Title: History For Ready Reference, Volume 1 (of 6)
Author: Larned, Josephus Nelson
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "History For Ready Reference, Volume 1 (of 6)" ***

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

VOLUME 1 (OF 6) ***


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

1. To avoid breaks in the narrative, page numbers (shown in curly
   brackets "{123}") are usually placed between paragraphs. In this
   case the page number is preceded and followed by an empty line.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

End Transcriber's Notes.]

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

[Image: Spine]

[Image: ETHNOLOGICAL MAP OF MODERN EUROPE (left)]

[Image: ETHNOLOGICAL MAP OF MODERN EUROPE (right)]


History For Ready Reference, Volume 1 of 6

From The Best
Historians, Biographers, And Specialists

Their Own Words In A Complete
System Of History

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

By J. N. Larned

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

In Five Volumes

Volume I--A To Elba

Springfield, Massachusetts.
The C. A. Nichols Company., Publishers 
MDCCCXCV


Copyright,1893,
By J. N. Larned.

_The Riverside Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
United States Of America_
Printed by H. O. Houghton & Company.


Preface.

This work has two aims: to represent and exhibit the better
Literature of History in the English language, and to give it
an organized body--a system--adapted to the greatest
convenience in any use, whether for reference, or for reading,
for teacher, student, or casual inquirer.

The entire contents of the work, with slight exceptions readily
distinguished, have been carefully culled from some thousands of
books,--embracing the whole range (in the English language) of
standard historical writing, both general and special: the
biography, the institutional and constitutional studies, the
social investigations, the archeological researches, the
ecclesiastical and religious discussions, and all other important
tributaries to the great and swelling main stream of historical
knowledge. It has been culled as one might pick choice fruits,
careful to choose the perfect and the ripe, where such are found,
and careful to keep their flavor unimpaired.
The flavor of the Literature of History, in its best examples,
and the ripe quality of its latest and best thought, are
faithfully preserved in what aims to be the garner of a fair
selection from its fruits.

History as written by those, on one hand, who have depicted its
scenes most vividly, and by those, on the other hand, who have
searched its facts, weighed its evidences, and pondered its
meanings most critically and deeply, is given in their own words.
If commoner narratives are sometimes quoted, their use enters but
slightly into the construction of the work. The whole matter is
presented under an arrangement which imparts distinctness to its
topics, while showing them in their sequence and in all their
large relations, both national and international.

For every subject, a history more complete, I think, in the
broad meaning of "History," is supplied by this mode than could
possibly be produced on the plan of dry synopsis which is common
to encyclopedic works. It holds the charm and interest of many
styles of excellence in writing, and it is read in a clear light
which shines directly from the pens that have made History
luminous by their interpretations.

Behind the Literature of History, which can be called so in the
finer sense, lies a great body of the Documents of History, which
are unattractive to the casual reader, but which even he must
sometimes have an urgent wish to consult. Full and carefully
chosen texts of a large number of the most famous and important
of such documents--charters, edicts, proclamations, petitions,
covenants, legislative acts and ordinances, and the constitutions
of many countries--have been accordingly introduced and are easily
to be found.

The arrangement of matter in the work is primarily alphabetical,
and secondarily chronological. The whole is thoroughly indexed,
and the index is incorporated with the body of the text, in the
same alphabetical and chronological order.

Events which touch several countries or places are treated fully
but once, in the connection which shows their antecedents and
consequences best, and the reader is guided to that ampler
discussion by references from each caption under which it may be
sought. Economies of this character bring into the compass of
five volumes a body of History that would need twice the number,
at least, for equal fulness on the monographic plan of
encyclopedic works.

Of my own, the only original writing introduced is in a general
sketch of the history of _Europe_, and in what I have called the
"_Logical Outlines_" of a number of national histories, which are
printed in colors to distinguish the influences that have been
dominant in them. But the extensive borrowing which the work
represents has not been done in an unlicensed way. I have felt
warranted, by common custom, in using moderate extracts without
permit. But for everything beyond these, in my selections from
books now in print and on sale, whether under copyright or
deprived of copyright, I have sought the consent of those,
authors or publishers, or both, to whom the right of consent or
denial appears to belong. In nearly all cases I have received
the most generous and friendly responses to my request, and
count among my valued possessions the great volume of kindly
letters of permission which have come to me from authors and
publishers in Great Britain and America. A more specific
acknowledgment of these favors will be appended to this preface.

The authors of books have other rights beyond their rights of
property, to which respect has been paid. No liberties have been
taken with the text of their writings, except to abridge by
omissions, which are indicated by the customary signs. Occasional
interpolations are marked by enclosure in brackets. Abridgment by
paraphrasing has only been resorted to when unavoidable, and is
shown by the interruption of quotation marks. In the matter of
different spellings, it has been more difficult to preserve for
each writer his own. As a rule this is done, in names, and in the
divergences between English and American orthography; but, since
much of the matter quoted has been taken from American editions
of English books, and since both copyists and printers have
worked under the habit of American spellings, the rule may not
have governed with strict consistency throughout.

J. N. L.

The Buffalo Library,
_Buffalo, New York, December,_ 1893.


Acknowledgments.

In my preface I have acknowledged in general terms the courtesy
and liberality of authors and publishers, by whose permission I
have used much of the matter quoted in this work. I think it now
proper to make the acknowledgment more specific by naming those
persons and publishing houses to whom I am in debt for such kind
permissions. They are as follows:


Authors.

Professor Evelyn Abbott;
President Charles Kendall Adams;
Professor Herbert B. Adams;
Professor Joseph H. Allen;
Sir William Anson, Bart.;
Reverend Henry M. Baird;
Mr. Hubert Howe Bancroft;
Honorable S. G. W. Benjamin;
Mr. Walter Besant;
Professor Albert S. Bolles;
John G. Bourinot, F. S. S.;
Mr. Henry Bradley;
Reverend James Franck Bright;
Daniel G. Brinton, M. D.;
Professor William Hand Browne;
Professor George Bryce;
Right Honorable James Bryce, M. P.;
J. B. Bury, M. A.;
Mr. Lucien Carr;
Gen. Henry B. Carrington;
Mr. John D. Champlin, Jr.;
Mr. Charles Carleton Coffin;
Honorable Thomas M. Cooley;
Professor Henry Coppée;
Reverend Sir George W. Cox, Bart.;
Gen. Jacob Dolson Cox;
Mrs. Cox (for "'Three Decades of Federal Legislation," by the
  late Honorable Samuel S. Cox);
Professor Thomas F. Crane;
Right Reverend Mandell Creighton, Bishop of Peterborough;
Honorable J. L. M. Curry;
Honorable George Ticknor Curtis;
Professor Robert K. Douglas;
J. A. Doyle, M. A.;
Mr. Samuel Adams Drake;
Sir Mountstuart E. Grant-Duff;
Honorable Sir Charles Gaven Duffy;
Mr. Charles Henry Eden;
Mr. Henry Sutherland Edwards;
Orrin Leslie Elliott, Ph. D.;
Mr. Loyall Farragut;
The Ven. Frederic William Farrar, Archdeacon of Westminster;
Professor George Park Fisher;
Professor John Fiske;
Mr. William. E. Foster;
Professor William Warde Fowler;
Professor Edward A. Freeman;
Professor James Anthony Froude;
Mr. James Gairdner;
Arthur Gilman, M. A.;
Mr. Parke Godwin;
Mrs. M. E. Gordon (for the "History of the Campaigns of the
Army of Virginia under Gen. Pope," by the late Gen. George H.
Gordon);
Reverend Sabine Baring-Gould;
Mr. Ulysses S. Grant, Jr. (for the "Personal Memoirs" of the
late Gen. Grant);
Mrs. John Richard Green (for her own writings and for those
of the late John Richard Green);
William Greswell, M. B.;
Major Arthur Griffiths;
Frederic Harrison, M. A.;
Professor Albert Bushnell Hart;
Mr. William Heaton;
Colonel Thomas Wentworth Higginson;
Professor B. A. Hinsdale;
Miss Margaret L. Hooper (for the writings of the late
Mr. George Hooper);
Reverend Robert F. Horton;
Professor James K. Hosmer;
Colonel Henry M. Hozier;
Reverend William Hunt;
Sir William Wilson Hunter;
Professor Edmund James;
Mr. Rossiter Johnson;
Mr. John Foster Kirk;
The Very Reverend George William Kitchin, Dean of Winchester;
Colonel Thomas W. Knox;
Mr. J. S. Landon;
Honorable Emily Lawless;
William E. H. Lecky, LL. D., D. C. L.;
Mrs. Margaret Levi (for the "History of British Commerce,"
by the late Dr. Leone Levi);
Professor Charlton T. Lewis;
The Very Reverend Henry George Liddell, Dean of Christ Church, Oxford;
Honorable Henry Cabot Lodge;
Richard Lodge, M. A.;
Reverend W. J. Loftie;
Mrs. Mary S. Long (for the "Life of General Robert E. Lee," by
the late Gen. A. L. Long);
Mrs. Helen Lossing (for the writings of the late Benson J. Lossing);
Charles Lowe, M. A.;
Charles P. Lucas, B. A.;
Justin McCarthy, M. P.;
Professor John Bach McMaster;
Honorable Edward McPherson,
Professor John P. Mahaffy;
Capt. Alfred T. Mahan, U. S. N.;
Colonel George B. Malleson;
Clements R. Markham, C. B., F. R. S.;
Professor David Masson;
The Very Reverend Charles Merivale, Dean of Ely;
Professor John Henry Middleton;
Mr. J. G. Cotton Minchin;
William R. Morfill, M. A.;
Right Honorable John Morley, M. P.;
Mr. John T. Morse, Jr.;
Sir William Muir;
Mr. Harold Murdock;
Reverend Arthur Howard Noll;
Miss Kate Norgate;
C. W. C. Oman, M. A.;
Mr. John C. Palfrey (for "History of New England," by the late
John Gorham Palfrey);
Francis Parkman, LL. D.;
Edward James Payne, M. A.;
Charles Henry Pearson, M. A.;
Mr. James Breck Perkins;
Mrs. Mary E. Phelan (for the "History of Tennessee," by the
late James Phelan);
Colonel George E. Pond;
Reginald L. Poole, Ph. D.;
Mr. Stanley Lane-Poole;
William F. Poole, LL. D.;
Major John W. Powell;
Mr. John W. Probyn;
Professor John Clark Ridpath;
Honorable Ellis H. Roberts;
Honorable Theodore Roosevelt;
Mr. John Codman Ropes;
J. H. Rose, M. A.;
Professor Josiah Royce;
Reverend Philip Schaff;
James Schouler, LL. D.;
Honorable Carl Schurz;
Mr. Eben Greenough Scott;
Professor J. R. Seeley;
Professor Nathaniel Southgate Shaler;
Mr. Edward Morse Shepard;
Colonel M. V. Sheridan (for the "Personal Memoirs" of the
late Gen. Sheridan);
Mr. P. T. Sherman (for the "Memoirs" of the late Gen. Sherman);
Samuel Smiles, LL. D.;
Professor Goldwin Smith;
Professor James Russell Soley;
Mr. Edward Stanwood;
Leslie Stephen, M. A.;
H. Morse Stephens, M. A.;
Mr. Simon Sterne;
Charles J. Stillé, LL. D.;
Sir John Strachey;
Right Reverend William Stubbs, Bishop of Peterborough;
Professor William Graham Sumner;
Professor Frank William Taussig;
Mr. William Roscoe Thayer;
Professor Robert H. Thurston;
Mr. Telemachus T. Timayenis;
Henry D. Traill, D. C. L.;
Gen. R. de Trobriand;
Mr. Bayard Tuckerman;
Samuel Epes Turner, Ph. D.;
Professor Herbert Tuttle;
Professor Arminius Vambéry;
Mr. Henri Van Laun;
Gen. Francis A. Walker;
Sir D. Mackenzie Wallace;
Spencer Walpole, LL. D.;
Alexander Stewart Webb, LL. D.;
Mr. J. Talboys Wheeler;
Mr. Arthur Silva White;
Sir Monier Monier-Williams;
Justin Winsor, LL. D.;
Reverend Frederick C. Woodhouse;
John Yeats, LL: D.;
Miss Charlotte M. Yonge.


