of hearing the
evidence of others before giving to the judges their
_verdict_,--that is, their declaration of the truth (from _vere
dictum_). Out of this custom grew the jury system.

BECKET: CONSTITUTIONS OF CLARENDON.--The Conqueror had granted to
ecclesiastical courts the privilege of trying cases in which the
clergy were concerned. On this privilege the clergy had been disposed
to insist ever since the fall of the Roman Empire. Under Stephen the
energetic restraint exercised upon them was removed. In the early
years of the reign of Henry II., there were great disorders among the
Norman clergy, and crimes were of frequent occurrence. These were
often punished more lightly than the same offenses when committed by a
layman, as church courts could not inflict capital punishment. Henry
undertook to bring the clergy under the jurisdiction of the ordinary
courts. In this attempt he was resisted by _Thomas à Becket_, who
had been his chancelor, and whom he raised to the archbishopric of
Canterbury (1162), in the full expectation of having his support. He
had been gay and extravagant in his ways, and zealous in behalf of
whatever the king wished. But the brilliant chancelor became a strict
and austere prelate, the champion of the clergy, with a will as
inflexible as that of Henry. The only bishop that voted against him at
his election, remarked that "the king had worked a miracle in having
that day turned a layman into an archbishop, and a soldier into a
saint." In this controversy, the clergy had reason to fear that Henry,
if he got the power, would use it to punish and plunder the
innocent. At a great council of prelates and barons, the
_Constitutions of Clarendon_ were adopted (1164), which went far
towards the subjecting of the ecclesiastics, as to their appointment
and conduct, to the royal will.

_Becket_, with the other prelates, swore to observe these
statutes; but he repented of the act, was absolved by the Pope from
his oath, and fled to France. Later a reconciliation took place
between him and the king. Becket returned to England, but with a
temper unaltered. A hasty expression of Henry, uttered in wrath, and
indicating a desire to be rid of him, was taken up by four knights,
who attacked the archbishop, and slew him, near the great altar in the
cathedral at Canterbury (Dec. 29, 1170). The higher nobles welcomed
the occasion to revolt. _Henry_ was regarded as the instigator of
the bloody deed, and was moved to make important concessions to the
Pope, _Alexander III_. His life was darkened by quarrels with his
sons. In 1173 the kings of France and Scotland, and many nobles of
Normandy and England, joined hands with them. Henry, afflicted with
remorse, did penance, allowing himself to be scourged by the monks at
the tomb of Becket, or "St. Thomas,"--for he was canonized. The people
rallied to him, and the nobles were defeated. The rebellion came to an
end. The king of Scotland became more completely the vassal of
England. In another rebellion the king's sons rebelled against him: in
1189 _John_, the youngest of them, joined with his brother
Richard. Then Henry's heart was broken, and he died.

CONQUEST OF IRELAND.--In the first year of Henry's reign, he was
authorized by _Pope Hadrian IV._ to invade Ireland. In 1169
_Dermot of Leinster_, a fugitive Irish king, undertook to enlist
adventurers for this service. He was aided by _Richard of Clare_,
earl of Pembroke, called _Strongbow_, and others. They were
successful; and in 1171 _Henry_ crossed over to Ireland, and was
acknowledged as sovereign by all the chiefs of the South. A synod
brought the Irish Church into subjection to the see of Canterbury. But
there was constant warfare, and the North and East of the island were
not subdued. The whole country was not conquered until
_Elizabeth's_ time, four centuries later.

WEAKENING OF GREAT VASSALS IN FRANCE.--The weakening of _Henry's_
power was the salvation of _Louis VII._, who had more the spirit
of a monk than of an active and resolute monarch. At his death a new
epoch is seen to begin. The dominion of the great vassals declines,
and the truly monarchical period commences. It was the change which
ended in making the king the sole judge, legislator, and executive of
the country. _Louis the Fat, Philip Augustus,_ and _St. Louis
(Louis IX.)_ are the early forerunners of _Louis XIV._, under
whom the absolute monarchy was made complete.

PHILIP AUGUSTUS OF FRANCE (1180-1223): RICHARD THE LIONHEARTED OF
ENGLAND (1189-1199).--_Philip Augustus_ was the last king of
France to be crowned before his accession. The custom had helped to
give stability to the regal system. Now it was no longer
needful. Philip was only fifteen years old when he began to reign
alone. For forty-three years he labored with shrewdness and
perseverance, and with few scruples as to the means employed, to build
up the kingly authority. His first act was a violent attack on the
_Jews_, whom he despoiled and banished. This was counted an act
of piety. He acquired _Vermandois, Valois_, and _Amiens_;
refusing to render homage to the Bishop of Amiens, who claimed to be
its suzerain. During the life of _Henry II._, Philip had allied
himself closely with his son _Richard_ (the Lion-hearted), who
succeeded his father. _Richard_ was passionate and quarrelsome,
yet generous. He was troubadour as well as king. After his coronation
(1189), the two kings made ready for a Crusade together. To raise
money, _Richard_ sold earldoms and crown lands, and exclaimed
that he would sell London if he could find a buyer. The two kings set
out together in 1190. They soon quarreled. _Philip_ came home
first, and, while _Richard_ was a prisoner in Austria, did his
best to profit by his misfortunes, and to weaken the English reigning
house. In the absence of _Richard, John_, his ambitious and
unfaithful brother, was made regent by the lords and the London
citizens. As nothing was heard of the king, John claimed the
crown. Hearing of the release of _Richard, Philip_ wrote to
_John_ (1194), "Take care of yourself, for the devil is let
loose." _Richard_ made war on _Philip_ in Normandy, but Pope
_Innocent III._ obliged the two kings to make a truce for five
years (1199). Two months after, Richard was mortally wounded while
besieging a castle near _Limoges_, where it was said that a
treasure had been found, which he as the suzerain claimed. He had
never visited England but twice; and, although he always had the fame
of a hero, the country had no real cause to regret his death.

JOHN OF ENGLAND (1199-1216).--John (surnamed _Sansterre_, or
_Lackland_, a name given to the younger sons, whose fathers had
died before they were old enough to hold fiefs) was chosen
king. Anjou, Poitou, and Touraine desired to have for their duke young
_Arthur_, duke of Brittany, the son of _Geoffrey_, John's
elder brother. _Philip Augustus_ took up the cause of Arthur, but
deserted him when he had gained for himself what he wished. When
Philip wished to reopen the war he took advantage of a complaint from
one of John's vassals, Hugh of Lusignan, whose affianced bride John
had stolen away. As suzerain Philip summoned John to answer at Paris,
and when he did not appear the court declared his fiefs forfeited. It
was in this war that Arthur was captured by his uncle and was
murdered. This crime served only to strengthen Philip's cause. He
seized on _Normandy_, which thenceforward was French, and
_Brittany_, which became an immediate fief of the king (1204). He
took the other possessions of England in Northern Gaul. There were
left to the English the duchy of _Aquitaine_, with _Gascony_
and the _Channel Islands_.  The lands south of the Loire John had
inherited from his mother.

TYRANNY OF JOHN.--John robbed his subjects, high and low, under the
name of taxation. Not content with forcing money out of the Jews, one
of whom he was said to have coerced by pulling out a tooth every day,
he treated rich land-owners with hardly less cruelty. He had not, like
_Henry II._, the support of the people, and added to his
unpopularity by hiring soldiers from abroad to help him in his
oppression.

JOHN'S QUARREL WITH THE POPE: MAGNA CHARTA.--As rash as he was
tyrannical, John engaged in a quarrel with Pope _Innocent III_.
The monks of Canterbury appointed as archbishop, not the king's
treasurer, whom he bade them choose, but another. The Pope neither
heeded the king nor confirmed their choice, but made them elect a
religious and learned Englishman, _Stephen Langton_. _John_,
in a rage, drove the monks out of Canterbury, and refused to recognize
the election. The Pope excommunicated him, and laid England under an
_interdict_; that is, he forbade services in the churches, and
sacraments except for infants and the dying; marriages were to take
place in the church porch, and the dead were to be buried without
prayer and in unconsecrated ground. As _John_ paid no regard to
this measure of coercion, _Innocent_ declared him deposed, and
charged the king of France to carry the sentence into effect
(1213). Resisted at home, and threatened from abroad, _John_ now
made an abject submission, laying his crown at the feet of
_Pandulph_, the Pope's legate. He made himself the vassal of the
Pope, receiving back from him the kingdoms of England and Ireland,
which he had delivered to _Innocent_, and engaging that a yearly
rent should be paid to Rome by the king of England and his
heirs. _Philip_ had to give up his plan of invading
England. _John's_ tyranny and licentiousness had become
intolerable. _Langton_, a man of large views, and the English
Church, united with the barons in extorting from him, in the meadow of
_Runnymede_,--an island in the Thames, near Windsor,--the
_Magna Charta_, the foundation of English constitutional
liberty. It secured two great principles: _first_, that the king
could take the money of his subjects only when it was voted to him for
public objects; and _secondly_, that he could not punish or
imprison them at his will, but could only punish them after
conviction, according to law, by their countrymen.

  The Great Charter is based on the charter of Henry I. It precisely
  defines and secures old customs, 1. It recognizes the rights of the
  Church. 2. _It secures person and property from seizure and
  spoliation without the judgment of peers or the law of the land._
  3. There are regulations for courts of law. 4. Exactions by the lord
  are limited to the three customary feudal aids. The benefits granted
  to the vassal are to be extended to the lower tenants. 5, How the
  Great Council is to be composed, and how convened, is
  defined. 6. The "liberties and free customs" of London and of other
  towns are secured. 7. Protection is given against certain oppressive
  exactions of the Crown. 8. The safety of merchants against exactions
  in coming into England, and in going out, and in traveling through
  it, is guaranteed. 9. There is some provision in favor of the
  villain.

WAR WITH FRANCE.--_John_ joined in a great coalition against
_Philip Augustus_. He was to attack France in the south-west;
while the emperor, _Otto IV._, and the counts of Flanders and
Boulogne, with all the princes of the Low Countries, were to make
their attack on the north. It was a war of the feudal aristocracy
against the king of the French. At the great battle of _Bouvines_
(1214) the French were victorious. The success, in the glory of which
the communes shared, added no territory to France; but it awakened a
national spirit. _John_ was beaten in _Poitou_, and went
home.

DEPOSITION OF JOHN.--In England, _John_ found that all his
exertions against the _Charter_, even with the aid of Rome, were
unavailing. In a spirit of vengeance, he brought in mercenary
freebooters, and marched into Scotland, robbing and burning as he
went. Every morning he burned the house in which he had lodged for the
night. At length the English barons offered the crown to _Louis_,
the eldest son of _Philip Augustus_; but _John_ died in 1216,
and _Louis_ found himself deserted. He had shown a disposition to
give lands to the French.

THE ALBIGENSIAN WAR.--The war against the _Albigenses_ began in
the reign of _Philip_; but he pleaded that his hands were full,
and left it to be waged by the nobles. That sect had its seat in the
south of France, and derived its name from the city of _Albi_. It
held certain heterodox tenets, and rejected the authority of the
priesthood. In 1208, under _Innocent III._, a crusade was preached
against _Raymond VI._, count of Toulouse, in whose territory most
of them were found. This was first conducted by _Simon de
Montfort_, and then by Philip's son, _Louis VIII._, the county
of _Toulouse_ being a fief of France. The result of the desolating
conflict was, that part of the count's fiefs were in 1229 transferred
to the crown, and the country itself in 1270. In that year, at the
council of Toulouse, the _Inquisition_, a special ecclesiastical
tribunal, was organized to complete the extermination of the
_Albigensians_ who had escaped the sword. The advantages resulting
from the crushing of the sovereignties of the south were sure to come
to the French monarchy. But _Philip_ left it to the nobles and to
his successors to win the enticing prize.

The first period of rivalry between England and France ends with
_John_ and _Philip Augustus_. For one hundred and twenty
years, each country pursues its course separately. Monarchy grows
stronger in France: constitutional government advances in England.

LOUIS IX. OF FRANCE (1226-1270).--In _Louis IX._ (St. Louis)
France had a king so noble and just that the monarchy was sanctified in
the eyes of the people. At his accession he was but eleven years old,
and with his mother, _Blanche_ of Castile, had to encounter for
sixteen years a combination of great barons determined to uphold
feudalism. Most of them staid away from his coronation. When the young
king and his mother approached _Paris_, they found the way barred;
but it was opened by the devoted burghers, who came forth with arms in
their hands to bring them in. The magistrates of the communes swore to
defend the king and his friends (1228). They were supported by the
Papacy. In 1231 the war ended in a way favorable to royalty. The treaty
of 1229 with _Raymond VII._, count of _Toulouse_, led to the
gradual absorption of the South. _Theobald_ of _Champagne_
became king of _Navarre_, and sold to the crown _Chartres_
and other valuable fiefs. In the earlier period of his reign Louis was
guided by his wise, even if imperious, mother, who held the regency.