Publishers.

_London_:

Messrs.
W. H. Allen & Company;
Asher & Company;
George Bell & Sons;
Richard Bentley & Son;
Bickers & Sons;
A. & C. Black;
Cassell & Company;
Chapman & Hall;
Chatto & Windus:
Thomas De La Rue & Company;
H. Grevel & Company;
Griffith, Farran & Company;
William Heinemann:
Hodder & Stoughton;
Macmillan & Company;
Methuen & Company;
John Murray;
John C. Nimmo;
Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Company;
George Philip & Son;
The Religious Tract Society;
George Routledge & Sons;
Seeley & Company;
Smith, Elder & Company;
Society for the Promotion of Christian Knowledge;
Edward Stanford;
Stevens & Haynes;
Henry Stevens & Son;
Elliot Stock;
Swan Sonnenschein & Company;
The Times;
T. Fisher Unwin;
Ward, Lock, Bowden & Company;
Frederick Warne & Company;
Williams & Norgate.


_New York:_

Messrs.
D. Appleton & Company;
Armstrong & Company;
A. S. Barnes & Company;
The Century Company;
T. Y. Crowell & Company;
Derby & Miller:
Dick & Fitzgerald;
Dodd, Mead & Company;
Harper & Brothers;
Henry Holt & Company;
Townsend MacCoun;
G. P. Putnam's Sons;
Anson D. F. Randolph & Company;
D. J. Sadler & Company;
Charles Scribner's Sons;
Charles L. Webster & Company;

_Edinburgh:_

Messrs.
William Blackwood & Sons;
W. & R. Chambers;
David Douglas;
Thomas Nelson & Sons;
W. P. Nimmo;
Hay & Mitchell;
The Scottish Reformation Society.

_Philadelphia:_

Messrs.
L. H. Everts & Company;
J. B. Lippincott Company;
Oldach & Company;
Porter & Coates.

_Boston:_

Messrs.
Estes & Lauriat;
Houghton, Mifflin & Company;
Little, Brown & Company;
D. Lothrop Company;
Roberts Brothers.

_Dublin:_

Messrs.
James Duffy & Company;
Hodges, Figgis & Company;
J. J. Lalor.

_Chicago:_

Messrs.
Callaghan & Company;
A. C. McClurg & Company;

_Cincinnati:_

Messrs.
Robert Clarke & Company;
Jones Brothers Publishing Company;

_Hartford, Connecticut:_

Messrs.
O. D. Case & Company;
S. S. Scranton & Company;

_Albany:_

Messrs.
Joel Munsell's Sons.

_Cambridge, England_:

The University Press.

_Norwich, Connecticut:_

The Henry Bill Publishing Company;

_Oxford:_

The Clarendon Press.

_Providence, R. I._

J. A. & R. A. Reid.


A list of books quoted from will be given in the final volume. I
am greatly indebted to the remarkable kindness of a number of
eminent historical scholars, who have critically examined the
proof sheets of important articles and improved them by their
suggestions. My debt to Miss Ellen M. Chandler, for assistance
given me in many ways, is more than I can describe.

In my publishing arrangements I have been most fortunate, and I
owe the good fortune very largely to a number of friends, among
whom it is just that I should name Mr. Henry A. Richmond,
Mr. George E. Matthews, and Mr. John G. Milburn. There is no
feature of these arrangements so satisfactory to me as that which
places the publication of my book in the hands of the Company of
which Mr. Charles A. Nichols, of Springfield, Massachusetts, is
the head.

I think myself fortunate, too, in the association of my work with
that of Mr. Alan C. Reiley, from whose original studies and
drawings the greater part of the historical maps in these volumes
have been produced.

J. N. Larned.


List Of Maps And Plans.

'Ethnographic map of Modern Europe,'
  Preceding the title-page.
Map of American Discovery and Settlement,
   To follow page 46
Plan of Athens, and Harbors of Athens,
   On page 145 Plan of Athenian house,
On page 162 Four development maps of Austria,
   To follow page 196
Ethnographic map of Austria-Hungary,
   On page 197
Four development maps of Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula,
   To follow page 242
Map of the Balkan and Danubian States, showing changes during
the present century,
   On page 244
Map of Burgundy under Charles the Bold,
   To follow page 332
Development map showing the diffusion of Christianity,
   To follow page 432


Logical Outlines, In Colors.

Athenian and Greek history, To follow page 144.
Austrian history, To follow page 198.


Chronological Tables.

The Seventeenth Century:
   First half and second half,  To follow page 208.
   To the Peloponnesian War,  and Fourth and Third Centuries, B. C.,
   To follow page 166.


Appendices To Volume I.

A. Notes to Ethnographic map;
   by Mr. A. C. Reiley.

B. Notes to four maps of Asia Minor and the Balkan Peninsula;
   by  Mr. A. C. Reiley.

C. Notes to map of the Balkan Peninsula in the present century;
   by  Mr. A. C. Reiley.

D. Notes to map showing the diffusion of Christianity;
   Mr. A. C. Reiley.

E. Notes on the American Aborigines;
   by Major J. W. Powell and
   Mr. J. Owen Dorsey, of the United States Bureau of Ethnology.

F. Bibliography of America
   (Discovery, Exploration, Settlement, Archæology, and Ethnology),
   and of Austria.


{1}

History For Ready Reference.

A. C. Ante Christum;
   used sometimes instead of the more familiar abbreviation,
   B. C.--Before Christ.

A. D. Anno Domini;
   The Year of Our Lord.

      See ERA, CHRISTIAN.

A. E. I. O. U.

   "The famous device of Austria, A. E. I. O. U., was first used
   by Frederic III. [1440-1493], who adopted it on his plate,
   books, and buildings. These initials stand for 'Austriae Est
   Imperare Orbi Universo'; or, in German, 'Alles Erdreich Ist
   Osterreich Unterthan': a bold assumption for a man who was not
   safe in an inch of his dominions."

      _H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, volume 2, page 89, foot-note._

A. H. Anno Hejiræ.

     See ERA, MAHOMETAN.

A. M.

   "Anno Mundi;" the Year of the World, or the year from the
   beginning of the world, according to the formerly accepted
   chronological reckoning of Archbishop Usher and others.

A. U. C., OR U. C.

   "Ab urbe condita," from the founding of the city; or "Anno
   urbis Conditæ," the year from the founding of the city; the
   Year of Rome.

      See ROME: B. C. 753.

AACHEN.

      See AIX-LA-CHAPELLE.

AARAU, Peace of (1712).

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1652-1789.

ABÆ, Oracle of.

      See ORACLES OF THE GREEKS.

ABBAS I. (called The Great), Shah of Persia; A. D. 1582-1627
Abbas II., A. D. 1641-1666.
Abbas III., A. D. 1732-1736.

ABBASSIDES, The rise, decline and fall of the.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 715-750; 763; and 815-945;
      also BAGDAD: A. D. 1258.

ABBEY.--ABBOT.--ABBESS.

      See MONASTERY.

ABDALLEES, The.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1747-1761.

ABDALMELIK, Caliph, A. D. 684-705.

ABD-EL-KADER,
   The War of the French in Algiers with.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1830-1846.

ABDICATIONS.
   Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria.

      See BULGARIA: A. D. 1878-1886.

  Amadeo of Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.

   Charles IV. and Ferdinand VII. of Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1807-1808.

   Charles V. Emperor.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561,
      and NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1555.

   Charles X. King of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1815-1830.

   Charles Albert, King of Sardinia.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

   Christina, Regent of Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1833-1846.

   Christina, Queen of Sweden.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1644-1697.

   Diocletian, Emperor.

      See ROME: A. D. 284-305.

   Ferdinand, Emperor of Austria.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.

   Louis Bonaparte, King of Holland.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1806-1810.

   Louis Philippe.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1841-1848.

   Milan, King of Servia.

      See SERVIA: A. D. 1882-1889.

   Pedro I., Emperor of Brazil, and King of Portugal.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1824-1889,
      and BRAZIL: A. D. 1825-1865.

   Ptolemy I. of Egypt.

      See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 297-280.

   Victor Emanuel I.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1820-1821.

   William I., King of Holland.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1884.

ABDUL-AZIZ, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1861-1876.

ABDUL-HAMID, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1774-1789.
Abdul-Hamid II., 1876-.

ABDUL-MEDJID, Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1839-1861.

ABEL, King of Denmark, A. D. 1250-1252.

ABENCERRAGES, The.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273, and 1476-1492.

ABENSBURG, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

ABERCROMBIE'S CAMPAIGN IN AMERICA.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A.D. 1758.

ABERDEEN MINISTRY, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1851-1852, and 1855.

ABIPONES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

ABJURATION OF HENRY IV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

ABNAKIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONKIN FAMILY.

ABO, Treaty of (1743).

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1740-1762.

ABOLITIONISM IN AMERICA, The Rise of.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1828-1832; and 1840-1847.

ABORIGINES, AMERICAN.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES.

ABOUKIR, Naval Battle of (or Battle of the Nile).

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

   Land-battle of (1799).

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

ABRAHAM, The Plains of.

   That part of the high plateau of Quebec on which the memorable
   victory of Wolfe was won, September 13, 1759. The plain was so
   called "from Abraham Martin, a pilot known as Maitre Abraham,
   who had owned a piece of land here in the early times of the
   colony."

       _F. Parkman, Montcalm and Wolfe, volume 2, page 289._

   For an account of the battle which gave distinction to the
   Plains of Abraham,

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1759, (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

ABSENTEEISM IN IRELAND.

   In Ireland, "the owners of about one-half the land do not live
   on or near their estates, while the owners of about one fourth do
   not live in the country. ... Absenteeism is an old evil, and
   in very early times received attention from the government.
   ... Some of the disadvantages to the community arising from
   the absence of the more wealthy and intelligent classes are
   apparent to everyone. Unless the landlord is utterly
   poverty-stricken or very unenterprising, 'there is
   a great deal more going on' when he is in the country. ... I
   am convinced that absenteeism is a great disadvantage to the
   country and the people. ... It is too much to attribute to it
   all the evils that have been set down to its charge. It is,
   however, an important consideration that the people regard it
   as a grievance; and think the twenty-five or thirty millions
   of dollars paid every year to these landlords, who are rarely
   or never in Ireland, is a tax grievous to be borne."

      _D. B. King, The Irish Question, pages 5-11._

{2}

ABSOROKOS, OR CROWS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

ABU-BEKR, Caliph, A. D. 632-634.

ABU KLEA, Battle of (1885).

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1884-1885.

ABUL ABBAS, Caliph, A. D. 750-754.

ABUNA OF ABYSSINIA.

   "Since the days of Frumentius [who introduced Christianity
   into Abyssinia in the 4th century] every orthodox Primate of
   Abyssinia has been consecrated by the Coptic Patriarch of the
   church of Alexandria, and has borne the title of Abuna"--or
   Abuna Salama, "Father of Peace."

      _H. M. Hozier, The British Expedition to Abyssinia,
      page 4._

ABURY, OR AVEBURY.--STONEHENGE.--CARNAC.

   "The numerous circles of stone or of earth in Britain and
   Ireland, varying in diameter from 30 or 40 feet up to 1,200,
   are to be viewed as temples standing in the closest possible
   relation to the burial-places of the dead. The most imposing
   group of remains of this kind in this country [England] is
   that of Avebury [Abury], near Devizes, in Wiltshire, referred
   by Sir John Lubbock to a late stage in the Neolithic or to the
   beginning of the bronze period. It consists of a large circle of
   unworked upright stones 1,200 feet in diameter, surrounded by
   a fosse, which in turn is also surrounded by a rampart of
   earth. Inside are the remains of two concentric circles of
   stone, and from the two entrances in the rampart proceeded
   long avenues flanked by stones, one leading to Beckhampton,
   and the other to West Kennett, where it formerly ended in
   another double circle. Between them rises Silbury Hill, the
   largest artificial mound in Great Britain, no less than 130
   feet in height. This group of remains was at one time second
   to none, 'but unfortunately for us [says Sir John Lubbock] the
   pretty little village of Avebury [Abury], like some beautiful
   parasite, has grown up at the expense and in the midst of the
   ancient temple, and out of 650 great stones, not above twenty
   are still standing. In spite of this it is still to be classed
   among the finest ruins in Europe. The famous temple of Stonehenge
   on Salisbury Plain is probably of a later date than Avebury,
   since not only are some of the stones used in its construction
   worked, but the surrounding barrows are more elaborate than
   those in the neighbourhood of the latter. It consisted of a
   circle 100 feet in diameter, of large upright blocks of sarsen
   stone, 12 feet 7 inches high, bearing imposts dovetailed into
   each other, so as to form a continuous architrave. Nine feet
   within this was a circle of small foreign stones ... and
   within this five great trilithons of sarsen stone, forming a
   horse-shoe; then a horse-shoe of foreign stones, eight feet
   high, and in the centre a slab of micaceous sandstone called
   the altar-stone. ... At a distance of 100 feet from the outer
   line a small ramp, with a ditch outside, formed the outer
   circle, 300 feet in diameter, which cuts a low barrow and
   includes another, and therefore is evidently of later date
   than some of the barrows of the district."

      _W. B. Dawkins; Early Man in Britain, chapter 10._

   "Stonehenge ... may, I think, be regarded as a monument of the
   Bronze Age, though apparently it was not all erected at one time,
   the inner circle of small, unwrought, blue stones being
   probably older than the rest; as regards Abury, since the
   stones are all in their natural condition, while those of
   Stonehenge are roughly hewn, it seems reasonable to conclude
   that Abury is the older of the two, and belongs either to the
   close of the Stone Age, or to the commencement of that of
   Bronze. Both Abury and Stonehenge were, I believe, used as
   temples. Many of the stone circles, however, have been proved
   to be burial places. In fact, a complete burial place may be
   described as a dolmen, covered by a tumulus, and surrounded by
   a stone circle. Often, however, we have only the tumulus,
   sometimes only the dolmen, and sometimes again only the stone
   circle. The celebrated monument of Carnac, in Brittany,
   consists of eleven rows of unhewn stones, which differ greatly
   both in size and height, the largest being 22 feet above ground,
   while some are quite small. It appears that the avenues
   originally extended for several miles, but at present they are
   very imperfect, the stones having been cleared away in places for
   agricultural improvements. At present, therefore, there are
   several detached portions, which, however, have the same
   general direction, and appear to have been connected together.
   ... Most of the great tumuli in Brittany probably belong to the
   Stone Age, and I am therefore disposed to regard Carnac as
   having been erected during the same period."

      _Sir J. Lubbock, Prehistoric Times, chapter 5._

ABYDOS.

   An ancient city on the Asiatic side of the Hellespont,
   mentioned in the Iliad as one of the towns that were in
   alliance with the Trojans. Originally Thracian, as is
   supposed, it became a colony of Miletus, and passed at
   different times under Persian, Athenian, Lacedæmonian and
   Macedonian rule. Its site was at the narrowest point of the
   Hellespont--the scene of the ancient romantic story of Hero
   and Leander--nearly opposite to the town of Sestus. It was in
   the near neighborhood of Abydos that Xerxes built his bridge
   of boats; at Abydos, Alcibiades and the Athenians won an
   important victory over the Peloponnesians.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480, and 411-407.

ABYDOS, Tablet of.

   One of the most valuable records of Egyptian history, found in
   the ruins of Abydos and now preserved in the British Museum. It
   gives a list of kings whom Ramses II. selected from among his
   ancestors to pay homage to. The tablet was much mutilated when
   found, but another copy more perfect has been unearthed by M.
   Mariette, which supplies nearly all the names lacking on the
   first.

      _F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History of the East,
      volume 1, book 3._

ABYSSINIA: Embraced in ancient Ethiopia.

      See ETHIOPIA.

ABYSSINIA: Fourth Century.
   Conversion to Christianity.

   "Whatever may have been the effect produced in his native
   country by the conversion of Queen Candace's treasurer,
   recorded in the Acts of the Apostles [chapter VIII.], it would
   appear to have been transitory; and the Ethiopian or
   Abyssinian church owes its origin to an expedition made early
   in the fourth century by Meropius, a philosopher of Tyre, for
   the purpose of scientific inquiry. On his voyage homewards, he
   and his companions were attacked at a place where they had
   landed in search of water, and all were massacred except two
   youths, Ædesius and Frumentius, the relatives and pupils of
   Meropius. These were carried to the king of the country, who
   advanced Ædesius to be his cup-bearer, and Frumentius to be
   his secretary and treasurer. On the death of the king, who
   left a boy as his heir, the two strangers, at the request of
   the widowed queen, acted as regents of the kingdom until the
   prince came of age. Ædesius then returned to Tyre, where he
   became a presbyter. Frumentius, who, with the help of such
   Christian traders as visited the country, had already
   introduced the Christian doctrine and worship into Abyssinia,
   repaired to Alexandria, related his story to Athanasius, and
   ... Athanasius ... consecrated him to the bishoprick of Axum
   [the capital of the Abyssinain kingdom]. The church thus
   founded continues to this day subject to the see of
   Alexandria."

      _J. C. Robertson, History of the Christian Church, 
	  book 2, chapter 6._

{3}

ABYSSINIA: 6th to 16th Centuries.
   Wars in Arabia.
   Struggle with the Mahometans.
   Isolation from the Christian world.

   "The fate of the Christian church among the Homerites in
   Arabia Felix afforded an opportunity for the Abyssinians,
   under the reigns of the Emperors Justin and Justinian, to show
   their zeal in behalf of the cause of the Christians. The
   prince of that Arabian population, Dunaan, or Dsunovas, was a
   zealous adherent of Judaism; and, under pretext of avenging
   the oppressions which his fellow-believers were obliged to
   suffer in the Roman empire, he caused the Christian merchants
   who came from that quarter and visited Arabia for the purposes
   of trade, or passed through the country to Abyssinia, to be
   murdered. Elesbaan, the Christian king of Abyssinia, made this
   a cause for declaring war on the Arabian prince. He conquered
   Dsunovas, deprived him of the government, and set up a
   Christian, by the name of Abraham, as king in his stead. But
   at the death of the latter, which happened soon after,
   Dsunovas again made himself master of the throne; and it was a
   natural consequence of what he had suffered, that he now
   became a fiercer and more cruel persecutor than he was before.
   ... Upon this, Elesbaan interfered once more, under the reign
   of the emperor Justinian, who stimulated him to the
   undertaking. He made a second expedition to Arabia Felix, and
   was again victorious. Dsunovas lost his life in the war; the
   Abyssinian prince put an end to the ancient, independent
   empire of the Homerites, and established a new government
   favourable to the Christians."

      _A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion
      and Church, second period, section 1._

   "In the year 592, as nearly as can be calculated from the
   dates given by the native writers, the Persians, whose power
   seems to have kept pace with the decline of the Roman empire,
   sent a great force against the Abyssinians, possessed
   themselves once more of Arabia, acquired a naval superiority
   in the gulf, and secured the principal ports on either side of
   it."

   "It is uncertain how long these conquerors retained their
   acquisition; but, in all probability their ascendancy gave way
   to the rising greatness of the Mahometan power; which soon
   afterwards overwhelmed all the nations contiguous to Arabia,
   spread to the remotest parts of the East, and even penetrated
   the African deserts from Egypt to the Congo. Meanwhile
   Abyssinia, though within two hundred miles of the walls of
   Mecca, remained unconquered and true to the Christian faith;
   presenting a mortifying and galling object to the more zealous
   followers of the Prophet. On this account, implacable and
   incessant wars ravaged her territories. ... She lost her
   commerce, saw her consequence annihilated, her capital
   threatened, and the richest of her provinces laid waste. ...
   There is reason to apprehend that she must shortly have sunk
   under the pressure of repeated invasions, had not the
   Portuguese arrived [in the 16th century] at a seasonable
   moment to aid her endeavours against the Moslem chiefs."

      _M. Russell, Nubia and Abyssinia, chapter 3._

   "When Nubia, which intervenes between Egypt and Abyssinia,
   ceased to be a Christian country, owing to the destruction of
   its church by the Mahometans, the Abyssinian church was cut
   off from communication with the rest of Christendom. ... They
   [the Abyssinians] remain an almost unique specimen of a
   semi-barbarous Christian people. Their worship is strangely
   mixed with Jewish customs."

      _H. F. Tozer, The Church and the Eastern Empire, chapter 5._

ABYSSINIA: Fifteenth-Nineteenth Centuries.
   European Attempts at Intercourse.
   Intrusion of the Gallas.
   Intestine conflicts.