ENGLAND AND FRANCE.--In 1243 _Louis_ defeated _Henry III._ of
England, who had come over to help the count of _La Marche_ and
other rebellious nobles. In 1245 _Charles of Anjou_, the king's
brother, married _Beatrice_, through whom _Provence_ passed
to the house of Anjou. The king's long absence (1248-1254), during the
sixth Crusade, had no other result but to show to all that he combined
in himself the qualities of a hero and of a saint. After his return,
his government was wise and just, and marked by sympathy with his
people. In 1259 he made a treaty with _Henry III._, yielding to
him the _Limousin, Périgord_, and parts of _Saintonge_, for
which Henry relinquished all claims on the rest of France. _Louis_
fostered learning. The University of Paris flourished under his
care. In his reign _Robert of Sorbon_ (1252) founded _the
Sorbonne_, the famous college for ecclesiastics which bears his
name.

CIVIL POLICY OF LOUIS.--In his civil policy _Louis_ availed
himself of the Roman law to undermine feudal privileges. The legists
enlarged the number of cases reserved for the king himself to
adjudicate. He established new courts of justice, higher than the
feudal courts, and the right of final appeal to himself. He made the
king's "Parliament" a great judicial body. He abolished in his domains
the judicial combat, or _duel_,--the old German method of
deciding between the accused and the accuser. He liberated many
serfs. But, mild as he was, he had no mercy for Jews and heretics. In
his intercourse with other nations, he blended firmness and courage
with a fair and unselfish spirit. He refused to comply with the
request of the Pope to take up arms against the emperor, _Frederic
II._; but he threatened to make war upon him if he did not release
the prelates whom he had captured on their way to Rome. The "Pragmatic
Sanction" of St. Louis is of doubtful genuineness. It is an assertion
of the liberties of the Gallican Church. With loyalty to the Holy See,
and an exalted piety, Louis defended the rights of all, and did not
allow the clergy to attain to an unjust control. _Voltaire_ said
of him, "It is not given to man to carry virtue to a higher point." He
stands in the scale of merit on a level with _Alfred_ of England.

PARLIAMENTS IN FRANCE.--The word _parliament_ in French history
has a very different meaning from that which it bears when applied to
the English institution of the same name. There were thirteen
parliaments in France, each having a jurisdiction of its own. They
were established at different times. Of these the Parliament of Paris
was the oldest and by far the most important. The king and other
suzerains administered justice, each in his own domain. The Parliament
of Paris was originally a portion of the king's council that was set
apart to hear causes among the fiefs. It considered all appeals and
judicial questions. But in the reign of _Louis IX._,
commissioners, or _baillis_, of the king, held provincial courts
of appeal in his name. The great suzerains established, each in his
own fief, like tribunals, but of more restricted authority. Louis
IX. made it optional with the vassal to be tried by his immediate
suzerain, or in the king's courts, which were subordinate to his
council. As time went on, the authority of the royal tribunals
increased, as that of the feudal courts grew weaker. In the Parliament
of Paris, a corps of legists who understood the Roman law were
admitted with the lords, knights, and prelates. More and more these
"counsellors" were left to themselves. Later there was a division into
_Chambers_, of which the _Grand Chamber_ for the final
hearing and decision of appeals was of principal importance. _Philip
the Fair_ (1303) gave a more complete organization to
Parliament. He provided that it should hold two annual sittings at
Paris. Thus there grew up a judicial aristocracy. After 1368 the
members were appointed for life. At length, under _Henry IV._,
the seats in Parliament became hereditary. The great magistrates thus
constituted wore robes of ermine, or of scarlet adorned with
velvet. _The Palace of Justice_ (_Palais de Justice_), on an
island in the Seine, was given to Parliament for its sessions by
_Charles V_. In its hall scenes of tragic interest, including, in
modern times, the condemnation of _Marie Antoinette_ and of
_Robespierre_, have taken place. The crown was represented by a
great officer, a public prosecutor or attorney-general (_procureur
général_). He and his assistants were termed the "king's people"
(_gens du roi_). They had the privilege of speaking with their
hats on. It was an ancient custom to enroll the royal ordinances in
the parliamentary records. Gradually it came to be considered that no
statute or decree had the force of law unless it was entered on the
registers of Parliament. Great conflicts occurred with the kings when
Parliament refused "to register" their edicts or treaties. Then the
king would hold "a bed of justice,"--so called from the cushions of
the seat where he sat in the hall of Parliament, whither he came in
person to command them to register the obnoxious enactment. This royal
intervention could not be resisted: commonly the enrollment would be
made, but sometimes under a protest. Each of the local parliaments
claimed to be supreme in its own province: they were held to
constitute together one institution, and all the judges were on a
level. Attempts at political interference by Parliaments, the kings
resisted. At the French Revolution in 1790, the Parliaments were
finally abolished.

HENRY III. (1216-1272).--John's eldest son, _Henry_, when he was
crowned by the royalists, was only nine years old. For a short time he
had a wise guardian in _William, Earl of Pembroke_. In two
battles, one on the land and one on the sea, _Louis VIII._
(1223-1226), son of _Philip Augustus_ of France, was defeated. He
made peace, and returned to France. Henry married _Eleanor_, the
daughter of _Raymond_, count of _Provence_,--a beautiful and
accomplished woman, but she was unpopular in England. The king, as
well as his wife, lavished offices, honors, and lands upon
foreigners. He was a weak prince, and unwisely accepted for his second
son, _Edmund_, the crown of the _Two Sicilies_, which could
be won only at the expense of England. This measure induced the barons
to compel Henry to a measure equivalent to the placing of authority in
the hands of a council. This brought on a war between the king and the
barons. The latter were led by _Simon de Montfort_ (the second of
the name), who had inherited the earldom of Leicester through his
mother. Through him PARLIAMENT assumed the form which it has since
retained. The greater barons, the lords or peers, with the bishops and
principal abbots, came together in person, and grew into the House of
Lords. The freeholders of each county had sent some of the knights to
represent them. The attendance of these knights now began to be
regular; but besides the two knights from each county, who were like
the county members of our own time, _Simon_ caused each
_city_ and _borough_ to send two of their citizens, or
_burgesses_. Thus the _House of Commons_ arose. _Simon_
defeated _Henry_ at _Lewes_ (1264): but the barons flocked
to the standard of Prince _Edward_, who escaped from custody; and
Simon was defeated and slain at the battle of _Evesham_ in
1265. _Henry_ was restored to power. He died in 1272, and was
buried in _Westminster Abbey_, which he had begun to
rebuild. Under Henry, the _Great Charter_, with some alterations,
was three times confirmed. A _Charter of the Forest_ was added,
providing that no man should lose life or limb for taking the king's
game. Cruel laws for the protection of game in the forests or
uncultivated lands had been a standing grievance from the days of the
Norman Conquest. The confirming of the _Great Charter_ in 1225
was made the condition of a grant of money from the National Council
to the king. When the bishops, in 1236, desired to have the laws of
inheritance conformed to the rules of the Church, the barons made the
laconic answer, "We will not change the laws of England" (_Nolumus
leges Anglice mutare_).



CHAPTER IV. RISE OF THE BURGHER CLASS: SOCIETY IN THE ERA OF THE
CRUSADES.


RISE OF THE CITIES.--Under feudalism, only two classes present
themselves to view,--the nobility and the clergy on the one hand, and
the serfs on the other. This was the character of society in the ninth
century. In the tenth century we see the beginnings of an intermediate
class, the germ of "the third estate." This change appears in the
cities, where the _burghers_ begin to increase in intelligence,
and to manifest a spirit of independence. From this time, for several
centuries, their power and privileges continued to grow.

GROWTH OF THE CITIES.--The same need of defense that led to the
building of towers and castles in the country drove men within the
walls of towns. Industry and trade developed intelligence, and
produced wealth. But _burghers_ under the feudal rule were
obliged to pay heavy tolls and taxes. For example, for protection on a
journey through any patch of territory, they were required to make a
payment. Besides the regular exactions, they were exposed to most
vexatious depredations of a lawless kind. As they advanced in thrift
and wealth, communities that were made up largely of artisans and
tradesmen armed themselves for their own defense. From self-defense
they proceeded farther, and extorted exemptions and privileges from
the _suzerain_, the effect of which was to give them a high
though limited degree of self-government.

ORIGIN OF MUNICIPAL FREEDOM.--It has been supposed that municipal
government in the Middle Ages was a revival of old Roman rights and
customs, and thus an heirloom from antiquity. The cities--those on the
Rhine and in Gaul, for example--were of Roman origin. But the view of
scholars at present is, that municipal liberty, such as existed in the
Middle Ages, was a native product of the Germanic peoples. The cities
were incorporated into the feudal system. They were subject to a lay
lord or to a bishop. In _Italy_, however, they struggled after a
more complete republican system.

CITIES AND SUZERAINS.--In the conflicts which were waged by the cities,
they were sometimes helped by the suzerain against the king, and
sometimes by the king against the nearer suzerain. In _England_
the cities were apt to ally themselves with the nobility against the
king: in _Germany_ and _France_ the reverse was the fact. But
in _Germany_ the cities which came into an immediate relation to
the sovereign were less closely dependent on him than were the cities
in France on the French king.

TWO CLASSES OF CITIES.--Not only did the cities wrest from the lords a
large measure of freedom: it was often freely conceded to them. Nobles,
in order to bring together artisans, and to build up a community in
their own neighborhood, granted extraordinary
privileges. _Charters_ were given to cities by the king.
Communities thus formed differed from the other class of cities in not
having the same privilege of administering justice within their limits.

GERMAN CITIES.--The cities in Germany increased in number on the fall
of the Hohenstaufen family. They made the inclosure of their walls a
place of refuge, as the nobles did the vicinity of their castles. They
eventually gained admittance to the _Diets_ of the empire. They
formed _leagues_ among themselves, which, however, did not become
political bodies, any more than the Italian leagues.

THE ROMAN LAW.--The revised study of the Roman law brought in a code at
variance with feudal principles. The middle class, that was growing up
in the great commercial cities, availed themselves, as far as they
could, of its principles in regard to the inheritance of property. The
_legists_ helped in a thousand ways to emancipate them from the
yoke of feudal traditions.

MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT.--The cities themselves often had vassals, and
became suzerains. Government rested in the hands of the
magistrates. They were chosen by the general assembly of the
inhabitants, who were called together by the tolling of the bell. The
magistrates governed without much restraint until another election,
unless there were popular outbreaks, "which were at this time," as
Guizot remarks, "the great guarantee for good government." Where the
courage and spirit of burghers were displayed was in the maintenance of
their own privileges, or purely in self-defense. In all other relations
they showed the utmost humility; and in the twelfth century, when their
emancipation is commonly dated, they did not pretend to interfere in
the government of the country.

TRAVELERS AND TRADE.--The _East_, especially _India_, was
conceived of as a region of boundless riches; but commerce with the
East was hindered by a thousand difficulties and dangers. Curiosity led
travelers to penetrate into the countries of Asia. Among them the
_Polo_ family of Venice, of whom _Marco_ was the most famous,
were specially distinguished. Marco Polo lived in _China_, with
his father and his uncle, twenty-six years. After his return, and
during his captivity at _Genoa_, he wrote the celebrated accounts
of his travels. He died about 1324. _Sir John Mandeville_ also
wrote of his travels, but most of his descriptions were taken from the
work of _Friar Odoric_, of Pordenone, who had visited the Far
East. Merchants did not venture so far as did bold explorers of a
scientific turn. Commerce in the Middle Ages was mainly in two
districts,--the borders of the North Sea and of the Baltic, and the
countries upon the Mediterranean. Trade in the cities on the African
coast, in the tenth and eleventh centuries, was flourishing; and the
Arabs of Spain were industrious and rich. _Arles, Marseilles, Nice,
Genoa, Florence, Amalfi, Venice_, vied with one another in traffic
with the East. Intermediate between Venice and Genoa, and the north of
Europe, were flourishing marts, among which _Strasburg_ and other
cities on the Rhine--_Augsburg, Ulm, Ratisbon, Vienna_, and
_Nuremberg_--were among the most prominent. Through these cities
flowed the currents of trade from the North to the South, and from the
South to the North.

THE HANSEATIC LEAGUE.--To protect themselves against the feudal lords
and against pirates, the cities of Northern Germany formed (about
1241) the _Hanseatic League_, which, at the height of its power,
included eighty-five cities, besides many other cities more or less
closely affiliated with it. This league was dominant, as regards trade
and commerce, in the north of Europe, and united under it the cities
on the Baltic and the Rhine, as well as the large cities of
Flanders. Its merchants had control of the fisheries, the mines, the
agriculture, and manufactures of Germany. _Lübeck, Cologne,
Brunswick_, and _Dantzic_ were its principal
places. _Lübeck_ was its chief center. In all the principal towns
on the highways of commerce, the flag of the _Hansa_ floated over
its counting-houses. Wherever the influence of the league reached, its
regulations were in force. It almost succeeded in monopolizing the
trade of Europe north of Italy.

FLANDERS: ENGLAND: FRANCE.--The numerous cities of Flanders--of which
_Ghent, Ypres_, and _Bruges_ were best known--became hives
of industry and of thrift. _Ghent_, at the end of the thirteenth
century, surpassed _Paris_ in riches and power. In the latter
part of the fourteenth century, the number of its fighting men was
estimated at eighty thousand. The development of _Holland_ was
more slow. _Amsterdam_ was constituted a town in the middle of
the thirteenth century. _England_ began to exchange products with
_Spain_. It sent its sheep, and brought back the horses of the
Arabians. The cities of France--_Rouen, Orleans, Rheims, Lyons,
Marseilles_, etc.--were alive with manufactures and trade. In the
twelfth century the yearly fairs at _Troyes, St. Denis_, and
_Beaucaire_ were famous all over Europe.