   "About the middle of the 15th century, Abyssinia came in
   contact with Western Europe. An Abyssinian convent was endowed
   at Rome, and legates were sent from the Abyssinian convent at
   Jerusalem to the council of Florence. These adhered to the
   Greek schism. But from that time the Church of Rome made an
   impress upon Ethiopia. ... Prince Henry of Portugal ... next
   opened up communication with Europe. He hoped to open up a
   route from the West to the East coast of Africa [see PORTUGAL:
   A. D. 1415-1460], by which the East Indies might be reached
   without touching Mahometan territory. During his efforts to
   discover such a passage to India, and to destroy the revenues
   derived by the Moors from the spice trade, he sent an
   ambassador named Covillan to the Court of Shoa. Covillan was
   not suffered to return by Alexander, the then Negoos [or
   Negus, or Nagash--the title of the Abyssinian sovereign]. He
   married nobly, and acquired rich possessions in the country.
   He kept up correspondence with Portugal, and urged Prince
   Henry to diligently continue his efforts to discover the
   Southern passage to the East. In 1498 the Portuguese effected
   the circuit of Africa. The Turks shortly afterwards extended
   their conquests towards India, where they were baulked by the
   Portuguese, but they established a post and a toll at Zeyla,
   on the African coast. From here they hampered and threatened
   to destroy the trade of Abyssinia," and soon, in alliance with
   the Mahometan tribes of the coast, invaded the country. "They
   were defeated by the Negoos David, and at the same time the
   Turkish town of Zeyla was stormed and burned by a Portuguese
   fleet." Considerable intimacy of friendly relations was
   maintained for some time between the against the Turks.
{4}
   Abyssinians and the Portuguese, who assisted in defending them
   "In the middle of the 16th century ... a
   migration of Gallas came from the South and swept up to and
   over the confines of Abyssinia. Men of lighter complexion and
   fairer skin than most Africans, they were Pagan in religion
   and savages in customs. Notwithstanding frequent efforts to
   dislodge them, they have firmly established themselves. A
   large colony has planted itself on the banks of the Upper
   Takkazie, the Jidda and the Bashilo. Since their establishment
   here they have for the most part embraced the creed of
   Mahomet. The province of Shoa is but an outlier of Christian
   Abyssinia, separated completely from co-religionist districts
   by these Galla bands. About the same time the Turks took a
   firm hold of Massowah and of the lowland by the coast, which
   had hitherto been ruled by the Abyssinian Bahar Nagash.
   Islamism and heathenism surrounded Abyssinia, where the lamp
   of Christianity faintly glimmered amidst dark superstition in
   the deep recesses of rugged valleys." In 1558 a Jesuit mission
   arrived in the country and established itself at Fremona. "For
   nearly a century Fremona existed, and its superiors were the
   trusted advisors of the Ethiopian throne. ... But the same
   fate which fell upon the company of Jesus in more civilized
   lands, pursued it in the wilds of Africa. The Jesuit
   missionaries were universally popular with the Negoos, but the
   prejudice of the people refused to recognise the benefits
   which flowed from Fremona." Persecution befell the fathers,
   and two of them won the crown of martyrdom. The Negoos,
   Facilidas, "sent for a Coptic Abuna [ecclesiastical primate]
   from Alexandria, and concluded a treaty with the Turkish
   governors of Massowah and Souakin to prevent the passage of
   Europeans into his dominions. Some Capuchin preachers, who
   attempted to evade this treaty and enter Abyssinia, met with
   cruel deaths. Facilidas thus completed the work of the Turks
   and the Gallas, and shut Abyssinia out from European influence
   and civilization. ... After the expulsion of the Jesuits,
   Abyssinia was torn by internal feuds and constantly harassed
   by the encroachments of and wars with the Gallas. Anarchy and
   confusion ruled supreme. Towns and villages were burnt down,
   and the inhabitants sold into slavery. ... Towards the middle
   of the 18th century the Gallas appear to have increased
   considerably in power. In the intestine quarrels of Abyssinia
   their alliance was courted by each side, and in their country
   political refugees obtained a secure asylum." During the early
   years of the present century, the campaigns in Egypt attracted
   English attention to the Red Sea. "In 1804 Lord Valentia, the
   Viceroy of India, sent his Secretary, Mr. Salt, into
   Abyssinia;" but Mr. Salt was unable to penetrate beyond Tigre.
   In 1810 he attempted a second mission and again failed. It was
   not until 1848 that English attempts to open diplomatic and
   commercial relations with Abyssinia became successful. Mr.
   Plowden was appointed consular agent, and negotiated a treaty
   of commerce with Ras Ali, the ruling Galla chief."

      _H. M. Hozier, The British Expedition to Abyssinia,
      Introduction._

ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.
   Advent of King Theodore.
   His English captives and the Expedition which released them.

   "Consul Plowden had been residing six years at Massowah when
   he heard that the Prince to whom he had been accredited, Ras
   Ali, had been defeated and dethroned by an adventurer, whose
   name, a few years before, had been unknown outside the
   boundaries of his native province. This was Lij Kâsa, better
   known by his adopted name of Theodore. He was born of an old
   family, in the mountainous region of Kwara, where the land
   begins to slope downwards towards the Blue Nile, and educated
   in a convent, where he learned to read, and acquired a
   considerable knowledge of the Scriptures. Kâsa's convent life
   was suddenly put an end to, when one of those marauding Galla
   bands, whose ravages are the curse of Abyssinia, attacked and
   plundered the monastery. From that time he himself took to the
   life of a freebooter. ... Adventurers flocked to his standard;
   his power continually increased; and in 1854 he defeated Ras
   Ali in a pitched battle, and made himself master of central
   Abyssinia." In 1855 he overthrew the ruler of Tigre. "He now
   resolved to assume a title commensurate with the wide extent
   of his dominion. In the church of Derezgye he had himself
   crowned by the Abuna as King of the Kings of Ethiopia, taking
   the name of Theodore, because an ancient tradition declared
   that a great monarch would some day arise in Abyssinia." Mr.
   Plowden now visited the new monarch, was impressed with
   admiration of his talents and character, and became his
   counsellor and friend. But in 1860 the English consul lost his
   life, while on a journey, and Theodore, embittered by several
   misfortunes, began to give rein to a savage temper. "The
   British Government, on hearing of the death of Plowden,
   immediately replaced him at Massowah by the appointment of
   Captain Cameron." The new Consul was well received, and was
   entrusted by the Abyssinian King with a letter addressed to
   the Queen of England, soliciting her friendship. The letter,
   duly despatched to its destination, was pigeon-holed in the
   Foreign Office at London, and no reply to it was ever made.
   Insulted and enraged by this treatment, and by other evidences
   of the indifference of the British Government to his
   overtures, King Theodore, in January, 1864, seized and
   imprisoned Consul Cameron with all his suite. About the same
   time he was still further offended by certain passages in a
   book on Abyssinia that had been published by a missionary
   named Stern. Stern and a fellow missionary, Rosenthal with the
   latter's wife, were lodged in prison, and subjected to flogging
   and torture. The first step taken by the British Government,
   when news of Consul Cameron's imprisonment reached England,
   was to send out a regular mission to Abyssinia, bearing a
   letter signed by the Queen, demanding the release of the
   captives. The mission, headed by a Syrian named Rassam, made
   its way to the King's presence in January, 1866. Theodore
   seemed to be placated by the Queen's epistle and promised
   freedom to his prisoners. But soon his moody mind became
   filled with suspicions as to the genuineness of Rassam's
   credentials from the Queen, and as to the designs and
   intentions of all the foreigners who were in his power. He was
   drinking heavily at the time, and the result of his "drunken
   cogitations was a determination to detain the mission--at any
   rate until by their means he should have obtained a supply of
   skilled artisans and machinery from England."
{5}
   Mr. Rassam and his companions were accordingly put into
   confinement, as Captain Cameron had been. But they were
   allowed to send a messenger to England, making their situation
   known, and conveying the demand of King Theodore that a man be
   sent to him "who can make cannons and muskets." The demand was
   actually complied with. Six skilled artisans and a civil
   engineer were sent out, together with a quantity of machinery
   and other presents, in the hope that they would procure the
   release of the unfortunate captives at Magdala. Almost a year
   was wasted in these futile proceedings, and it was not until
   September, 1867, that an expedition consisting of 4,000
   British and 8,000 native troops, under General Sir Robert
   Napier, was sent from India to bring the insensate barbarian
   to terms. It landed in Annesley Bay, and, overcoming enormous
   difficulties with regard to water, food-supplies and
   transportation, was ready, about the middle of January, 1868,
   to start upon its march to the fortress of Magdala, where
   Theodore's prisoners were confined. The distance was 400
   miles, and several high ranges of mountains had to be passed
   to reach the interior table-land. The invading army met with
   no resistance until it reached the Valley of the Beshilo, when
   it was attacked (April 10) on the plain of Aroge or Arogi, by
   the whole force which Theodore was able to muster, numbering a
   few thousands, only, of poorly armed men. The battle was
   simply a rapid slaughtering of the barbaric assailants, and
   when they fled, leaving 700 or 800 dead and 1,500 wounded on
   the field, the Abyssinian King had no power of resistance
   left. He offered at once to make peace, surrendering all the
   captives in his hands; but Sir Robert Napier required an
   unconditional submission, with a view to displacing him from
   the throne, in accordance with the wish and expectation which
   he had found to be general in the country. Theodore refused
   these terms, and when (April 13) Magdala was bombarded and
   stormed by the British troops--slight resistance being
   made--he shot himself at the moment of their entrance to the
   place. The sovereignty he had successfully concentrated in
   himself for a time was again divided. Between April and June
   the English army was entirely withdrawn, and "Abyssinia was
   sealed up again from intercourse with the outer world."

      _Cassell's Illustrated History of England, 
	  volume 9, chapter 28._

   "The task of permanently uniting Abyssinia, in which Theodore
   failed, proved equally impracticable to John, who came to the
   front, in the first instance, as an ally of the British, and
   afterwards succeeded to the sovereignty. By his fall (10th
   March, 1889) in the unhappy war against the Dervishes or
   Moslem zealots of the Soudan, the path was cleared for Menilek
   of Shoa, who enjoyed the support of Italy. The establishment
   of the Italians on the Red Sea littoral ... promises a new era
   for Abyssinia."

      _T. Nöldeke, Sketches from Eastern History, chapter 9._

      ALSO IN
      _H. A. Stern, The Captive Missionary._

      _H. M. Stanley, Coomassie and Magdala, part 2._

ACABA, the Pledges of.

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

ACADEMY, The Athenian.

   "The Academia, a public garden in the neighbourhood of Athens,
   was the favourite resort of Plato, and gave its name to the
   school which he founded. This garden was planted with lofty
   plane-trees, and adorned with temples and statues; a gentle
   stream rolled through it."

      _G. H. Lewes, Biog. History of Philosophy, 6th Epoch_.

   The masters of the great schools of philosophy at Athens "chose
   for their lectures and discussions the public buildings which
   were called gymnasia, of which there were several in different
   quarters of the city. They could only use them by the sufferance
   of the State, which had built them chiefly for bodily
   exercises and athletic feats. ... Before long several of the
   schools drew themselves apart in special buildings, and even
   took their most familiar names, such as the Lyceum and the
   Academy, from the gymnasia in which they made themselves at
   home. Gradually we find the traces of some material
   provisions, which helped to define and to perpetuate the
   different sects. Plato had a little garden, close by the
   sacred Eleusinian Way, in the shady groves of the Academy,
   which he bought, says Plutarch, for some 3,000 drachmæ. There
   lived also his successors, Xenocrates and Polemon. ...
   Aristotle, as we know, in later life had taught in the Lyceum,
   in the rich grounds near the Ilissus, and there he probably
   possessed the house and garden which after his death came into
   the hands of his successor, Theophrastus."

      _W. W. Capes, University life in Ancient Athens,
      pages. 31-33._

   For a description of the Academy, the Lyceum, and other
   gymnasia of Athens.

      See GYMNASIA GREEK.

  Concerning the suppression of the Academy,

      See ATHENS: A. D. 529.

ACADIA.

      See NOVA SCOTIA.

ACADIANS, The, and the British Government.
   Their expulsion.

      See NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730; 1749-1755, and 1755.

ACARNANIANS.

      See AKARNANIANS.

ACAWOIOS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

ACCAD.--ACCADIANS.

      See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

ACCOLADE.

   "The concluding sign of being dubbed or adopted into the order
   of knighthood was a slight blow given by the lord to the
   cavalier, and called the accolade, from the part of the body,
   the neck, whereon it was struck. ... Many writers have
   imagined that the accolade was the last blow which the soldier
   might receive with impunity: but this interpretation is
   not correct, for the squire was as jealous of his honour as
   the knight. The origin of the accolade it is impossible to
   trace, but it was clearly considered symbolical of the
   religious and moral duties of knighthood, and was the only
   ceremony used when knights were made in places (the field of
   battle, for instance), where time and circumstances did not
   allow of many ceremonies."

      _C. Mills, History of Chivalry, page 1, 53, and foot-note_.

ACHÆAN CITIES, League of the.

   This, which is not to be confounded with the "Achaian League"
   of Peloponnesus, was an early League of the Greek settlements
   in southern Italy, or Magna Græca. It was "composed of the
   towns of Siris, Pandosia, Metabus or Metapontum, Sybaris with
   its offsets Posidonia and Laus, Croton, Caulonia, Temesa,
   Terina and Pyxus. ... The language of Polybius regarding the
   Achæan symmachy in the Peloponnesus may be applied also to
   these Italian Achæans; 'not only did they live in federal and
   friendly communion, but they made use of the same laws, and
   the same weights, measures and coins, as well as of
   the same magistrates, councillors and judges.'"

      _T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 10._

{6}

ACHÆAN LEAGUE.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

ACHÆMENIDS, The.

   The family or dynastic name (in its Greek form) of the kings
   of the Persian Empire founded by Cyrus, derived from an
   ancestor, Achæmenes, who was probably a chief of the Persian
   tribe of the Pasargadæ. "In the inscription of Behistun, King
   Darius says: 'From old time we were kings; eight of my family
   have been kings, I am the ninth; from very ancient times we
   have been kings.' He enumerates his ancestors: 'My father was
   Vistaçpa, the father of Vistaçpa was Arsama; the father of
   Arsama was Ariyaramna, the father of Ariyaramna was Khaispis,
   the father of Khaispis was Hakhamanis; hence we are called
   Hakhamanisiya (Achæmenids).' In these words Darius gives the
   tree of his own family up to Khaispis; this was the younger
   branch of the Achæmenids. Teispes, the son of Achaemenes, had
   two sons; the elder was Cambyses (Kambujiya) the younger
   Ariamnes; the son of Cambyses was Cyrus (Kurus), the son of
   Cyrus was Cambyses II. Hence Darius could indeed maintain that
   eight princes of his family had preceded him; but it was not
   correct to maintain that they had been kings before him and
   that he was the ninth king."

      _M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, volume 5, book 8, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN
      _G. Rawlinson, Family of the Achæmenidæ, appendix to
      book 7 of Herodotus_.

      See, also, PERSIA, ANCIENT.

ACHAIA:

   "Crossing the river Larissus, and pursuing the northern coast
   of Peloponnesus south of the Corinthian Gulf, the traveller
   would pass into Achaia--a name which designated the narrow
   strip of level land, and the projecting spurs and declivities
   between that gulf and the northernmost mountains of the
   peninsula. ... Achaean cities--twelve in number at least, if
   not more--divided this long strip of land amongst them, from
   the mouth of the Larissus and the northwestern Cape Araxus on
   one side, to the western boundary of the Sikyon territory on
   the other. According to the accounts of the ancient legends
   and the belief of Herodotus, this territory had been once
   occupied by Ionian inhabitants, whom the Achaeans had
   expelled."

      _G. Grote, History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 4 (volume 2)._

   After the Roman conquest and the suppression of the Achaian
   League, the name Achaia was given to the Roman province then
   organized, which embraced all Greece south of Macedonia and
   Epirus.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

   "In the Homeric poems, where ... the 'Hellenes' only appear in
   one district of Southern Thessaly, the name Achæans is employed
   by preference as a general appelation for the whole race. But
   the Achæans we may term, without hesitation, a Pelasgian
   people, in so far, that is, as we use this name merely as the
   opposite of the term 'Hellenes,' which prevailed at a later
   time, although it is true that the Hellenes themselves were
   nothing more than a particular branch of the Pelasgian stock.
   ... [The name of the] Achæans, after it had dropped its
   earlier and more universal application, was preserved as the
   special name of a population dwelling in the north of the
   Peloponnese and the south of Thessaly."

      _Georg Friedrich Schömann, Antiquity of Greece:
      The State, Introduction._

   "The ancients regarded them [the Achæans] as a branch of the
   Æolians, with whom they afterwards reunited into one national
   body, i.e., not as an originally distinct nationality or
   independent branch of the Greek people. Accordingly, we hear
   neither of an Achæan language nor of Achæan art. A manifest
   and decided influence of the maritime Greeks, wherever the
   Achæans appear, is common to the latter with the Æolians.
   Achæans are everywhere settled on the coast, and are always
   regarded as particularly near relations of the Ionians. ...
   The Achæans appear scattered about in localities on the coast
   of the Ægean so remote from one another, that it is impossible
   to consider all bearing this name as fragments of a people
   originally united in one social community; nor do they in fact
   anywhere appear, properly speaking, as a popular body, as the
   main stock of the population, but rather as eminent families,
   from which spring heroes; hence the use of the expression
   'Sons of the Achæans' to indicate noble descent."

      _E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN
      _M. Duncker, History of Greece,
      book 1, chapter 2, and book 2, chapter 2._

      See, also,
      ACHAIA,
      and
      GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

ACHAIA: A. D. 1205-1387.
   Mediæval Principality.

   Among the conquests of the French and Lombard Crusaders in
   Greece, after the taking of Constantinople, was that of a
   major part of the Peloponnesus--then beginning to be called
   the Morea--by William de Champlitte, a French knight, assisted
   by Geffrey de Villehardouin, the younger--nephew and namesake
   of the Marshal of Champagne, who was chronicler of the
   conquest of the Empire of the East. William de Champlitte was
   invested with this Principality of Achaia, or of the Morea, as
   it is variously styled. Geffrey Villehardouin represented him
   in the government, as his "bailly," for a time, and finally
   succeeded in supplanting him. Half a century later the Greeks,
   who had recovered Constantinople, reduced the territory of the
   Principality of Achaia to about half the peninsula, and a
   destructive war was waged between the two races. Subsequently
   the Principality became a fief of the crown of Naples and
   Sicily, and underwent many changes of possession until the
   title was in confusion and dispute between the houses of
   Anjou, Aragon and Savoy. Before it was engulfed finally in the
   Empire of the Turks, it was ruined by their piracies and
   ravages.

      _G. Finlay, History of Greece from its Conquest by the
      Crusaders, chapter 8._

ACHMET I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1603-1617.
   Achmet II., 1691-1695.
   Achmet III., 1703-1730.

ACHRADINA.

   A part of the ancient city of Syracuse, Sicily, known as the
   "outer city," occupying the peninsula north of Ortygia, the
   island, which was the "inner city."

ACHRIDA, Kingdom of.

   After the death of John Zimisces who had reunited Bulgaria to
   the Byzantine Empire, the Bulgarians were roused to a struggle
   for the recovery of their independence, under the lead of four
   brothers of a noble family, all of whom soon perished save
   one, named Samuel. Samuel proved to be so vigorous and able a
   soldier and had so much success that he assumed presently the
   title of king. His authority was established over the greater
   part of Bulgaria, and extended into Macedonia, Epirus and
   Illyria. He established his capital at Achrida (modern
   Ochrida, in Albania), which gave its name to his kingdom. The
   suppression of this new Bulgarian monarchy occupied the
   Byzantine Emperor, Basil II., in wars from 981 until 1018,
   when its last strongholds, including the city of Achrida, were
   surrendered to him.

      _G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire from 716 to
      1057, book 2, chapter 2, section 2._

{7}

ACKERMAN, Convention of (1826).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

ACOLAHUS, The.

      See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE TOLTEC EMPIRE.

ACOLYTH, The.

      See VARANGIAN or WARING GUARD.

ACRABA, Battle of, A. D. 633.

   After the death of Mahomet, his successor, Abu Bekr, had to
   deal with several serious revolts, the most threatening of
   which was raised by one Moseilama, who had pretended, even in
   the life-time of the Prophet, to a rival mission of religion.
   The decisive battle between the followers of Moseilama and
   those of Mahomet was fought at Acraba, near Yemama. The
   pretender was slain and few of his army escaped.

      _Sir W. Muir, Annals of the Early Caliphate, chapter 7._

ACRABATTENE, Battle of.

   A sanguinary defeat of the Idumeans or Edomites by the Jews
   under Judas Maccabæus, B. C. 164.

      _Josephus, Antiquity of the Jews, book 12, chapter 8._

ACRAGAS.

      See AGRIGENTUM.

ACRE (St. Jean d'Acre, or Ptolemais): A. D. 1104.
   Conquest, Pillage and Massacre by the Crusaders and Genoese.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1104-1111.

ACRE: A. D.1187.
   Taken from the Christians by Saladin.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1149-1187.

ACRE: A. D. 1189-1191.
   The great siege and reconquest by the Crusaders.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1188-1192.

ACRE: A. D. 1256-1257.
   Quarrels and battles between the Genoese and Venetians.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1256-1257.

ACRE: A. D. 1291.
   The Final triumph of the Moslems.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1291.

ACRE: 18th Century.
   Restored to Importance by Sheik Daher.

   "Acre, or St. Jean d'Acre, celebrated under this name in the
   history of the Crusades, and in antiquity known by the name of
   Ptolemais, had, by the middle of the 18th century, been almost
   entirely forsaken, when Sheik Daher, the Arab rebel, restored
   its commerce and navigation. This able prince, whose sway
   comprehended the whole of ancient Galilee, was succeeded by
   the infamous tyrant, Djezzar-Pasha, who fortified Acre, and
   adorned it with a mosque, enriched with columns of antique
   marble, collected from all the neighbouring cities."

      _M. Malte-Brun, System of Univ. Geog., book 28 (volume 1)._

ACRE: A. D. 1799.--Unsuccessful Siege by Bonaparte.

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

ACRE: A. D. 1831-1840.
   Siege and Capture by Mehemed Ali.
   Recovery for the Sultan by the Western Powers.