NEW INDUSTRIES.--It has been already stated that the crusaders brought
back to Europe the knowledge as well as the products of various
branches of industry. Such were the cloths of Damascus, the glass of
Tyre, the use of windmills, of linen, and of silk, the plum-trees of
Damascus, the sugar-cane, the mulberry-tree. Cotton stuffs came into
use at this time. Paper made from cotton was used by the Saracens in
Spain in the eighth century. Paper was made from linen at a somewhat
later date. In France and Germany it was first manufactured early in
the fourteenth century.

THE JEWS.--The Jews in the Middle Ages were often treated with extreme
harshness. An outburst of the crusading spirit was frequently attended
with cruel assaults upon them. As Christians would not take interest,
money-lending was a business mainly left to the Hebrews. By them, bills
of exchange were first employed.

OBSTACLES TO TRADE.--The great obstacle to commerce was the insecurity
of travel. Whenever a shipwreck took place, whatever was cast upon the
shore was seized by the neighboring lord. A noble at _Leon_, in
Brittany, pointing out a rock on which many vessels had been wrecked,
said, "I have a rock there more precious than the diamonds on the crown
of a king." It was long before property on the sea was respected, even
in the same degree as property on the land. Not even at the present day
has this point been reached. The infinite diversity of coins was
another embarrassment to trade. In every fief, one had to exchange his
money, always at a loss. _Louis IX._ ordained that the money of
eighty lords, who had the right to coin, should be current only in
their own territories, while the coinage of the king should be received
everywhere.

GUILDS.--A very important feature of mediæval society was the
_guilds_. Societies more or less resembling these existed among
the _Romans_, and were called _collegia_,--some being for
good fellowship or for religious rites, and others being
trade-corporations.  There were, also, similar fraternities among the
_Greeks_ in the second and third centuries B.C. In the Middle
Ages, there were two general classes of guilds: _First_, there
were the _peace-guilds_, for mutual protection against thieves,
etc., and for mutual aid in sickness, old age, or impoverishment from
other causes. They were numerous in England, and spread over the
Continent.  _Secondly_, there were the _trade-guilds_, which
embraced the _guilds-merchant_, and the _craft-guilds_. The
latter were associations of workmen, for maintaining the customs of
their craft, each with a _master_, or _alderman_, and other
officers. They had their provisions for mutual help for themselves and
for their widows and orphans, and they had their religious
observances. Each had its patron saint, its festivals, its
treasury. They kept in their hands the monopoly of the branch of
industry which belonged to them. They had their rules in respect to
apprenticeship, etc. Almost all professions and occupations were fenced
in by guilds.

MONASTICISM.--Society in the Middle Ages presented striking and
picturesque contrasts. This was nowhere more apparent than in the
sphere of religion. Along with the passion for war and the consequent
reign of violence, there was a parallel self-consecration to a life of
peace and devotion. With the strongest relish for pageantry and for a
brilliant ceremonial in social life and in worship, there was
associated a yearning for an ascetic course under the monastic vows. As
existing orders grew rich, and gave up the rigid discipline of earlier
days, new orders were formed by men of deeper religious earnestness. In
the eleventh century, there arose, among other orders, the
_Carthusian_ and _Cistercian;_ in the twelfth century, the
_Premonstrants_ and the _Carmelites_, and the order of
_Trinitarians_ for the liberation of Christian captives taken by
the Moslems. The older orders, especially that of the
_Benedictines_ in its different branches, became very wealthy and
powerful. The _Cistercian_ Order, under its second founder,
_St. Bernard_ (who died in 1153), spread with wonderful rapidity.

THE MENDICANT ORDERS.--In the thirteenth century, when the papal
authority was at its height, the mendicant orders arose. The order of
_St. Francis_ was fully established in 1223, and the order of
_St. Dominic_ in 1216. They combined with monastic vows the
utmost activity in preaching and in other clerical work. These orders
attracted young men of talents and of a devout spirit in large
numbers. The mendicant friars were frequently in conflict with the
secular clergy,--the ordinary priesthood,--and with the other
orders. But they gained a vast influence, and were devotedly loyal to
the popes. It must not be supposed that the monastic orders generally
were made up of the weak or the disappointed who sought in cloisters a
quiet asylum. Disgust with the world, from whatever cause, led many to
become members of them; but they were largely composed of vigorous
minds, which, of their own free choice, took on them the monastic
vows.

THE RISE OF THE UNIVERSITIES.--The Crusades were accompanied by a
signal revival of intellectual activity. One of the most important
events of the thirteenth century was the rise of the universities. The
schools connected with the abbeys and the cathedrals in France began to
improve in the eleventh century, partly from an impulse caught by
individuals from the Arabic schools in Spain. After the scholastic
theology was introduced, teachers in this branch began to give
instruction near those schools in Paris. Numerous pupils gathered
around noted lecturers. An organization followed which was called a
_university_,--a sort of _guild_,--made up of four
faculties,--theology, canon law, medicine, and the arts. The arts
included the three studies (_trivium_) of grammar, rhetoric, and
philosophy, with four additional branches (the
_quadrivium_),--arithmetic, geometry, music,
astronomy. _Paris_ became the mother of many other
universities. Next to Paris, _Oxford_ was famous as a seat of
education. Of all the universities, _Bologna_ in Italy was most
renowned as a school for the study of the civil law.

SCHOLASTIC THEOLOGY.--The scholastic theology dates from the middle of
the eleventh century. It was the work of numerous teachers, many of
them of unsurpassed acuteness, who, at a time when learning and
scholarship were at a low ebb, made it their aim to systemize,
elucidate, and prove on philosophical grounds, the doctrines of the
Church. _Aristotle_ was the author whose philosophical writings
were most authoritative with the schoolmen. In theology,
_Augustine_ was the most revered master.

The main question in philosophy which the schoolmen debated was that of
_Nominalism_ and _Realism_. The question was, whether a
general term, as _man_, stands for a real being designated by it
(as _man_, in the example given, for _humanity_), or is
simply the _name_ of divers distinct individuals.

THE LEADING SCHOOLMEN.--In the eleventh century _Anselm_ of
Canterbury was a noble example of the scholastic spirit. In the
thirteenth century _Abelard_ was a bold and brilliant teacher, but
with less depth and discretion. He, like other eminent schoolmen,
attracted multitudes of pupils. The thirteenth century was the golden
age of scholasticism. Then flourished _Albert_ the Great,
_Thomas Aquinas, St. Bonaventura_, and others very influential in
their day. There were two schools of opinion,--that of the
_Thomists_, the adherents of _Aquinas_, the great theologian
of the _Dominican_ order; and that of the _Scotists_, the
adherents of _Duns Scotus_, a great light of the
_Franciscans_. They differed on various theological points not
involved in the common faith.

The discussions of the schoolmen were often carried into distinctions
bewildering from their subtlety. There were individuals who were more
disposed to the _inductive_ method of investigation, and who gave
attention to _natural_ as well as metaphysical science. Perhaps
the most eminent of these is _Roger Bacon_. He was an Englishman,
was born in 1219, and died about 1294. He was imprisoned for a time on
account of the jealousy with which studies in natural science and new
discoveries in that branch were regarded by reason of their imagined
conflict with religion. _Astrology_ was cultivated by the Moors
in Spain in connection with astronomy. It spread among the Christian
nations. _Alchemy_, the search for the transmutation of metals,
had its curious votaries. But such pursuits were popularly identified
with diabolic agency.

THE VERNACULAR LITERATURES: THE TROUBADOURS.--Intellectual activity
was for a long time exclusively confined to theology. The earliest
literature of a secular cast in France belongs to the tenth and
eleventh centuries, and to the dialect of _Provence_. The study
of this language, and the poetry composed in it, became the recreation
of knights and noble ladies. Thousands of poets, who were called
_Troubadours_ (from _trobar_, to find or invent), appeared
almost simultaneously, and became well known in _Spain_ and in
_Italy_ as well as in _France_. At the same time the period
of chivalry began. The theme of their tender and passionate poems was
love. They indulged in a license which was not offensive, owing to the
laxity of manners and morals in Southern France at that day, but would
be intolerable in a different state of society. Kings, as well as
barons and knights, adopted the Provençal language, and figured as
troubadours. In connection with jousts and tournaments, there would be
a contest for poetical honors. The "Court of Love," made up of gentle
ladies, with the lady of the castle at their head, gave the
verdict. Besides the songs of love, another class of Provençal poems
treated of war or politics, or were of a satirical cast. From the
_Moors_ of Spain, _rhyme_, which belonged to Arabian poetry,
was introduced, and spread thence over Europe. After the thirteenth
century the troubadours were heard of no more, and the Provençal
tongue became a mere dialect.

THE NORMAN WRITERS.--The first writers and poets in the French
language proper appeared in Normandy. They called themselves
_Trouvères_.  They were the troubadours of the North. They
composed romances of chivalry, and _Fabliaux_, or amusing
tales. They sang in a more warlike and virile strain than the poets of
the South. Their first romances were written late in the twelfth
century. About that time _Villehardouin_ wrote in French a
history of the conquest of Constantinople. From the poem entitled
"Alexander," the name of Alexandrine verse came to be applied to the
measure in which it was written. A favorite theme of the romances of
chivalry was the mythical exploits of _Arthur_, the last Celtic
king of Britain, and of the knights of the _Round Table_. Another
class of romances of chivalry related to the court of
_Charlemagne_. The _Fabliaux_ in the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries were largely composed of tales of ludicrous adventures.

GERMAN, ENGLISH, AND SPANISH WRITERS.--In _Germany_, in the age
of the Hohenstaufens, the poets called _Minnesingers_
abounded. They were conspicuous at the splendid tournaments and
festivals. In the thirteenth century numerous lays of love, satirical
fables, and metrical romances were composed or translated. Of the
_Round Table_ legends, that of the _San Graal_ (the holy
vessel) was the most popular. It treated of the search for the
precious blood of Christ, which was said to have been brought in a cup
or charger into Northern Europe by _Joseph of Arimathea_. During
this period the old ballads were thrown into an epic form; among them,
the _Nibelungenlied_, the Iliad of Germany. The religious faith
and loyalty of the _Spanish_ character, the fruit of their long
contest with the Moors, are reflected in _the poem of the Cid_,
which was composed about the year 1200. It is one of the oldest epics
in the Romance languages. In _England_ during this period, we
have the chronicles kept in the monasteries. Among their authors are
_William of Malmesbury, Geoffrey of Monmouth_, and _Matthew
Paris_, a Benedictine monk of St. Albans.

DANTE.--Dante, the chief poet of Italy, and the father of its
vernacular literature, was born in _Florence_ in 1265. _The
Divine Comedy_ is universally regarded as one of the greatest
products of poetical genius.

  The family of _Alighieri_, to which _Dante_ belonged, was
  noble, but not of the highest rank. He was placed under the best
  masters, and became not only an accomplished student of Virgil and
  other Latin poets, but also an adept in theology and in various
  other branches of knowledge. His training was the best that the time
  afforded. His family belonged to the anti-imperial party of
  _Guelfs_. The spirit of faction raged at
  _Florence_. _Dante_ was attached to the party of "Whites"
  (_Bianchi_), and, having held the high office of _prior_
  in Florence, was banished, with many others, when the "Blacks"
  (_Neri_) got the upper hand (1302). Until his death, nineteen
  years later, he wandered from place to place in Italy as an
  exile. Circumstances, especially the distracted condition of the
  country, led him to ally himself with the _Ghibellines_, and to
  favor the imperial cause. All that he saw and suffered until he
  breathed his last, away from his native city, at _Ravenna_,
  combined to stir within him the thoughts and passions which find
  expression in his verse.

  No poet before _Dante_ ever equaled him in depth of thought and
  feeling. His principal work is divided into _three_ parts. It
  is an allegorical vision of hell, purgatory, and heaven. Through the
  first two of these regions, the poet is conducted by
  _Virgil_. In the third, _Beatrice_ is his guide. When he
  was a boy of nine years of age, he had met, at a May-day festival,
  _Beatrice_, who was of the same age; and thenceforward he
  cherished towards her a pure and romantic affection. Before his
  twenty-fifth year she died; but, after her death, his thoughts dwelt
  upon her with a refined but not less passionate regard. She is his
  imaginary guide through the abodes of the blest. His _Young
  Life_ (_Vita Nuova_) gives the history of his love. The
  "_Divine Comedy_"--so called because the author would modestly
  place it below the rank of tragedy,--besides the lofty genius which
  it exhibits, besides the matchless force and beauty of its diction,
  sums up, so to speak, what is best and most characteristic in the
  whole intellectual and religious life of the Middle Ages. _Thomas
  Aquinas_ was _Dante's_ authority in theology· The scholastic
  system taught by the Church is brought to view in his pictures of
  the supernatural world, and in the comments connected with them.