      See TURKS: A. D.1831-1840.

ACROCERAUNIAN PROMONTORY.

      See KORKYRA.

ACROPOLIS OF ATHENS, The.

   "A road which, by running zigzag up the slope was rendered
   practicable for chariots, led from the lower city to the
   Acropolis, on the edge of the platform of which stood the
   Propylæa, erected by the architect Mnesicles in five years,
   during the administration of Pericles. ... On entering through
   the gates of the Propylæa a scene of unparalleled grandeur and
   beauty burst upon the eye. No trace of human dwellings
   anywhere appeared, but on all sides temples of more or less
   elevation, of Pentelic marble, beautiful in design and
   exquisitely delicate in execution, sparkled like piles of
   alabaster in the sun. On the left stood the Erectheion, or
   fane of Athena Polias; to the right, that matchless edifice
   known as the Hecatompedon of old, but to later ages as the
   Parthenon. Other buildings, all holy to the eyes of an
   Athenian, lay grouped around these master structures, and, in
   the open spaces between, in whatever direction the spectator
   might look, appeared statues, some remarkable for their
   dimensions, others for their beauty, and all for the legendary
   sanctity which surrounded them. No city of the ancient or
   modern world ever rivalled Athens in the riches of art. Our
   best filled museums, though teeming with her spoils, are poor
   collections of fragments compared with that assemblage of gods
   and heroes which peopled the Acropolis, the genuine Olympos of
   the arts."

      _J. A. St. John, The Hellenes, book 1, chapter 4._

   "Nothing in ancient Greece or Italy could be compared with the
   Acropolis of Athens, in its combination of beauty and grandeur,
   surrounded as it was by temples and theatres among its rocks,
   and encircled by a city abounding with monuments, some of
   which rivalled those of the Acropolis. Its platform formed one
   great sanctuary, partitioned only by the boundaries of the ...
   sacred portions. We cannot, therefore, admit the suggestion of
   Chandler, that, in addition to the temples and other monuments on
   the summit, there were houses divided into regular streets.
   This would not have been consonant either with the customs or
   the good taste of the Athenians. When the people of Attica
   crowded into Athens at the beginning of the Peloponnesian war,
   and religious prejudices gave way, in every possible case, to the
   necessities of the occasion, even then the Acropolis remained
   uninhabited. ... The western end of the Acropolis, which
   furnished the only access to the summit of the hill, was one
   hundred and sixty eight feet in breadth, an opening so narrow
   that it appeared practicable to the artists of Pericles to
   fill up the space with a single building which should serve
   the purpose of a gateway to the citadel, as well as of a
   suitable entrance to that glorious display of architecture and
   sculpture which was within the inclosure. This work [the
   Propylæa], the greatest production of civil architecture in
   Athens, which rivalled the Parthenon in felicity of execution,
   surpassed it in boldness and originality of design. ... It may be
   defined as a wall pierced with five doors, before which on
   both sides were Doric hexastyle porticoes."

      _W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, section 8._

      See, also, ATTICA.

ACT OF ABJURATION, The.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

ACT OF MEDIATION, The.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

ACT OF SECURITY.

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1703-1704.

ACT OF SETTLEMENT (English).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1701.

ACT OF SETTLEMENT (Irish).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1660-1665.

{8}

ACT RESCISSORY.

      See SCOTLAND; A. D. 1660-1666.

ACTIUM: B. C. 434.
   Naval Battle of the Greeks.

   A defeat inflicted upon the Corinthians by the Corcyrians, in
   the contest over Epidamnus which was the prelude to the
   Peloponnesian War.

      _E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 1._

ACTIUM: B. C. 31.
   The Victory of Octavius.

      See ROME: B. C. 31.

ACTS OF SUPREMACY.

      See SUPREMACY, ACTS OF;
      and ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534; and 1559.

ACTS OF UNIFORMITY.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1559 and 1662-1665.

ACULCO, Battle of (1810).

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1810-1819.

ACZ, Battle of (1849).

      See AUSTRIA, A. D. 1848-1849.

ADALOALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 616-626.

ADAMS, John, in the American Revolution.

      See
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774 (MAY-JUNE);
      1774 (SEPTEMBER); 1775 (MAY-AUGUST);
      1776 (JANUARY-JUNE), 1776 (JULY).

   In diplomatic service.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1782 (APRIL); 1782 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A.D. 1796-1801.

ADAMS, John Quincy.
   Negotiation of the Treaty of Ghent.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1814 (DECEMBER).

   Presidential election and administration.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1824-1829.

ADAMS, Samuel, in and after the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1772-1773;
      1774 (SEPTEMBER); 1775(MAY); 1787-1789.

ADDA, Battle of the (A. D. 490).

      See ROME: A. D. 488-526.

AD DECIMUS, Battle of (A. D. 533).

      See VANDALS: A. D. 533-534.

ADEL.--ADALING.--ATHEL.

   "The homestead of the original settler, his house,
   farm-buildings and enclosure, 'the toft and croft,' with the
   share of arable and appurtenant common rights, bore among the
   northern nations [early Teutonic] the name of Odal, or Edhel;
   the primitive mother village was an Athelby, or Athelham; the
   owner was an Athelbonde: the same word Adel or Athel signified
   also nobility of descent, and an Adaling was a nobleman.
   Primitive nobility and primitive landownership thus bore the
   same name."

      _William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 3, section 24._

      See, also, ALOD, and ETHEL.

ADELAIDE, The founding and naming of.

      See AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.

ADELANTADOS.-ADELANTAMIENTOS.

   "Adelantamientos was an early term for gubernatorial districts
   [in Spanish America, the governors bearing the title of
   Adelantados], generally of undefined limits, to be extended by
   further conquests."

      _H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
      volume 6 (Mexico, volume 3), page 520._

ADEODATUS II., Pope, A. D. 672-676.

ADIABENE.

   A name which came to be applied anciently to the tract of
   country east of the middle Tigris, embracing what was
   originally the proper territory of Assyria, together with
   Arbelitis. Under the Parthian monarchy it formed a tributary
   kingdom, much disputed between Parthia and Armenia. It was
   seized several times by the Romans, but never permanently
   held.

      _G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, page 140._

ADIRONDACKS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ADIRONDACKS.

ADIS, Battle of (B. C. 256).

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

ADITES, The.

   "The Cushites, the first inhabitants of Arabia, are known in
   the national traditions by the name of Adites, from their
   progenitor, who is called Ad, the grandson of Ham."

      _F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History, book 7, chapter 2._

      See ARABIA: THE ANCIENT SUCCESSION AND FUSION OF RACES.

ADJUTATORS.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1647 (APRIL-AUGUST).

ADLIYAH, The.
      See ISLAM.

ADOLPH (of Nassau), King of Germany, A. D. 1291-1298.

ADOLPHUS FREDERICK, King of Sweden, A. D. 1751-1771.

ADOPTIONISM.

   A doctrine, condemned as heretical in the eighth century,
   which taught that "Christ, as to his human nature, was not
   truly the Son of God, but only His son by adoption." The dogma
   is also known as the Felician heresy, from a Spanish bishop,
   Felix, who was prominent among its supporters. Charlemagne
   took active measures to suppress the heresy.

      _J. I. Mombert, History of Charles the Great, 
	  book 2, chapter 12._

ADRIA, Proposed Kingdom of.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.

ADRIAN VI., Pope, A. D. 1522-1523.

ADRIANOPLE.--HADRIANOPLE.

   A city in Thrace founded by the Emperor Hadrian and designated
   by his name. It was the scene of Constantine's victory over
   Licinius in A. D. 323 (see ROME: 'A. D. 305-323), and of the
   defeat and death of Valens in battle with the Goths (see GOTHS
   (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 378). In 1361 it became for some years the
   capital of the Turks in Europe (see TURKS: A. D. 1360-1389).
   It was occupied by the Russians in 1829, and again in 1878
   (see TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829, and A. D. 1877-1878), and gave
   its name to the Treaty negotiated in 1829 between Russia and
   the Porte (see GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829).

ADRIATIC, The Wedding of the.

      See VENICE: A. D. 1177, and 14TH CENTURY.

ADRUMETUM.

      See CARTHAGE, THE DOMINION OF.

ADUATUCI, The.

      See BELGÆ.

ADULLAM, Cave of.

   When David had been cast out by the Philistines, among whom he
   sought refuge from the enmity of Saul, "his first retreat was the
   Cave of Adullam, probably the large cavern not far from
   Bethlehem, now called Khureitun. From its vicinity to
   Bethlehem, he was joined there by his whole family, now
   feeling themselves insecure from Saul's fury. ... Besides
   these were outlaws from every part, including doubtless some
   of the original Canaanites--of whom the name of one at least
   has been preserved, Ahimelech the Hittite. In the vast
   columnar halls and arched chambers of this subterranean
   palace, all who had any grudge against the existing system
   gathered round the hero of the coming age."

      _Dean Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish
      Church, lecture 22._

ADULLAMITES, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1865-1868.

{9}

ADWALTON MOOR, Battle of (A. D. 1643).

   This was a battle fought near Bradford, June 29, 1643, in the
   great English Civil War. The Parliamentary forces, under Lord
   Fairfax, were routed by the Royalists, under Newcastle.

      _C. R. Markham, Life of the Great Lord Fairfax, chapter 11._

ÆAKIDS (Æacids).

   The supposed descendants of the demi-god Æakus, whose grandson
   was Achilles. (See MYRMIDONS.) Miltiades, the hero of Marathon,
   and Pyrrhus, the warrior King of Epirus, were among those
   claiming to belong to the royal race of Eakids.

ÆDHILING.

      See ETHEL.

ÆDILES, Roman.

      See ROME: B. C. 494-492.

ÆDUI.--ARVERNI.--ALLOBROGES.

   "The two most powerful nations in Gallia were the Ædui [or
   Hædui] and the Arverni. The Ædui occupied that part which lies
   between the upper valley of the Loire and the Saone, which river
   was part of the boundary between them and the Sequani. The
   Loire separated the Ædui from the Bituriges, whose chief town
   was Avaricum on the site of Bourges. At this time [B. C.121]
   the Arverni, the rivals of the Ædui, were seeking the
   supremacy in Gallia. The Arverni occupied the mountainous
   country of Auvergne in the centre of France and the fertile
   valley of the Elaver (Allier) nearly as far as the junction of
   the Allier and the Loire. ... They were on friendly terms with
   the Allobroges, a powerful nation east of the Rhone, who
   occupied the country between the Rhone and the Isara (Isère).
   ... In order to break the formidable combination of the
   Arverni and the Allobroges, the Romans made use of the Ædui,
   who were the enemies both of the Allobroges and the Arverni.
   ... A treaty was made either at this time or somewhat earlier
   between the Ædui and the Roman senate, who conferred on their
   new Gallic friends the honourable title of brothers and
   kinsmen. This fraternizing was a piece of political cant which
   the Romans practiced when it was useful."

      _G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 1, chapter 21._

      See, also, GAULS.

Ægæ.

      See EDESSA (MACEDONIA).

ÆGATIAN ISLES, Naval Battle of the (B. C. 241).

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

ÆGEAN, The.