PAINTING.--After the Lombard conquest of Italy, art branched off into
two schools. The one was the Byzantine, and the other the Late Roman.
In the Byzantine paintings, the human figures are stiff, and
conventional forms prevail. The Byzantine school conceived of
_Jesus_ as without beauty of person,--literally "without form or
comeliness." The Romans had a directly opposite conception. Byzantine
taste had a strong influence in Italy, especially at
_Venice_. This is seen in the mosaics of St. Mark's
Cathedral. The first painter to break loose from Byzantine influence,
and to introduce a more free style which flourished under the
patronage of the Church, was _Cimabue_ (1240-1302), who is
generally considered the founder of modern Italian painting. The first
steps were now taken towards a direct observation and imitation of
nature. The artist is no longer a slavish copyist of
others. "_Cimabue_" says _M. Taine_, "already belongs to the
new order of things; for he invents and expresses." But _Cimabue_
was far outdone by _Giotto_ (1276-1337), who cast off wholly the
Byzantine fetters, studied nature earnestly, and abjured that which is
false and artificial. Notwithstanding his technical defects, his
force, and "his feeling for grace of action and harmony of color,"
were such as to make him, even more than _Cimabue_, "the founder
of the true ideal style of Christian art, and the restorer of
portraiture." "His, above all, was a varied, fertile, facile, and
richly creative nature."  The contemporary of _Dante_, his
portrait of the poet has been discovered in recent times on a wall in
the Podesta at Florence. "He stands at the head of the school of
allegorical painting, as the latter of that of poetry." The most
famous pupil of _Giotto_ was _Taddeo Gaddi_ (about
1300-1367).

SCULPTURE.--In the thirteenth century, the era of the revival of art
in Italy, a new school of sculpture arose under the auspices
especially of two artists, _Niccolo of Pisa_ and his son
_Giovanni_. They brought to their art the same spirit which
belonged to _Giotto_ in painting and to _Dante_ in
poetry. The same courage that moved the great poet to write in his own
vernacular tongue, instead of in Latin, emboldened the artists to look
away from the received standards, and to follow nature. In the same
period a new and improved style of sculpture appears in other
countries, especially in the Gothic cathedrals of Germany and France.

ARCHITECTURE.--The earliest Christian churches were copies of the Roman
basilica,--a civil building oblong in shape, sometimes with and
sometimes without rows of columns dividing the nave from the aisles: at
one end, there was usually a semicircular _apse_. Most of the
churches of the eleventh and twelfth centuries were built after this
style. Then changes were introduced, which in some measure paved the
way for the _Gothic_, the peculiar type of mediæval
architecture. The essential characteristic of this style is the pointed
arch. This may have been introduced by the returning crusaders from
buildings which they had observed in the East. Its use and development
in the churches and other edifices of Europe in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries were without previous example. The Gothic style
was carried to its perfection in France, and spread over England and
Germany. The cathedrals erected in this form are still the noblest and
most attractive buildings to be seen in the old European towns.

The cathedral in _Rheimes_ was commenced in 1211: the choir was
dedicated in 1241, and the edifice was completed in 1430. The cathedral
of _Amiens_ was begun in 1220; that of _Chartres_ was begun
about 1020, and was dedicated in 1260; that of _Salisbury_ was
begun in 1220; that of _Cologne_, in 1248; the cathedral of
_Strasburg_ was only half finished in 1318, when the architect,
_Erwin of Steinbach_, died; that of Notre Dame in _Paris_ was
begun in 1163; that of _Toledo_, in 1258. These noble buildings
were built gradually: centuries passed before the completion of
them. Several of them to this day remain unfinished.



FRANCE.--THE HOUSE OF VALOIS.


PHILIP VI, 1328-1350, _m_.
Jeanne, daughter of Robert II, Duke of Burgundy.
|
+--JOHN, 1350-1364, _m_.
   Bona, daughter of John, King of Bohemia.
   |
   +--CHARLES V, 1364-1380, _m_.
      Jeanne, daughter of Peter I, Duke of Bourbon.
      |
      +--CHARLES VI, 1380-1422, _m_.
      |  Isabella, daughter of Stephen, Duke of Bavaria.
      |  |
      |  +--CHARLES VII, 1422-1461,
      |	     _m_. Mary, daughter
      |	     of Louis II of Anjou.
      |      |
      |      +--LOUIS XI, 1461-1483,
      |         _m_. (2), Charlotte,
      |         daughter of Louis,
      |         Duke of Savoy.
      |         |
      |         +--3, CHARLES VIII, 1483-1498,
      |		   _m_. Anne of Bretagne.
      |
      +--Louis, Duke of Orleans (_d_. 1407) _m_.
         Valentina, daughter of Gian Galeazzi, Duke of Milan.
         |
         +--Charles, Duke of Orleans (_d_. 1467),
         |  _m_. Mary of Cleves.
         |  |
         |  +--2, Anne of Bretagne,
	 |     _m_. LOUIS XII, 1498-1515.
         |     |
         |     +--Claude, _m_. FRANCIS I, 1515-1547.
         |
         +--John, Count of Angoulême (_d_. 1467).
            |
            +--Charles, count (_d_. 1496),
	       _m_. Louisa, daughter
	       of Philip II, Duke of Savoy.
               |
               +--FRANCIS I, 1515-1547.
               |  |
               |  +--HENRY II. 1547-1559, _m._.
	       |     Catherine de' Medici, _d._. 1589.
               |     |
               |     +--FRANCIS II, 1559-1560, _m_.
               |     |  Mary, Queen of Scots.
               |     |
               |     +--CHARLES IX, 1560-1574,
               |     |  _m_. Elizabeth, daughter of
               |     |	Emperor Maximilian II.
               |     |
               |     +--HENRY III. 1574-1589, _m_.
               |     |	Louis, daughter of Nicholas,
               |     |	Duke of Mercoeur.
               |     |
               |     +--Margaret,
               |          _m_.
               |     +--HENRY IV, succeeded 1589.
               |     |
               |  +--Jeanne, _m_. Anthony of Bourbon.
               |  |
               +--MARGARET, _m._ (2), HENRY II OF NAVARRE.



ENGLAND.--DESCENDANTS OF EDWARD I


EDWARD I, 1272-1307, _m._.
1, Eleanor, daughter of Ferdinand III of Castile;
|
|
+--4, EDWARD II, 1307-1327, _m._.
   Isabel, daughter of Philip IV of France.
   |
   +--EDWARD III, 1327-1377, _m._
      Philippa, daughter of William III of Hainault.
      |
      +--Edward, the Black Prince,
      |	 _m._ Joan of Kent.
      |  |
      |  +--RICHARD II, 1377-1399, _m._
      |     Anne, daughter of Emperor Charles IV.
      |
      +--Lionel, Duke of Clarence.
      |  |
      |  +--Philippa, _m._ Edmund Mortimer.
      |     |
      |     +--Roger Mortimer.
      |        |
      |        +--Edmund Mortimer.
      |        |
      |        +--Anne Mortimer, _m._
      |           Richard, Earl of Cambridge.
      |           |
      |           +--Richard, Duke of York.
      |              |
      |              +--EDWARD IV, 1461-1483.
      |              |  |
      |              |  +--EDWARD V (_d._ 1483).
      |              |
      |              +--RICHARD III, 1483-1485.
      |
      +--John of Gaunt, Duke of Lancaster.
      |  |
      |  +--HENRY IV, 1399-1413.
      |     |
      |     +--HENRY V, 1413-1422.
      |        |
      |        +--HENRY VI, 1422-1461.
      |
      +--Edmund, Duke of York.
         |
         +--Richard, Earl of Cambridge _m._
            Anne Mortimer (wh. see).

2, Margaret, daughter of Philip III of France.



PERIOD IV. FROM THE END OF THE CRUSADES TO THE FALL OF CONSTANTINOPLE.
(_A.D. 1270-1453_.)


THE DECLINE OP ECCLESIASTICAL AUTHORITY: THE GROWTH OF THE NATIONAL
SPIRIT AND OF MONARCHY.

CHARACTER OF THE NEW ERA.--The Church was supreme in the era of the
Crusades. These had been great movements of a society of which the Pope
was the head,--movements in which the pontiffs were the natural
leaders. We come now to an era when the predominance of the Church
declines, and the Papacy loses ground. Mingled with religion, there is
diffused a more secular spirit. The nations grow to be more distinct
from one another. Political relations come to be paramount. The
national spirit grows strong,--too strong for outside ecclesiastical
control. Within each nation the laity is inclined to put limits to the
power and privileges of the clergy. In several of the countries,
monarchy in the modern European form gets a firm foothold. The
enfranchisement of the towns, the rise of commerce, the influence
gained by the legists and by the Roman law, of which they were the
expounders, had betokened the dawn of a new era. The development of the
national languages and literatures signified its coming. Germany and
the Holy Roman Empire no longer absorb attention. What is taking place
in France and England is, to say the least, of equal moment.



CHAPTER I. ENGLAND AND FRANCE: SECOND PERIOD OP RIVALSHIP: THE HUNDRED
YEARS' WAR (A.D. 1339-1453).


PHILIP III. OF FRANCE (1270-1285).--In France royalty made a steady
progress down to the long War of a Hundred Years. _Philip
III_. (1270-1285) married his son to the heiress of
_Navarre_. His sway extended to the Pyrenees. He failed in an
expedition against _Peter_, king of _Aragon_, who had
supported the Sicilians against _Charles of Anjou_; but the time
for foreign conquests had not come.

PHILIP IV. OF FRANCE (1285-1314): WAR WITH EDWARD I. OF ENGLAND.--
_Philip IV._ (the Fair) has been styled the "King of the Legists."
He surrounded himself with lawyers, who furnished him, from their
storehouse of Roman legislation, weapons with which to face baron and
pope. In 1292 conflicts broke out between English and French
sailors. _Philip_, in his character as suzerain, undertook to take
peaceful possession of _Guienne_, but was prevented by the English
garrisons. Thereupon he summoned _Edward I._ of England, as the
holder of the fiefs, before his court. _Edward_ sent his brother
as a deputy, but the French king declared that the fiefs were forfeited
in consequence of his not appearing in person.

In the war that resulted (1294-1297), each party had his natural
allies. _Philip_ had for his allies the Welsh and the Scots,
while _Edward_ was supported by the Count of Flanders and by
_Adolphus_ of Nassau, king of the Romans. In Scotland, _William
Wallace_ withstood Edward. _Philip_ was successful in
_Flanders_ and in _Guienne_. _Edward_, who was kept in
England by his war with the Scots, secured a truce through the
mediation of Pope _Boniface VIII_. Philip then took possession of
Flanders, with the exception of _Ghent_. Flanders was at that
time the richest country in Europe. Its cities were numerous, and the
whole land was populous and industrious. From England it received the
wool used in its thriving manufactures. To England its people were
attached. Philip loaded the Flemish people with imposts. They rose in
revolt, and _Robert d'Artois_, Philip's brother, met with a
disastrous defeat in a battle with the Flemish troops at
_Courtrai_, in 1302. The Flemish burghers proved themselves too
strong for the royal troops. Flanders was restored to its count, four
towns being retained by France.

CONFLICT OF PHILIP IV. AND BONIFACE VIII.--The expenses of
_Philip_, in the support of his army and for other purposes, were
enormous. The old feudal revenues were wholly insufficient for the new
methods of government. To supply himself with money, he not only
levied onerous taxes on his subjects, and practiced ingenious
extortion upon the Jews, but he resorted again and again to the device
of debasing the coin. His resolution to tax the property of the Church
brought him into a controversy, momentous in its results, with Pope
_Boniface VIII_.

_Boniface's_ idea of papal prerogative was fully as exalted as
that formerly held by _Hildebrand_ and _Innocent III_. But
he had less prudence and self-restraint, and the temper of the times
was now altered. If Philip was sustained by the Roman law and its
interpreters, whose counsels he gladly followed, _Boniface_, on
the other hand, could lean upon the system of ecclesiastical or canon
law, which had long been growing up in Europe, and of which the
_Canonists_ were the professional expounders. The vast wealth of
the clergy had led to enactments for keeping it within bounds, like
the statute of _mortmain_ in England (1279) forbidding the giving
of land to religious bodies without license from the king. The word
_mortmain_ meant _dead hand_, and was applied to possessors
of land, especially ecclesiastical corporations, that could not
alienate it. The jurisdiction of ecclesiastical courts, which kings,
because they happened to have a less liking for feudal law, had often
favored, had now come to be another great matter of contention. In
1296 _Boniface VIII_., in the bull _clericis laicos_,--so
named, like other papal edicts, from the opening words,--forbade the
imposition of extraordinary taxes upon the clergy without the consent
of the Holy See. _Philip_ responded by forbidding foreigners to
sojourn in France, which was equivalent to driving out of the country
the Roman priests and those who brought in the obnoxious bull. At the
same time he forbade money to be carried out of France. This last
prohibition cut off contributions to Rome. The king asserted the
importance of the laity in the Church, as well as of the clergy, and
the right of the king of France to take charge of his own realm. There
was a seeming reconciliation for a time, through concessions on the
side of the Pope; but the strife broke out afresh in
1301. _Philip_ arrested _Bernard Saisset_, a bold legate of
the Pope. _Boniface_ poured forth a stream of complaints against
_Philip_ (1301), and went so far as to summon the French clergy
to a council at _Rome_ for the settlement of all disorders in
France. The king then appealed to the French nation. On the 10th of
April, 1302, he assembled in the Church of _Notre Dame_, at
Paris, a body which, for the first time, contained the deputies of the
universities and of the towns, and for this reason is considered to
have been the first meeting of the _States General_, The clergy,
the barons, the burghers, sided cordially with the king. The Pope then
published the famous bull, _Unam Sanctam_, in which the
subjection of the temporal power to the spiritual is proclaimed with
the strongest emphasis. Boniface then excommunicated Philip, and was
preparing to depose him, and to hand over his kingdom to the emperor,
_Albert I_.