   "The Ægean, or White Sea, ... as distinguished from the
   Euxine."

      _E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe,
      page 413, and foot-note._

ÆGIALEA.--ÆGIALEANS.

   The original name of the northern coast of Peloponnesus, and
   its inhabitants.

      See GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

ÆGIKOREIS.

      See PHYLÆ.

ÆGINA.

   A small rocky island in the Saronic gulf, between Attica and
   Argolis. First colonized by Achæans it was afterwards occupied
   by Dorians (see GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS) and was unfriendly to
   Athens. During the sixth century B. C. it rose to great power
   and commercial importance, and became for a time the most
   brilliant center of Greek art. At the period of the Persian
   war, Ægina was "the first maritime power in Greece." But the
   Æginetans were at that time engaged in war with Athens, as the
   allies of Thebes, and rather than forego their enmity, they
   offered submission to the Persian king. The Athenians
   thereupon appealed to Sparta, as the head of Greece, to
   interfere, and the Æginetans were compelled to give hostages
   to Athens for their fidelity to the Hellenic cause. (See
   GREECE: B. C. 492-491.) They purged themselves to a great
   extent of their intended treason by the extraordinary valor
   with which they fought at Salamis. But the sudden pre-eminence
   to which Athens rose cast a blighting shadow upon Ægina, and
   in 429 B. C. it lost its independence, the Athenians taking
   possession of their discomfited rival.

      _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, volume 1, chapter 14._

      Also in
      _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, volume 4, chapter 36._

      See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.

ÆGINA: B. C. 458-456.
   Alliance with Corinth in war with Athens and Megara.--Defeat
   and subjugation.

      See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

ÆGINA: B. C. 431.
   Expulsion of the Æginetans from their island by the Athenians.
   Their settlement at Thyrea.

       See GREECE: B. C. 431-429.

ÆGINA: B. C. 210. Desolation by the Romans.

    The first appearance of the Romans in Greece, when they
    entered the country as the allies of the Ætolians, was
    signalized by the barbarous destruction of Ægina. The city
    having been taken, B. C. 210, its entire population was
    reduced to slavery by the Romans and the land and buildings
    of the city were sold to Attalus, king of Pergamus.

       _E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government,
       chapter 8, section 2._

ÆGINETAN TALENT.

       See TALENT.

ÆGITIUM, Battle of (B. C. 426).

   A reverse experienced by the Athenian General, Demosthenes, in
   his invasion of Ætolia, during the Peloponnesian War.

      _Thucydides, History, book 3, section 97._

ÆGOSPOTAMI (Aigospotamoi), Battle of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 405.

ÆLFRED.

      See ALFRED.

ÆLIA CAPITOLINA.
   The new name given to Jerusalem by Hadrian.

      See JEWS: A. D. 130-134.

ÆLIAN AND FUFIAN LAWS, The.

   "The Ælian and Fufian laws (leges Ælia and Fufia) the age of
   which, unfortunately we cannot accurately determine. ...
   enacted that a popular assembly [at Rome] might be dissolved,
   or, in other words, the acceptance of any proposed law
   prevented, if a magistrate announced to the president of the
   assembly that it was his intention to choose the same time for
   watching the heavens. Such an announcement (obnuntiatio) was
   held to be a sufficient cause for interrupting an assembly."

      _W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 16._

ÆMILIAN WAY, The.

   "M. Æmilius Lepidus, Consul for the year 180 B. C. ...
   constructed the great road which bore his name. The Æmilian
   Way led from Ariminum through the new colony of Bononia to
   Placentia, being a continuation of the Flaminian Way, or great
   north road, made by C. Flaminius in 220 B. C. from Rome to
   Ariminum. At the same epoch, Flaminius the son, being the
   colleague of Lepidus, made a branch road from Bononia across
   the Appenines to Arretium."

      _H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 5, chapter 41._

ÆMILIANUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 253.

{10}

ÆOLIANS, The.

   "The collective stock of Greek nationalities falls, according
   to the view of those ancient writers who laboured most to
   obtain an exact knowledge of ethnographic relationships, into
   three main divisions, Æolians, Dorians and Ionians. ... All
   the other inhabitants of Greece [not Dorians and Ionians] and
   of the islands included in it, are comprised under the common
   name of Æolians--a name unknown as yet to Homer, and which was
   incontestably applied to a great diversity of peoples, among
   which it is certain that no such homogeneity of race is to be
   assumed as existed among the lonians and Dorians. Among the
   two former races, though even these were scarcely in any
   quarter completely unmixed, there was incontestably to be
   found a single original stock, to which others had merely been
   attached, and as it were engrafted, whereas, among the peoples
   assigned to the Æolians, no such original stock is
   recognizable, but on the contrary, as great a difference is
   found between the several members of this race as between
   Dorians and lonians, and of the so-called Æolians, some stood
   nearer to the former, others to the latter. ... A thorough and
   careful investigation might well lead to the conclusion that
   the Greek people was divided not into three, but into two main
   races, one of which we may call Ionian, the other Dorian,
   while of the so-called Æolians some, and probably the greater
   number, belonged to the former, the rest to the latter."

      _G. F. Schöman, Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 1, chapter 2._

   In Greek myth, Æolus, the fancied progenitor of the Æolians,
   appears as one of the three sons of Hellen. "Æolus is
   represented as having reigned in Thessaly: his seven sons were
   Kretheus, Sisyphus, Athamas, Salmoneus, Deion, Magnes and
   Perieres: his five daughters, Canace, Alcyone, Peisidike,
   Calyce and Permede. The fables of this race seem to be
   distinguished by a constant introduction of the God Poseidon,
   as well as by an unusual prevalence of haughty and
   presumptuous attributes among the Æolid heroes, leading them
   to affront the gods by pretences of equality, and sometimes
   even by defiance."

      _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 6._

      See, also, THESSALY, DORIANS AND IONIANS,
      and ASIA MINOR: THE GREEK COLONIES.

ÆQUIANS, The.

      See OSCANS; also LATIUM;
      and ROME; B. C. 458.

ÆRARIANS.

   Roman citizens who had no political rights.

      See CENSORS, ROMAN.

ÆRARIUM, The.

      See FISCUS.

ÆSOPUS INDIANS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

ÆSTII, or ÆSTYI, The.

   "At this point [beyond the Suiones] the Suevic Sea [the
   Baltic], on its eastern shore, washes the tribes of the Æstii,
   whose rites and fashions and styles of dress are those of the
   Suevi, while their language is more like the British. They
   worship the mother of the gods and wear as a religious symbol
   the device of a wild boar. ... They often use clubs, iron
   weapons but seldom. They are more patient in cultivating corn
   and other produce than might be expected from the general
   indolence of the Germans. But they also search the deep and
   are the only people who gather amber, which they call
   glesum."--"The Æstii occupied that part of Prussia which is to
   the north-east of the Vistula. ... The name still survives in
   the form Estonia."

      _Tacitus, Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb,
      with note._

      See, also, PRUSSIAN LANGUAGE, THE OLD.

ÆSYMNETÆ, An.

   Among the Greeks, an expedient "which seems to have been tried
   not unfrequently in early times, tor preserving or restoring
   tranquility, was to invest an individual with absolute power,
   under a peculiar title, which soon became obsolete: that of
   æsymnetæ. At Cuma, indeed, and in other cities, this was the
   title of an ordinary magistracy, probably of that which
   succeeded the hereditary monarchy; but when applied to an
   extraordinary office, it was equivalent to the title of
   protector or dictator."

      _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 10._

ÆTHEL.--ÆTHELING.

      See ETHEL, and ADEL.

ÆTHELBERT, ÆTHELFRITH, ETC.

      See ETHELBERT, etc.

ÆTOLIA.--ÆTOLIANS.

   "Ætolia, the country of Diomed, though famous in the early
   times, fell back during the migratory period almost into a
   savage condition, probably through the influx into it of an
   Illyrian population which became only partially Hellenized.
   The nation was divided into numerous tribes, among which the
   most important were the Apodoti, the Ophioneis, the Eurytanes
   and the Agræans. There were scarcely any cities, village life
   being preferred universally. ... It was not till the wars
   which arose among Alexander's successors that the Ætolians
   formed a real political union, and became an important power
   in Greece."

      _G. Rawlinson, Manual of Ancient History, book 3._

      See also,
      AKARNANIANS, and GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

ÆTOLIAN LEAGUE, The.

   "The Achaian and the Ætolian Leagues, had their constitutions
   been written down in the shape of a formal document, would
   have presented but few varieties of importance. The same
   general form of government prevailed in both; each was
   federal, each was democratic; each had its popular assembly,
   its smaller Senate, its general with large powers at the head
   of all. The differences between the two are merely those
   differences of detail which will always arise between any two
   political systems of which neither is slavishly copied from
   the other. ... If therefore federal states or democratic
   states, or aristocratic states, were necessarily weak or
   strong, peaceful or aggressive, honest or dishonest, we should
   see Achaia and Ætolia both exhibiting the same moral
   characteristics. But history tells another tale. The political
   conduct of the Achaian League, with some mistakes and some
   faults, is, on the whole, highly honourable. The political
   conduct of the Ætolian League is, throughout the century in
   which we know it best [last half of third and first half of
   second century B. C.] almost always simply infamous. ... The
   counsels of the Ætolian League were throughout directed to
   mere plunder, or, at most, to selfish political
   aggrandisement."

      _E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government, chapter 6_.

   The plundering aggressions of the Ætolians involved them in
   continual war with their Greek kindred and neighbours, and
   they did not scruple to seek foreign aid. It was through their
   agency that the Romans were first brought into Greece, and it
   was by their instrumentality that Antiochus fought his battle
   with Rome on the sacredest of all Hellenic soil. In the end,
   B. C. 189, the League was stripped by the Romans of even its
   nominal independence and sank into a contemptible servitude.

      _E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government, chapter 7-9._

      ALSO IN _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 63-66._

{11}

AFGHANISTAN: B. C. 330.
   Conquest by Alexander the Great.
   Founding of Herat and Candahar.

      See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 330-323;
      and INDIA: B. C. 327-312.

AFGHANISTAN: B. C. 301-246.
   In the Syrian Empire.

      See SELEUCIDÆ; and MACEDONIA, &c.: 310-301 and after.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 999-1183.
   The Ghaznevide Empire.

      See TURKS: A. D. 999-1183;
      and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 13th Century.
   Conquests of Jinghis-Khan.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1153-1227;
      and INDIA: A. D. 977-1290.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1380-1386.
   Conquest by Timour.

      See Timour.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1504.
   Conquest by Babar.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1399-1605.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1722.
   Mahmoud's conquest of Persia.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 1499-1887.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1737-1738.
   Conquest by Nadir Shah.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1662-1748.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1747-1761.
   The Empire of the Dooranie, Ahmed Abdallee.
   His Conquests in India.

         See INDIA; A. D. 1747-1761.

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1803-1838.
   Shah Soojah and Dost Mahomed.
   English interference.