DEATH OF BONIFACE VIII.--Meantime _Philip_ had assembled anew the
States General (1303). The legists lent their counsel and active
support. It was proposed to the king to convoke a general council of
the Church, and to summon the Pope before it. _William of
Nogaret_, a great lawyer in the service of Philip, was directed to
lodge with Boniface this appeal to a council, and to publish it at
_Rome_. With _Sciarra Colonna_, between whose family and the
Pope there was a mortal feud, _Nogaret_, attended also by several
hundred hired soldiers, entered _Anagni_, where _Boniface_
was then staying. The two messengers heaped upon him the severest
reproaches, and _Colonna_ is said to have struck the old pontiff
in the face with his mailed hand. The French were driven out of the
town by the people; but from the indignities which he had suffered,
and the anger and shame consequent upon them, _Boniface_ shortly
afterwards died.

THE "BABYLONIAN CAPTIVITY" (1309-1379).--From the date of the events
just narrated, the pontifical authority sank, and the secular
authority of sovereigns and nations was in the ascendant. After the
short pontificate of _Benedict XL_, who did what he could to
reconcile the ancient but estranged allies, France and the Papacy, a
French prelate, the Archbishop of Bordeaux, was made pope under the
name of _Clement V_., he having previously engaged to comply with
the wishes of Philip. While the Papacy continued subordinate to the
French king, its moral influence in other parts of Christendom was of
necessity reduced. _Clement V_, was crowned at _Lyons_ in
1305, and in 1309 established himself at _Avignon_, a possession
of the Holy See on the borders of France. After him there followed at
_Avignon_ seven popes who were subject to French influence
(1309-1376). It is the period in the annals of the Papacy which is
called the "Babylonian captivity." _Philip_ remained
implacable. He was determined to secure the condemnation of
_Boniface VIII_., even after his death. _Clement V_. had no
alternative but to summon a council, which was held at _Vienne_
in 1311, when Boniface was declared to have been orthodox, at the same
time that Philip was shielded from ecclesiastical censure or reproach.

SUPPRESSION OF THE KNIGHTS TEMPLARS.--One of the demands which
_Philip_ had made of _Clement V_., and a demand which the
council had to grant, was the condemnation of the order of Knights
Templars, whose vast wealth Philip coveted. On the 13th of October,
1307, the Templars were arrested overall France,--an act which evinces
both the power of Philip, and his injustice. They were charged with
secret immoralities, and with practices involving impiety. Provincial
councils were called together to decree the judgment preordained by the
king. The Templars were examined under torture, and many of them were
burned at the stake. A large number of those who were put to death
revoked the confessions which had been extorted from them by bodily
suffering. Individuals may have been guilty of some of the charges, but
there is no warrant for such a verdict against the entire order. The
order was abolished by _Clement V_.

LAW STUDIES: MERCENARY TROOPS.--During the reign of Philip the Fair, it
was ordained that Parliament should sit twice every year at Paris
(1303). A university for the study of law was founded at
_Orleans_. The king needed soldiers as well as lawyers. Mercenary
troops were beginning to take the place of feudal bands. Philip brought
the Genoese galleys against the ships of Flanders.

THE THREE SONS OF PHILIP: THE "SALIC LAW."--Three sons of Philip
reigned after him. _Louis X._ (1314-1316) was induced to take
part in an aristocratic reaction, in behalf of "the good old customs,"
against the legists; but he continued to emancipate the serfs. He was
not succeeded by his daughter, but by his brother. This precedent was
soon transformed into the "Salic law" that only heirs in the male line
could succeed to the throne. The rule was really the result of the
"genealogical accident" that for three hundred and forty-one years, or
since the election of Hugh Capet, every French king had been succeeded
by his son. In several cases the son had been crowned in the lifetime
of the father. Thus the principle of heredity, and of heredity in the
male line, had taken root.

Under _Philip V._ and his successor, _Charles IV._
(1322-1328), there was cruel persecution of the Jews, and many people
suffered death on the charge of sorcery.

EDWARD I. OF ENGLAND (1272-1307): CONQUEST OF WALES: WILLIAM
WALLACE.--_Edward_, who was in the Holy Land when his father
died, was a gallant knight and an able ruler,--"the most brilliant
monarch of the fourteenth century." _Llywelyn_, prince of Wales,
having refused to render the oath due from a vassal, was forced to
yield. When a rebellion broke out several years later, Wales was
conquered, and the leader of the rebellion was executed (1283). Thus
Wales was joined to England; and the king gave to his son the title of
"Prince of Wales," which the eldest son of the sovereign of England
has since worn. _Edward_ was for many years at war with Scotland,
which now included the Gaelic-speaking people of the Highlands, and
the English-speaking people of the Lowlands. The king of England had
some claim to be their suzerain, a claim which the Scots were slow to
acknowledge. The old line of Scottish princes of the Celtic race died
out. Alexander III. fell with his horse over a cliff on the coast of
Fife. Two competitors for the throne arose, both of them of Norman
descent,--_John Baliol_ and _Robert Bruce_. The Scots made
_Edward_ an umpire, to decide which of them should reign. He
decided for _Baliol_ (1292), stipulating that the suzerainty
should rest with himself. When he called upon _Baliol_ to aid him
against France, the latter renounced his allegiance, and declared
war. He was conquered at _Dunbar_ (1296), and made prisoner. The
strongholds in Scotland fell into the hands of the English. The
country appeared to be subjugated, but the Scots were ill-treated by
the English. _William Wallace_ put himself at the head of a band
of followers, defeated them near _Stirling_ in 1292, and kept up
the contest for several years with heroic energy. At length
_Edward_, through the skill acquired by the English in the use of
the bow, was the victor at _Falkirk_ in 1298. _Wallace_,
having been betrayed into his hands, was brutally executed in London
(1305).

  Edward carried off from Scone the stone on which the Scottish kings
  had always been crowned. It is now in Westminster Abbey, under the
  coronation chair of the sovereign of Great Britain. There was a
  legend, that on this same stone the patriarch Jacob laid his head
  when he beheld angels ascending and descending at Bethel. Where that
  stone was, it was believed that Scottish kings would reign. This was
  held to be verified when English kings of Scottish descent inherited
  the crown.

ROBERT BRUCE.--The struggle for Scottish independence was taken up by
_Robert Bruce_, grandson of the Bruce who had claimed the
crown. His plan to gain the throne was disclosed by _John Comyn_,
nephew of _Baliol_: this _Comyn_ young Bruce stabbed in a
church at Dumfries. He was then crowned king at Scone, and summoned
the Scots to his standard. The English king sent his son _Edward_
to conquer him; but the king himself, before he could reach Scotland,
died.

PARLIAMENT: THE JEWS.--Under Edward, the form of government by king,
lords, and commons was firmly established. Parliament met in two
distinct houses. Against his inclination he swore to the "Confirmation
of the Charters," by which he engaged not to impose taxes without the
consent of Parliament. The statute of _mortmain_ has been
referred to already. The clergy paid their taxes to the king when they
found, that, unless they did so, the judges would not protect
them. _Edward_ had protected the _Jews_, who, in England as
elsewhere, were often falsely accused of horrible crimes, and against
whom there existed, on account of their religion, a violent
prejudice. At length he yielded to the popular hatred, and banished
them from the kingdom, permitting them, however, to take with them
their property.

Edward II. (1307-1327).--_Edward II_., a weak and despicable
sovereign, cared for nothing but pleasure.

He was under the influence of the son of a Gascon gentleman, _Peter
of Gaveston_, whom, contrary to the injunction of his father, he
recalled from banishment. _Gaveston_ was made regent while the
king was in France, whither he went, in 1308, to marry _Isabel_,
daughter of _Philip the Fair_. After his return, the disgust of
the barons at the conduct of _Gaveston_, and at the courses into
which _Edward_ was led by him, was such, that in 1310 they forced
the king to give the government for a year to a committee of peers, by
whom Gaveston was once more banished. When he came back, he was
captured by the barons, and beheaded in 1312.

BRUCE: BANNOCKBURN: DEPOSITION OF EDWARD II.--After various successes,
_Robert Bruce_ laid siege to _Stirling_ in 1314. This led to
a temporary reconciliation between the king and the
barons. _Edward_ set out for Scotland with an army of a hundred
thousand men. A great battle took place at _Bannockburn_, where
_Bruce_, with a greatly inferior force of foot-soldiers, totally
defeated the English. He had dug pits in front of his army, which he
had covered with turf resting on sticks. The effect was to throw the
English cavalry into confusion. Against the _Despencers_, father
and son, the next favorites of Edward, the barons were not at first
successful; but in 1326 Edward's queen, _Isabel_, who had joined
his enemies, returned from France with young _Edward_, Prince of
Wales, and at the head of foreign soldiers and exiles. The barons
joined her: the _Despencers_ were taken and executed. The king
was driven to resign the crown. He was carried from one castle to
another, and finally was secretly murdered at Berkeley Castle, by
_Roger Mortimer_, in whose custody he had been placed.

  On the suppression of the _Knights Templars_ by _Pope Clement
  V._, their property in England was confiscated. The _Temple_,
  which was their abode in London, became afterwards the possession of
  two societies of lawyers, the _Inner_ and _Middle Temple_.



THE HUNDRED YEARS' WAR:


PERIOD I.  (TO THE PEACE OF BRÉTIGNY. 1360).


ORIGIN OF THE WAR: EDWARD III. OF ENGLAND (1327-1377).--England and
France entered on one of the longest wars of which there is any record
in history. It lasted, with only a few short periods of intermission,
for a hundred years. At the outset, there were two main causes of
strife. _First_, the king of France naturally coveted the English
territory around Bordeaux,--_Guienne_, whose people were
French. _Secondly_, the English would not allow _Flanders_
--whose manufacturing towns, as Ghent and Bruges, were the best
customers for their wool--to pass under French control. Independently
of these grounds of dispute, _Edward III_. laid claim to the
French crown, for the reason that his mother was the sister of the last
king, while _Philip VI_. (1328-1350), then reigning, was only his
cousin. The French stood by the "Salic law," but a much stronger
feeling was their determination not to be ruled by an Englishman.

_Edward III._ claimed the throne of France in right of his mother,
_Isabel_, the daughter of _Philip IV_. The peers and barons
of France, on the whole, for political reasons, decided that the crown
should be given to _Philip (VI.)_. his nephew, of the house of
_Valois_, a younger line of the _Capets_. Edward rendered to
him, in 1328, feudal homage for the duchy of _Guienne_, but took
the first favorable occasion to re-assert his claim to the
throne. _Robert II._, Count of Artois, was obliged to fly from
France on a charge of having poisoned his aunt and her daughters, as a
part of his unsuccessful attempt to get possession of the fiefs left to
them by his grandsire. He went over to England from _Brussels_,
and stirred up the young English king to attack _Philip_
(1334). _David Bruce_, whom _Edward_ sought to drive out of
Scotland, received aid from France. Philip ordered _Louis_, Count
of Flanders, between whom and the burghers there was no affection, to
expel the English from his states. _James Van Arteveld_, a brewer
of _Ghent_, convinced the people that it was better to get rid of
the count, and ally themselves with the English. _Edward_ even
then hesitated about entering into the conflict, but the demands and
measures of _Philip_ showed that he was bent on war. The princes
in the neighborhood of Flanders, and the emperor _Louis V_., to
whom the Pope at _Avignon_ was hostile, declared on the side of
_Edward_.

The following tables (in part repeated, in a modified form, from
previous tables, and here connected) will illustrate the narrative:--



THE HOUSE OF VALOIS.

CHARLES, Count of Valois (_d_. 1325),
younger son of PHILIP III, KING OF FRANCE. (See below.)
|
+--PHILIP VI, 1328-1350.
   |
   +--JOHN the Good, 1350-1364.
      |
      +--CHARLES V the Wise, 1364-1380.
      |  |
      |  +--CHARLES VI, 1380-1422.
      |  |  |
      |  |  +--CHARLES VII, 1422-1461.
      |  |     |
      |  |     +--LOUIS XI, 1461-1483.
      |  |        |
      |  |        +--CHARLES VIII, 1483-1498.
      |  |        |
      |  |        +--Jeanne,
      |  |           _m_
      |  |     +--Duke of Orleans, afterwards LOUIS XII, 1498-1515.
      |  |     |
      |  |  +--Charles, Duke of Orleans, (d. 1467)
      |  |  |
      |  +--Louis, Duke of Orleans (assassinated 1407),
      |	    founder of the House of _Valois-Orleans_.
      |
      +--Louis, Duke of Anjou, founder
      |	 of the second Royal House of Naples.
      |
      +--John, Duke of Berry.
      |
      +--Philip, Duke of Burgundy
	 (_d_. 1404).


       *       *       *       *       *


PHILIP III, 1270-1285.
|
+--PHILIP IV, 1285-1314.
|  |
|  +--Isabel, _m_. Edward II of England
|  |  |
|  |  +--Edward II of England.
|  |     |
|  |     +--Edward III of England.
|  |
|  +--PHILIP V, 1316-1322.
|  |
|  +--CHARLES IV, 1322-1328.
|
+--Charles, Count of Valois (_d_. 1325), _m_.
   (1), Margaret of Naples.
   |
   +--PHILIP VI, 1328-1350.



EARLY EVENTS OF THE WAR.--Hostilities began in 1337. _Edward_
entered France, and then for the first time publicly set up his claim
to be king of France, quartering the lilies on his shield; and he was
accepted by the Flemish as their suzerain. The first battle was on the
sea near Fort _Sluys_ (1340), where _Edward_ won a victory,
and thirty thousand Frenchmen were slain or drowned. This established
the supremacy of the English on the water. The fleet of the French was
made up of hired Castilian and Genoese vessels. In 1341 the conflict
was renewed on account of a disputed succession in Brittany, in which
the "Salic law" was this time on the English side.

_Jane of Penthievre_ was supported by _Philip_; while _Jane
of Montfort_, an intrepid woman who was protected by _Edward_,
contended for the rights of her husband. This war, consisting of the
sieges of fortresses and towns, was kept up for twenty-four years.

BATTLE OF CRÉCY: CALAIS: BRITTANY.--In 1346 the _Earl of Derby_
made an attack in the south of France, while _Edward_, with his
young son _Edward_, the Prince of Wales, landed in Normandy,
which he devastated. _King Edward_ advanced to the neighborhood
of Paris; but the want of provisions caused him to change his course,
and to march in the direction of Flanders. His situation now became
perilous. He was followed by _Philip_ at the head of a powerful
army; and, had there been more energy and promptitude on the side of
the French, the English forces might have been
destroyed. _Edward_ was barely able, by taking advantage of a
ford at low tide, to cross the Somme, and to take up an advantageous
position at _Crécy_. There he was attacked with imprudent haste
by the army of the French. The chivalry of France went down before the
solid array of English archers, and _Edward_ gained an
overwhelming victory. Philip's brother _Charles_, count of
Alençon, fell, with numerous other princes and nobles, and thirty
thousand soldiers (1346). In the battle, the English king's eldest son
--_Edward_, the Black Prince as he was called from the color of
his armor--was hard pressed; but the father would send no aid, saying,
"Let the boy win his spurs." It was the custom to give the spurs to
the full-fledged knight. After a siege, _Calais_, the port so
important to the English, was captured by them. The deputies of the
citizens, almost starved, came out with cords in their hands, to
signify their willingness to be hanged. The French were driven out,
and Calais was an English town for more than two centuries. France was
defeated on all sides. The Scots, too, were vanquished; and _David
Bruce_ was made prisoner (1346). In _Brittany_ the French
party was prostrate. A truce between the kings was concluded for ten
months.

THE "BLACK DEATH."--In the midst of these calamities, the fearful
pestilence swept over France, called the "Black Death."  It came from
Egypt, possibly from farther east. In Florence three-fifths of the
inhabitants perished by it. From Italy it passed over to Provence, and
thence moved northward to Paris, spreading destruction in its path. It
reached England, and there it is thought by some that one-half of the
population perished (1348-1349).

ENGLISH AND FRENCH ARMIES.--At this time, when the power of France was
so reduced, the king acquired _Montpellier_ from _James of
Aragon_, and the Dauphiné of _Vienne_ by purchase from the
last _Dauphin, Humbert II._, who entered a
monastery. _Dauphin_ became the title of the heir of the French
crown. It was constantly evident how deep a root the royal power had
struck into the soil of France. At times, when the kingdom was almost
gone, the kingship survived. But, unhappily, there was no union of
orders and classes. Chivalry looked with disdain upon the common
people. The poor Genoese archers who had fought with the French at
_Crécy_, and whose bow-strings were wet by a shower, were
despised by the gentlemen on horseback. In the French armies, there
was no effective force but the cavalry, and there was a fatal lack of
subordination and discipline. In England, on the contrary, under kings
with more control over the feudal aristocracy, and from the
combination of lords and common people in resistance to kings, the
English armies had acquired union and discipline. The bow in the hands
of the English yeoman was a most effective weapon. The English
infantry were more than a match for the brave and impetuous cavaliers
of France. At _Crécy_ the entire English force fought on
foot. Cannon were just beginning to come into use. This brought a new
advantage to the foot-soldier. But it seems probable that cannon were
employed at _Crécy_.

BATTLE OF POITIERS: INSURRECTION IN PARIS.--_Philip_ left his
crown to his son, _John_ (II.) of Normandy, called "the Good"
(1350-1364); but the epithet (_le Bon_) signifies not the morally
worthy, but rather, the prodigal, gay and extravagant. He was a
passionate, rash, and cruel king. His relations with _Charles_
"the Bad," king of _Navarre_,--who, however, was the better man
of the two,--brought disasters upon France. This _Charles II._ of
Navarre (1349-1387) was the grandson, on his mother's side, of
_Louis X._ of France. _John_ had withheld from him promised
fiefs. Later he had thrown him into prison. _Philip of Navarre_,
the brother of _Charles_, helped the English against _John_
in Normandy.  Meanwhile the Prince of Wales (the Black Prince) ravaged
the provinces near Guienne. The national spirit in France was roused
by the peril. The _States General_ granted large supplies of men
and money, but only on the condition that the treasure should be
dispensed under their superintendence, and that they should be
assembled every year. The army of the Black Prince was small, and he
advanced so far that he was in imminent danger; but the attack on him
at _Poitiers_ (1356), by the vastly superior force of King
_John_, was made with so much impetuosity and so little prudence
that the French, as at _Crecy_, were completely defeated. Their
cavalry charged up a lane, not knowing that the English archers were
behind the hedges on either side. Their dead to the number of eleven
thousand lay on the field. The king, and with him a large part of the
nobility, were taken prisoners. _John_ was taken to England
(1357). From the moment of his capture he was treated with the utmost
courtesy. The French peasantry, however, suffered greatly; and in
France the name of Englishman for centuries afterwards was held in
abhorrence.

INSURRECTION IN PARIS.--The incapacity of the nobles to save the
kingdom called out the energies of the class counted as plebeian,--the
middle class between the nobles and serfs. It was not without
competent leaders, chief of whom were _Robert le Coq_, bishop of
_Laon_, and councilor of Parliament; and _Etienne Marcel_,
an able man, provost of the traders, or head of the municipality of
Paris. The _States General_ at Paris, at the instigation of such
as these, required of the _Dauphin_ the punishment of the
principal officers of the king, the release of the King of Navarre,
and the establishment of a council made up from the three orders, for
the direction of all the important affairs of government. The States
General, representing _the South_, at Toulouse voted a levy of
men and means without conditions; but the Dauphin _Charles_ was
obliged, at the next meeting of the States General of Paris (1357), to
yield to these and other additional demands. The king, however, a
prisoner in England, at the Dauphin's request refused to ratify the
compact. The agitators at Paris set the King of Navarre free, and
urged him to assert his right to the throne. _Marcel_ and the
Parisian multitude wore the party-colored hood of red and blue, the
civic colors of Paris. They killed two of the Dauphin's confidential
advisers, the marshals of Champagne and Normandy.  A reaction set in
against _Marcel_, and in favor of the royal cause. A civil war
was the result.

REVOLT OF THE JACQUERIE.--At this time, there burst forth an
insurrection, called the _Jacquerie_, of the peasants of the
provinces,--_Jacques Bonhomme_ being a familiar nickname of the
peasantry. It was attended with frightful cruelties: many of the
feudal chateaux were destroyed, and all of their inmates killed. The
land was given over to anarchy and bloodshed. _Marcel_ made
different attempts to effect a combination with _Charles of
Navarre_; but the revolutionary leader was assassinated, and the
Dauphin _Charles_, having destroyed opposition in _Paris_,
made peace with the King of Navarre, who had kept up in the provinces
the warfare against him. The movement of _Marcel_, with whatever
crimes and errors belonged to it, was "a brave and loyal effort to
stem anarchy, and to restore good government." By its failure, the
hope of a free parliamentary government in France was dashed in
pieces.

TREATY OF BRÉTIGNY (1360).--The captive king, _John_, made a
treaty with _Edward_, by which he ceded to the English at least
one-half of his dominions. The _Dauphin_ assembled the States
General, and repudiated the compact. _Edward III._, in 1359,
again invaded France with an immense force. But _Charles_
prudently avoided a general engagement, and _Edward_ found it
difficult to get food for his troops. He concluded with France, in
1360, the treaty of _Brétigny_, by which the whole province of
_Aquitaine_, with several other lordships, was ceded to
_Edward_, clear of all feudal obligations. _Edward_, in
turn, renounced his claim to the French crown, as well as to
_Normandy_, and to all other former possessions of the
Plantagenets north of the Loire. The King was to be set at liberty on
the payment of the first installment of his ransom.



THE HUNDRED YEARS' WAR:


PERIOD II. (TO THE PEACE OF TROYES, 1420).

DUCHY OF BURGUNDY.--There was an opportunity to repair a part of these
losses. In 1361 the ducal house of _Burgundy_ became extinct, and
the fief reverted to the crown. But _John_ gave it to his son,
_Philip the Bold_, who became the founder of the Burgundian branch
of the house of _Valois_. _Philip_ married the heiress of
_Flanders_, and thus founded the power of the house of Burgundy in
the Netherlands.

DU GUESCLIN: CONTEST IN SPAIN.--The provinces of France were overrun
and plundered by soldiers of both parties, under the names of
_routiers_ (men of the road) and _great companies_. King
_John_ returned to England, because one of his sons, left as a
hostage, had fled. There his captivity was made pleasant to him, but he
died soon after.

_Charles V._, or _Charles the Wise_ (1364-1380), undertook to
restore prosperity to the French kingdom. He reformed the coin, the
debasement of which was a dire grievance to the burghers. Against the
free lances in the service of _Charles of Navarre_, the king sent
bands of mercenary soldiers under _Du Guesclin_, a valiant
gentleman of Brittany, who became one of the principal heroes of the
time. The war lasted for a year, and the King of Navarre made peace. In
Brittany, _Du Guesclin_ was taken prisoner by the English party
and the adventurers who fought with them. The king secured his release
by paying his ransom; and he led the companies into Spain to help the
cause of _Henry of Transtamare_, who had a dispute for the throne
of _Castile_ with _Peter the Cruel_. The Black Prince
supported _Peter_, and, for a time, with success. In 1369
_Henry_ was established on the throne, and with him the French
party. The principal benefit of this Spanish contest was the
deliverance of France from the companies of freebooters.

ADVANTAGES GAINED BY THE FRENCH.--King _Charles_ reformed the
internal administration of his kingdom, and at length felt himself
ready to begin again the conflict with England. _Edward III._ was
old. The Black Prince was ill and gloomy, and his Aquitanian subjects
disliked the supercilious ways of the English. _Charles_ declared
war (1369). The English landed at _Calais_. But the cities were
defended by their strong walls; and the French army, under the _Duke
of Burgundy_, in pursuance of the settled policy of the king,
refused to meet the enemy in a pitched battle. The next year (1370)
they appeared again, and once more, in 1373, both times with the same
result. The _Duke of Anjou_ reconquered the larger part of
_Aquitaine_. _Du Guesclin_ was made constable of the French
army, and thus placed above the nobles by birth. The English fleet was
destroyed by the Castilian vessels before _Rochelle_ (1372). _Du
Guesclin_ drove the _Duke of Montfort_, who was protected by
the English, out of Brittany. In 1375 a truce was made, which continued
until the death of Edward III. (1377). Then _Charles_ renewed the
war, and was successful on every side. Most of the English possessions
in France were won back. The last exploit of the Black Prince had been
the sacking of _Limoges_ (1370). After this cruel proceeding,
broken in health, he returned to England.

STATE OF ENGLAND.--The Black Prince, after his return, when his father
was old and feeble, did much to save the country from misrule, so that
his death was deplored. The Parliament at this time was called "the
Good." It turned out of office friends of _John of Gaunt_,--or of
Ghent (the place where he was born),--the third son of Edward. They
were unworthy men, whom John had caused to be appointed. At this time
occurred the first instance of impeachment of the king's ministers by
the Commons. When the Black Prince died, his brother regained the chief
power, and his influence was mischievous. During Edward's reign,
Flemish weavers were brought over to England, and the manufacture of
fine woolen cloths was thus introduced.

JOHN WICKLIFFE.--In this reign the English showed a strong disposition
to curtail the power of the popes in England. When _Pope Urban
V._, in 1366, called for the payment of the arrears of King
_John's_ tribute, Parliament refused to grant it, on the ground
that no one had the right to subject the kingdom to a foreigner. It was
in the reign of _Edward III._ that _John Wickliffe_ became
prominent. He took the side of the secular or the parish clergy in
their conflict with the mendicant orders,--"the Begging Friars," as
they were styled. He also advocated the cause of the king against the
demands of the Pope. He contended that the clergy had too much wealth
and power. He adopted doctrines, at that time new, which were not
behind the later Protestant, or even Puritan, opinions. He translated
the Bible into English. He was protected by _Edward III._ and by
powerful nobles, and he died in peace in his parish at
_Lutterworth_, in 1384; but, after his death, his bones were taken
up, and burned. His followers bore the nickname of _Lollards_,
which is probably derived from a word that means _to sing_, and
thus was equivalent to _psalm-singers_.

RICHARD II. (1377-1399): THE PEASANT INSURRECTION: DEPOSITION OF
RICHARD.--_Richard_, the young son of the Black Prince, had an
unhappy reign. At first he was ruled by his uncles, especially by
_John of Gaunt_, Duke of Lancaster. Four years after his
accession, a great insurrection of the peasants broke out, from
discontent under the yoke of villanage, and the pressure of taxes. The
first leader in Essex was a priest, who took the name of _Jack
Straw_. In the previous reign, the poor had found reason to complain
bitterly of the landlords; but their lot was now even harder. When the
insurgents reached _Blackheath_, they numbered a hundred thousand
men. There a priest named _John Ball_ harangued them on the
equality of rights, from the text,--

  When Adam delved, and Eve span,
  Who was then a gentleman?

Young Richard managed them with so much tact, and gave them such fair
promises, that they dispersed. One of their most fierce leaders,
_Wat Tyler_, whose daughter had been insulted by a tax-gatherer,
was stabbed during a parley which he was holding with the king.

There was a _Gloucester_ party--a party led by his youngest uncle,
the _Duke of Gloucester_--which gave Richard much trouble; but he
became strong enough to send the duke to _Calais_, where, it was
thought, he was put to death. In 1398 he banished two noblemen who had
given him, at a former day, dire offense. One of them was _Thomas
Mowbray_, Duke of _Norfolk_; the other was _Henry of
Bolingbroke_, Duke of _Hereford_, afterwards called Duke of
_Lancaster_, son of John of Gaunt. When John of Gaunt died,
Richard seized his lands. In 1399, when _Richard_ was in Ireland,
_Bolingbroke_ landed, with a few men-at-arms and with Archbishop
_Arundel_; and, being joined by the great family of _Percy_
in the North, he obliged _Richard_ to resign the crown. He was
deposed by Parliament for misgovernment. Not long after, he was
murdered.  _Lancaster_ was made king under the name of _Henry
IV._ It was under _Richard_ that the statute of
_præmunire_ (of 1353) was renewed, and severe penalties were
imposed on all who should procure excommunications or sentences against
the king or the realm.

THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE AND LITERATURE.--In the course of the reign of
_Edward III._, the French language, which had come in with the
Normans, ceased to be the speech of fashion; and the English, as
altered by the loss of inflections and by the introduction of foreign
words, came into general use. The English ceased to speak the language
of those who were now held to be national enemies. In 1362 the use of
English was established in the courts of law. The _Old English_
ceased to be written or spoken correctly. The _Latin_ still
continued to be familiar to the clergy and to the learned. _William
Langland_ wrote a poem entitled the _Vision of Piers Plowman_
(1362). _Pierce the Plowman's Crede_ is a poem by another
author. The two principal poets are _Chaucer_ and _Gower_,
both of whom wrote the new English in use at the court. Chaucer's great
poem, the _Canterbury Tales_, is the latest and most remarkable of
his works.

HENRY IV. (1399-1413): TWO REBELLIONS: THE LOLLARDS.-By right of birth,
the crown would have fallen to _Roger Mortimer_, Earl of March,
the grandson of _Lionel_, Duke of Clarence, Lionel having been a
son of Edward III., older than John of Gaunt. But there was no law
compelling Parliament to give the throne to the nearest of kin. So it
fell to the house of Lancaster.

Henry had to confront two rebellions. One was that of the _Welsh_,
under _Owen Glendower_, which he long tried to put down, and which
was gradually overcome by _Henry_, Prince of Wales, the story of
whose wild courses in his youth was perhaps exaggerated. The other
rebellion was that of the powerful Northumberland family of the
_Percys_, undertaken in behalf of _Richard_ if he was
alive,--for it was disputed whether or not he had really died,--and if
not alive, in behalf of the _Earl of March_. The _Percys_
joined Glendower. They were beaten in a bloody battle near
_Shrewsbury_, in 1403, where Northumberland's son "Hotspur"
(_Harry Percy_) was slain. While praying at the shrine of
St. Edward in Westminster, the king was seized with a fit, and died in
the "Jerusalem Chamber" of the Abbot. Under _Henry_ the
proceedings against heretics were sharpened; but the Commons at length,
from their jealousy of the clergy, sought, although in vain, a
mitigation of the statute. In the next reign, the Lollards, who were
numerous, had a leader in _Sir John Oldcastle_, called _Lord
Cobham_, who once escaped from the Tower, but was captured, after
some years, and put to death as a traitor and heretic. Whether he aimed
at a Lollard revolution or not, is uncertain. The Lollards were
persecuted, not only as heretics, but also as desiring to free the
serfs from their bondage to the landlords.

THE BURGUNDIANS AND ARMAGNACS.--In the last days of _Charles V._
of France, he tried in vain to absorb _Brittany_. _Flanders_
and _Languedoc_ revolted against him. The aspect of public affairs
was clouded when _Charles VI_. (1380-1422), who was not twelve
years old, became the successor to the throne. His uncles, the Dukes of
_Anjou_, _Berri_, and _Burgundy_, contended for the
regency. Their quarrels distracted the kingdom. A contest arose with
the Flemish cities under the leadership of _Philip Van Artevelde_;
but they were defeated by the French nobles at _Roosebeke_, and
_Arterielde_ was slain. This victory of the nobles over the cities
was followed by the repression of the municipal leaders and lawyers in
France. Two factions sprang up,--the _Burgundians_ and the
_Armagnacs_.

_Margaret_, the wife of the Duke of Burgundy, received Flanders by
inheritance, on the death of her father the Count (1384). The king was
beginning to free himself from the control of the factions when he
suddenly went mad. Thenceforth there was a struggle in France for
supremacy between the adherents of the dukes of _Burgundy_ and the
adherents of the house of _Orleans_. The latter came to be called
_Armagnacs_ (1410), after the _Count d'Armagnac_, the
father-in-law of _Charles, Duke of Orleans_. The strength of the
_Burgundians_ was in the _North_ and in the cities. They
adhered to _Urban VI._, the pope at Rome, in opposition to the
Avignon pope, _Clement VII._; for these were the days of the papal
schism. They were also friends of the house of _Lancaster_ in
England,--of _Henry IV._ and _Henry V._ The strength of the
_Armagnacs_ was in the _South_. At the outset, it was a party
of the court and of the nobles: later it became a national
party. _Louis, Duke of Orleans_, was treacherously assassinated by
a partisan of the Burgundians (1407). This act fomented the strife.

BATTLE OF AGINCOURT: TREATY OF TROYES (1420).--It was in 1392 that the
king partially lost his reason. For the rest of his life, except at
rare intervals, he was either imbecile or frenzied. By the division of
counsels and a series of fatalities, gigantic preparations for the
invasion of England had come to naught (1386-1388). _Henry V. of
England_ (1413-1422) concluded that the best way to divert his
nobles from schemes of rebellion was to make war across the
Channel. Accordingly he demanded his "inheritance" according to the
treaty of _Brétigny_, together with _Normandy_. On the
refusal of this demand, he renewed the claim of his greatgrandfather to
the crown of France, although he was not the eldest descendant of
_Edward III_. _Henry_ invaded France at the head of fifty
thousand men. By his artillery and mines he took _Harfleur_, but
not until after a terrible siege in which thousands of his troops
perished by sickness. On his way towards _Calais_, with not more
than nine thousand men, he found his way barred at _Agincourt_ by
the Armagnac forces, more than fifty thousand in number, comprising the
chivalry of France (1415). In the great battle that ensued, the horses
of the French floundered in the mud, and horse and rider were destroyed
by the English bowmen. The French suffered another defeat like the
defeats of _Crécy_ and _Poitiers_. They lost eleven thousand
men, and among them some of the noblest men in France. France was
falling to pieces. _Rouen_ was besieged by Henry, and compelled by
starvation to surrender (1419). The fury of factions continued to
rage. There were dreadful massacres by the mob in Paris. The _Duke of
Burgundy, John the Fearless_ (_Jean sans Peur_), was murdered
in 1419 by the opposite faction. The young Duke _Philip_, and even
the Queen of France, _Isabella_, were now found on the
Anglo-Burgundian side. By the _Treaty of Troyes_, in 1420,
_Catherine_, the daughter of _Charles VI._, was given in
marriage to _Henry V._, and he was made the heir of the crown of
France when the insane king, _Charles VI._, should
die. _Henry_ was made regent of France. The whole country north of
the _Loire_ was in his hands. The Dauphin _Charles_ retired
to the provinces beyond that river.



THE HUNDRED YEARS' WAR:


PERIOD III. (TO THE END, 1463).

FRANCE IN 1422.--Both _Henry_ and _Charles VI._ died in 1422.
The Duke of Bedford was made regent in France, ruling in the name of
his infant nephew (_Henry VI._). _Charles VII._ (1422-1461)
was proclaimed king by the _Armagnacs_ south of the Loire. His
situation was desperate, but he represented the national cause.
_Bedford_ laid siege to _Orleans_, the last bulwark of the
royal party. The English were weakened, however, by the withdrawal of
the _Duke of Burgundy_ and his forces.

JOAN OF ARC.--When the national cause was at this low point, Providence
raised up a deliverer in the person of a pure, simple-hearted, and
pious maiden of _Domrémy_ in _Lorraine_, seventeen years of
age, _Jeanne Dare_ by name (the name _Joan of Arc_ being
merely a mistake in orthography). The tales of suffering that she had
heard deeply moved her. She felt herself called of Heaven to liberate
France. She fancied that angels' voices bade her undertake this holy
mission. Her own undoubting faith aroused faith in others. Commissioned
by the king, she mounted a horse, and, with a banner in her hand,
joined the French soldiers, whom she inspired with fresh courage. They
forced the English to give up the siege of Orleans, and to march
away. Other defeats of the English followed. The Maid of Orleans took
_Charles_ to _Rheims_, and stood by him at his
coronation. The English and Burgundians rallied their strength. _Joan
of Arc_ was ill supported, and was made prisoner at Compèigne by the
Burgundians. They delivered her to the English. She was subjected to
grievous indignities, was condemned as a witch, and finally burned as a
relapsed heretic at _Rouen_ (1431). The last word she uttered was
"Jesus." Her character was without a taint. In her soul, the spirit of
religion and of patriotism burned with a pure flame. A heroine and a
saint combined, she died "a victim to the ingratitude of her friends,
and the brutality of her foes."

THE ENGLISH DRIVEN OUT--In 1435 the _Duke of Burgundy_ was
reconciled to _Charles VII._, and joined the cause of France. The
generals of Charles gained possession of one after another of the
provinces. During a truce of two years, _Henry VI._ of England
(1422-1461) married _Margaret of Anjou_, the daughter of King
_René_. _Henry_ was of a gentle temper, but lacked prudence
and vigor. The king of France and the dauphin began the organization of
a standing army, which greatly increased the military strength of the
country (1439). In 1449 the war with England was renewed. With the
defeat of the English, and the death of their commander, _Talbot_,
in 1453, the contest of a century came to an end. All that England
retained across the Channel was _Calais_ with _Havre_ and
_Guines Castle_. France was desolated by all this fruitless
strife.  Some of the most fertile portions of its territory were
reduced to a desert, "given up to wolves, and traversed only by the
robber and the free-lance."

REBELLION of "JACK CADE."--The peasants in England were now free from
serfdom. Under _Henry VI._ occurred a formidable insurrection of
the men of Kent, who marched to London led by _John Cade_, who
called himself _John Mortimer_. They complained of bad government
and extortionate taxes. One main cause of the rising was the successes
of the French. The condition of the laboring class had much
improved. The insurgents were defeated by the citizens, and their
leader was slain. In this reign began the long "Wars of the Roses," or
the contest of the houses of _York_ and _Lancaster_ for the
throne.



MILAN.--THE VISCONTI AND SFORZA.

Matteo I, VISCONTI (nephew of Archbishop Otto),
Lord of Milan, 1295-1332.
|
+--Stefano (_d._ 1327).
   |
   +--Matteo II,[1] 1354-1355.
   |
   +--Bernabo,[1] 1354-1385.
   |  |
   |  +--Catharine,
   |        _m._ (2),
   |  +--GIAN GALEAZZO, 1378-1402 (first duke, 1396).
   |  |  |
   |  |  +--GIOVANNI MARIA, 1402-1412.
   |  |  |
   |  |  +--FILIPPO MARIA, 1412-1447.
   |  |  |  |
   |  |  |  +--Bianca Maria.
   |  |  |          _m._
   |  |  |  +--FRANCESCO SFORZA, 1450-1466
   |  |  |  |  |
   |  |  |  |  +--GALEAZZO MARIA, 1466-1476, _m._
   |  |  |  |  |  Bona, daughter of Louis, Duke of Savoy.
   |  |  |  |  |  |
   |  |  |  |  |  +--GIAN GALEAZZO, 1476-1494.
   |  |  |  |  |
   |  |  |  |  +--LUDOVICO Il Moro, 1494-1500, 3, (_d._ 1510)
   |  |  |  |      _m._ Beatrice d'Este.
   |  |  |  |     |
   |  |  |  |     +--MASSAMILLANO,[4] 1512-1515 (_d._ 1530)
   |  |  |  |     |
   |  |  |  |     +--FRANCESCO MARIA, [4], 1521-1535. _m._
   |  |  |  |        Christina, daughter of Christian II of Denmark (1)
   |  |  |  |
   |  |  |  Jacopo (Muzio) Attendolo di Cotignola, called Sforza.
   |  |  |
   |  |  +--Valentina, [2] _m._
   |  |     Louis, Duke of Orleans.
   |  |     |
   |  |     +--Charles, Duke of Orleans.
   |  |        |
   |  |        +--LOUIS XII of France,
   |  |           Duke of Milan 1500-1512.
   |  |
   +--Galeazzo II,[1] 1354-1378.



1  The Milanese territory was divided between the three brothers, and
united on the death of Bernabo.

2  Hence the French claim to Milan.

3  Louis XII of France took Ludovico prisoner, and held Milan
1500-1512.

4  Puppet dukes. Milan being, in fact, the subject of contention
between France and the Hapsburgs.

[Abridged from George's Genealogical Tables.]



THE THREE NORTHERN KINGDOMS BEFORE THE UNION OF CALMAR.

[D. means King of Denmark; N., King of Norway; S., King of Sweden.]


HACO IV, N. (_d._ 1263).
|
+--MAGNUS VI, N., 1263-1281.
   |
   +--ERIC II, N., 1281-1299.
   |
   +--HACO V, N., 1299-1320.
      |
      |  MAGNUS I, S., 1279-1290.
      |  |
      |  +--BERGER, S., 1290-1320 (deposed; _d._ 1326)
      |  |       _m._
      |  |  +--Martha.
      |  |  |
      |  |  +--CHRISTOPHER II, D., 1320-1340.
      |  |  |  |
      |  |  |  +--WALDEMAR III, D., 1346-1375.
      |  |  |     |
      |  |  |     +--Margaret,[2] D. N., 1387, S., 1388 (_d._ 1412).
      |  |  |        _m._ HACO VI, N. (_d._ 1380)
      |  |  |        |
      |  |  |        +--OLAF VI, D. 1376, N. 1380 (_d._ 1387).
      |  |  |
      |  |  +--ERIC VI, D., 1286-1320.
      |  |  |
      |  |  ERIC V, D., 1250-1286.
      |  |
      |  +--Eric.
      |      _m._
      +--Ingeburga
         |
         +--Magnus VII (II), N. S., 1320-1365 (deposed).
            |
            +--Euphemia. _m._ Albert, Duke of Mecklenburg,
            |  |
            |  +--Albert,[1] S., 1365-1388 (deposed).
            |  |
            |  +--Henry, m. Ingeburga, daughter of Waldemar III, D.
            |     |
            |     +--Mary, _m._ Wratislas of Pomerania.
            |        |
            |        +--ERIC, D. N. S., 1412-1439
            |        |  (deposed; _d._ 1459).
            |        |
            |        +--Catharine, _m._ John, son of Emperor Robert.
            |           |
            |           +--CHRISTOPHER, D. N. S. (_d._ 1448).
            |                      _m._ (1)
            |           Dorothea, daughter of John Alchymista,
            |           Margrave of Brandenburg
            |                    _m._ (2)
            |           CHRISTIAN I,[3] D. N. S.
            |
            +--HACO VI, N. (_d._ 1380)


1  Elected to Sweden in opposition to Haco VI; deposed by Margaret.

2  Having united all three kingdoms in her own person, framed formal
Union of Calmar, 1397.

3  Elected king on death of Christopher, whose widow he married; said
to be descended from Eric V of Denmark.

[Abridged from George's Genealogical Tables.]



CHAPTER II. GERMANY: ITALY: SPAIN: THE SCANDINAVIAN COUNTRIES: POLAND
AND RUSSIA: HUNGARY: OTTOMAN TURKS: THE GREEK EMPIRE.


I. GERMANY.

THE GREAT INTERREGNUM.--After the death of _Frederick
II_. (1250), Germany and Italy, the two countries over which the
imperial authority extended, were left free from its
control. _Italy_ was abandoned to itself, and thus to internal
division. The case of _Germany_ was analogous. During the "great
interregnum," lasting for twenty-three years, the German cities, by
their industry and trade, grew strong, as did the burghers in France,
and in the towns in England, in this period. But in Germany the feudal
control was less relaxed. This interval was a period of anarchy and
trouble. _William of Holland_ wore the title of emperor until
1256. Then the _electors_ were bribed, and _Alfonso X. of
Castile_, great-grandson of Frederick Barbarossa, and _Richard,
Earl of Cornwall_, younger son of King John of England, were chosen
by the several factions; but their power was nominal. The four
electors on the Rhine, and the dukes and counts, divided among
themselves the imperial domains. The dismemberment of the duchies of
_Swabia_ and _Franconia_ (1268), and at an earlier day
(1180) of _Saxony_, created a multitude of petty sovereignties.
The great vassals of the empire, the kings of _Denmark_, of
_Poland_, of _Hungary_, etc., broke away from its
suzerainty.  There was a reign of violence. The barons sallied out of
their strongholds to rob merchants and travelers. The princes, and the
nobles in immediate relation to the empire, governed, each in his own
territory, as they pleased. New means of protection were created, as
the _League of the Rhine_, comprising sixty cities and the three
Rhenish archbishops, and having its own assemblies; and the
_Hanseatic League_, which has been described (p. 303). Moreover,
corporations of merchants and artisans were established in the
cities. In the North, where the Crusades, and war with the
_Slaves_, had thinned the population, colonies of Flemings,
Hollanders, and Frisians came in to cultivate the soil. During the
long-continued disturbances after the death of _Frederick II_.,
the desire of local independence undermined monarchy. The empire never
regained the vigor of which it was robbed by the _interregnum_.

HOUSE OF HAPSBURG.--_Rudolph_, Count of Hapsburg (1273-1291), was
elected emperor for the reason, that, while he was a brave man, he was
not powerful enough to be feared by the aristocracy. He wisely made no
attempt to govern in Italy. He was supported by the Church, to which
he was submissive. He devoted himself to the task of putting down
disorders in Germany. Against _Ottocar II_., king of Bohemia, who
now held also Austria, Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola, and who
refused to acknowledge Rudolph, the emperor twice made war
successfully. In a fierce battle at the _Marchfield_, in 1278,
_Ottocar_ was slain. _Austria_, _Styria_, and
_Carniola_ fell into the hands of the emperor. They were given as
fiefs to Rudolph's son _Albert_; and _Carinthia_ to Albert's
son-in-law, the _Count of Tyrol_. This was the foundation of the
power of the house of Hapsburg. _Rudolph_ strove with partial
success to recover the crown lands, and did what he could to put a
stop to private war and to robbery. Numerous strongholds of robbers he
razed to the ground. His practical abandonment of Italy, his partial
restoration of order in Germany, and his service to the house of
Hapsburg, are the principal features of Rudolph's reign.

HENRY VII. (1308-1313): ITALY.--Adolphus of Nassau (1292-1298) was
hired by _Edward I_. to declare war against France. His doings in
Thuringia. which he tried to buy from the Landgrave _Albert_, led
the electors to dethrone him, and to choose _Albert
I_. (1298-1308), _Duke of Austria_, son of Rudolph. His nephew
_John_, whom he tried to keep out of his inheritance, murdered
him. _Henry VII_. (1308-1313), who was Count of _Luxemburg_,
the next emperor, did little more than build up his family by marrying
his son _John_ to the granddaughter of King _Ottocar_.
_John_ was thus made king of Bohemia. In these times, when the
emperors were weak, they were anxious to strengthen and enrich their
own houses. _Henry_ went to Italy to try his fortunes beyond the
Alps. He was crowned in Pavia king of Italy, and in Rome emperor
(1312). But the rival parties quickly rose up against him: he was
excommunicated by _Clement V_., an ally of France, and died--it
was charged, by poison mixed in the sacramental cup--in 1313. He was a
man of pure and noble character, but the time had passed for Italy to
be governed by a German sovereign.

CIVIL WAR: ELECTORS AT RENSE.--One party of the electors chose
_Frederick of Austria_ (1314-1330), and the other _Louis of
Bavaria_ (1314-1347). A terrible civil war, lasting for ten years,
was the consequence. In a great battle near _Mühldorf_, the
Austrians were defeated, and _Frederick_ was
captured. _Louis_ had now to encounter the hostility of Pope
_John XXII_. (at Avignon), who wished to give the imperial crown
to _Philip the Fair_ of France. _Louis_ maintained that he
received the throne, not from the popes, but from the electors. He was
excommunicated by _John_, who refused to sanction the agreement of
Louis and of Frederick, now set at liberty, to exercise a joint
sovereignty. _Louis_ was in Italy from 1327 to 1330, where he was
crowned emperor by a pope of his own creation. All efforts of Louis to
make peace with _Pope_ _John_ and his successor, _Benedict
XII_., were foiled by the opposition of France. The strife which had
been occasioned in Germany by this interference from abroad created
such disaffection among the Germans, that the electors met at
_Rense_, in 1338, and declared that the elected king of the
Germans received his authority from the choice of the electoral princes
exclusively, and was Roman emperor even without being crowned by a
pope.

DEPOSITION OF LOUIS OF BAVARIA.--The imprudence of _Louis_ in
aggrandizing his family, and his assumption of an acknowledged papal
right in dissolving the marriage of the heiress of Tyrol with a son of
_King John of Bohemia_, turned the electors against him. In 1346
Pope _Clement VI_. declared him deposed. The electors chose in his
place _Charles_, the Margrave of _Moravia_, the son of King
_John of Bohemia_. _Louis_ did not give up his title, but he
died soon after.

CHARLES IV. (1347-1378).--_Charles IV_. visited Italy, and was
crowned emperor (1355); but, according to a promise made to the Pope,
he tarried in Rome only a part of one day. He was crowned king of
Burgundy at _Arles_ (1365). In Italy "he sold what was left of the
rights of the empire, sometimes to cities, sometimes to tyrants."  His
principal care was for building up his own hereditary dominion, which
he so enlarged that it extended, at his death, from the Baltic almost
to the Danube. He fortified and adorned _Prague_, and established
there, in 1348, the first German university.

THE GOLDEN BULL.--The great service of _Charles IV_. to Germany
was in the grant of the charter called the _Golden Bull_
(1356). This expressly conferred the right of electing the emperor on
the SEVEN ELECTORS, who had, in fact, long exercised it. These were the
archbishops of Mentz, of Trier, and of Cologne, and the four secular
princes, the King of Bohemia, the Count Palatine of the Rhine, the Duke
of Saxony, and the Margrave of Brandenburg. The electoral states were
made indivisible and inalienable, and hereditary in the male line. The
electors were to be sovereign within their respective territories, and
their persons were declared sacred.

THE BLACK DEATH.--Germany, like the other countries, was terribly
afflicted during the reign of Charles by the destructive pestilence
that swept over the most of Europe (p. 319). One effect was an
outbreaking of religious fervor. At this time the movement of the
"Flagellants," which started in the thirteenth century, reached its
height in Germany and elsewhere. They scourged and lacerated themselves
for their sins, marching in processions, and inflicting their blows to
the sound of music. Another result of the plague was a savage
persecution of the Jews, who were falsely suspected of poisoning
wells. Many thousands of them were tortured and killed.

ANARCHY IN GERMANY.--The son of Charles IV. (1378-1400),
_Wenceslaus_, or _Wenzel_, was a coarse and cruel king. Under
him the old disorders of the _Interregnum_ sprang up anew. The
towns had to defend themselves against the robber barons, and formed
confederacies for this purpose. Private war raged all over Germany.

ACCESSION OF SIGISMUND.--_Wenceslaus_ was deposed by the electors
in 1400. But _Rupert_, the Count Palatine, his successor
(1400-1410), was able to accomplish little, in consequence of the
strife of parties. _Sigismund_ (1410-1437), brother of
_Wenceslaus_, margrave of Brandenburg, and, in right of his wife,
king of Hungary, was chosen emperor, first by a part, and then by all,
of the electors. The most important events of this period were the
_Council of Constance_ (1414-1418) and the war with the
_Hussites_.

JOHN HUSS.--The principal end for which the Council of Constance was
called was the healing of the schism in the Church,--in consequence of
which there were three rival popes,--and the securing of
ecclesiastical reforms. But at this council _John Huss_, an
eminent Bohemian preacher, was tried for heresy. The doctrines of
_Wickliffe_ had penetrated into _Bohemia;_ and a strong
party, of which Huss was the principal leader, had sprung up in favor
of innovations, doctrinal and practical, one of which was the giving
of the cup in the sacrament to the laity. _Huss_ made a great
stir by his attack upon abuses in the Church. Under a safe-conduct
from _Sigismund_, he journeyed to _Constance_. There he was
tried, condemned as a heretic, and burnt at the stake
(1415). _Jerome of Prague_, another reformer, was dealt with in
the same way by the council (1416).

HUSSITE WAR.--The indignation of the followers of _Huss_ was such
that a great revolt broke out in Bohemia. The leader was a brave man,
_Ziska_. The imperial troops, after the coronation of
_Sigismund_ as king of Bohemia, were defeated, and driven out. The
Hussite soldiers ravaged the neighboring countries. The council of
_Basel_ (1431-1449) concluded a treaty with the more moderate
portion of the H