   "Shah Soojah-ool Moolk, a grandson of the illustrious Ahmed
   Shah, reigned in Afghanistan from 1803 till 1809. His youth
   had been full of trouble and vicissitude. He had been a
   wanderer, on the verge of starvation, a pedlar, and a bandit,
   who raised money by plundering caravans. His courage was
   lightly reputed, and it was as a mere creature of circumstance
   that he reached the throne. His reign was perturbed, and in
   1809 he was a fugitive and an exile. Runjeet Singh, the Sikh
   ruler of the Punjaub, defrauded him of the famous Koh-i-noor,
   which is now the most precious of the crown jewels of England,
   and plundered and imprisoned the fallen man. Shah Soojah at
   length escaped from Lahore. After further misfortunes he at
   length reached the British frontier station of Loodianah, and
   in 1816 became a pensioner of the East India Company. After
   the downfall of Shah Soojah, Afghanistan for many years was a
   prey to anarchy. At length in 1826, Dost Mahomed succeeded in
   making himself supreme at Cabul, and this masterful man
   thenceforward held sway until his death in 1863,
   uninterruptedly save during the three years of the British
   occupation. Dost Mahomed was neither kith nor kin to the
   legitimate dynasty which he displaced. His father Poyndah Khan
   was an able statesman and gallant soldier. He left twenty-one
   sons, of whom Futteh Khan was the eldest, and Dost Mahomed one
   of the youngest. ... Throughout his long reign Dost Mahomed
   was a strong and wise ruler. His youth had been neglected and
   dissolute. His education was defective, and he had been
   addicted to wine. Once seated on the throne, the reformation
   of our Henry V. was not more thorough than was that of Dost
   Mahomed. He taught himself to read and write, studied the
   Koran, became scrupulously abstemious, assiduous in affairs,
   no longer truculent, but courteous. ... There was a fine
   rugged honesty in his nature, and a streak of genuine
   chivalry; notwithstanding the despite he suffered at our
   hands, he had a real regard for the English, and his loyalty
   to us was broken only by his armed support of the Sikhs in the
   second Punjaub war. The fallen Shah Soojah, from his asylum in
   Loodianah, was continually intriguing for his restoration. His
   schemes were long inoperative, and it was not until 1832 that
   certain arrangements were entered into between him and the
   Maharaja Runjeet Singh. To an application on Shah Soojah's
   part for countenance and pecuniary aid, the Anglo-Indian
   Government replied that to afford him assistance would be
   inconsistent with the policy of neutrality which the
   Government had imposed on itself; but it unwisely contributed
   financially toward his undertaking by granting him four
   months' pension in advance. Sixteen thousand rupees formed a
   scant war fund with which to attempt the recovery of a throne,
   but the Shah started on his errand in February, 1833. After a
   successful contest with the Ameers of Scinde, he marched on
   Candahar, and besieged that fortress. Candahar was in
   extremity when Dost Mahomed, hurrying from Cabul, relieved it,
   and joining forces with its defenders, he defeated and routed
   Shah Soojah, who fled precipitately, leaving behind him his
   artillery and camp equipage. During the Dost's absence in the
   south, Runjeet Singh's troops crossed the Attock, occupied the
   Afghan province of Peshawur, and drove the Afghans into the
   Khyber Pass. No subsequent efforts on Dost Mahomed's part
   availed to expel the Sikhs from Peshawur, and suspicious of
   British connivance with Runjeet Singh's successful aggression,
   he took into consideration the policy of fortifying himself by
   a counter alliance with Persia. As for Shah Soojah, he had
   crept back to his refuge at Loodianah. Lord Auckland succeeded
   Lord William Bentinck as Governor-General of India in March,
   1836. In reply to Dost Mahomed's letter of congratulation, his
   lordship wrote: 'You are aware that it is not the practice of
   the British Government to interfere with the affairs of other
   independent States;' an abstention which Lord Auckland was
   soon to violate. He had brought from England the feeling of
   disquietude in regard to the designs of Persia and Russia
   which the communications of our envoy in Persia had fostered
   in the Home Government, but it would appear that he was wholly
   undecided what line of action to pursue. 'Swayed,' says
   Durand, 'by the vague apprehensions of a remote danger
   entertained by others rather than himself, he despatched to
   Afghanistan Captain Burnes on a nominally commercial mission,
   which, in fact, was one of political discovery, but without
   definite instructions. Burnes, an able but rash and ambitious
   man, reached Cabul in September, 1837, two months before the
   Persian army began the siege of Herat. ... The Dost made no
   concealment to Burnes of his approaches to Persia and Russia,
   in despair of British good offices, and being hungry for
   assistance from any source to meet the encroachments of the
   Sikhs, he professed himself ready to abandon his negotiations
   with the western powers if he were given reason to expect
   countenance and assistance at the hands of the Anglo-Indian
   Government. ... The situation of Burnes in relation to the
   Dost was presently complicated by the arrival at Cabul of a
   Russian officer claiming to be an envoy from the Czar, whose
   credentials, however, were regarded as dubious, and who, if
   that circumstance has the least weight, was on his return to
   Russia utterly repudiated by Count Nesselrode. The Dost took
   small account of this emissary, continuing to assure Burnes
   that he cared for no connection except with the English, and
   Burnes professed to his Government his fullest confidence in
   the sincerity of those declarations.
{12}
   But the tone of Lord Auckland's reply, addressed
   to the Dost, was so dictatorial and supercilious as to
   indicate the writer's intention that it should give offence.
   It had that effect, and Burnes' mission at once became
   hopeless. ... The Russian envoy, who was profuse in his
   promises of everything which the Dost was most anxious to
   obtain, was received into favour and treated with distinction,
   and on his return journey he effected a treaty with the
   Candahar chiefs which was presently ratified by the Russian
   minister at the Persian Court. Burnes, fallen into discredit
   at Cabul, quitted that place in August 1838. He had not been
   discreet, but it was not his indiscretion that brought about
   the failure of his mission. A nefarious transaction, which
   Kaye denounces with the passion of a just indignation,
   connects itself with Burnes' negotiations with the Dost; his
   official correspondence was unscrupulously mutilated and
   garbled in the published Blue Book with deliberate purpose to
   deceive the British public. Burnes had failed because, since
   he had quitted India for Cabul, Lord Auckland's policy had
   gradually altered. Lord Auckland had landed in India in the
   character of a man of peace. That, so late as April 1837, he
   had no design of obstructing the existing situation in
   Afghanistan is proved by his written statement of that date,
   that 'the British Government had resolved decidedly to
   discourage the prosecution by the ex-king Shah
   Soojah-ool-Moolk, so long as he may remain under our
   protection, of further schemes of hostility against the chiefs
   now in power in Cabul and Candahar.' Yet, in the following
   June, he concluded a treaty which sent Shah Soojah to Cabul,
   escorted by British bayonets. Of this inconsistency no
   explanation presents itself. It was a far cry from our
   frontier on the Sutlej to Herat in the confines of Central
   Asia--a distance of more than 1,200 miles, over some of the
   most arduous marching ground in the known world. ... Lord
   William Bentinck, Lord Auckland's predecessor, denounced the
   project as an act of incredible folly. Marquis Wellesley
   regarded 'this wild expedition into a distant region of rocks
   and deserts, of sands and ice and snow,' as an act of
   infatuation. The Duke of Wellington pronounced with prophetic
   sagacity, that the consequence of once crossing the Indus to
   settle a government in Afghanistan would be a perennial march
   into that country."

      _A. Forbes, The Afghan Wars, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN;
      _J. P. Ferrier, History of the Afghans, chapter 10-20._

      _Mohan Lal,  Life of Amir Dost Mohammed Khan, volume 1._

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1838-1842.
   English invasion, and restoration of Soojah Dowlah.
   The revolt at Cabul.
   Horrors of the British retreat.
   Destruction of the entire army, save one man, only.
   Sale's defence of Jellalabad.

   "To approach Afghanistan it was necessary to secure the
   friendship of the Sikhs, who were, indeed, ready enough to
   join against their old enemies; and a threefold treaty was
   contracted between Runjeet Singh, the English, and Shah Soojah
   for the restoration of the banished house. The
   expedition--which according to the original intention was to
   have been carried out chiefly by means of troops in the pay of
   Shah Soojah and the Sikhs--rapidly grew into an English
   invasion of Afghanistan. A considerable force was gathered on
   the Sikh frontier from Bengal; a second army, under General
   Keane, was to come up from Kurrachee through Sindh. Both of
   these armies, and the troops of Shah Soojah, were to enter the
   highlands of Afghanistan by the Bolan Pass. As the Sikhs would
   not willingly allow the free passage of our troops through
   their country, an additional burden was laid upon the armies,-
   the independent Ameers of Sindh had to be coerced. At length,
   with much trouble from the difficulties of the country and the
   loss of the commissariat animals, the forces were all
   collected under the command of Keane beyond the passes. The
   want of food permitted of no delay; the army pushed on to
   Candahar. Shah Soojah was declared Monarch of the southern
   Principality. Thence the troops moved rapidly onwards towards
   the more important and difficult conquest of Cabul. Ghuznee, a
   fortress of great strength, lay in the way. In their hasty
   movements the English had left their battering train behind,
   but the gates of the fortress were blown in with gunpowder,
   and by a brilliant feat of arms the fortress was stormed. Nor
   did the English army encounter any important resistance
   subsequently. Dost Mohamed found his followers deserting him,
   and withdrew northwards into the mountains of the Hindoo
   Koosh. With all the splendour that could be collected, Shah
   Soojah was brought back to his throne in the Bala Hissar, the
   fortress Palace of Cabul. ... For the moment the policy seemed
   thoroughly successful. The English Ministry could feel that a
   fresh check had been placed upon its Russian rival, and no one
   dreamt of the terrible retribution that was in store for the
   unjust violence done to the feelings of a people. ... Dost
   Mohamed thought it prudent to surrender himself to the English
   envoy, Sir William Macnaghten, and to withdraw with his family
   to the English provinces of Hindostan [November, 1840]. He was
   there well received and treated with liberality; for, as both
   the Governor General and his chief adviser Macnaghten felt, he
   had not in fact in any way offended us, but had fallen a
   victim to our policy. It was in the full belief that their
   policy in India had been crowned with permanent success that
   the Whig Ministers withdrew from office, leaving their
   successors to encounter the terrible results to which it led.
   For while the English officials were blindly congratulating
   themselves upon the happy completion of their enterprise, to
   an observant eye signs of approaching difficulty were on all
   sides visible. ... The removal of the strong rule of the
   Barrukzyes opened a door for undefined hopes to many of the
   other families and tribes. The whole country was full of
   intrigues and of diplomatic bargaining, carried on by the
   English political agents with the various chiefs and leaders.
   But they soon found that the hopes excited by these
   negotiations were illusory. The allowances for which they had
   bargained were reduced, for the English envoy began to be
   disquieted at the vast expenses of the Government. They did
   not find that they derived any advantages from the
   establishment of the new puppet King, Soojah Dowlah; and every
   Mahomedan, even the very king himself, felt disgraced at the
   predominance of the English infidels.
{13}
   But as no actual insurrection broke out, Macnaghten, a man of
   sanguine temperament and anxious to believe what he wished, in
   spite of unmistakable warnings as to the real feeling of the
   people, clung with almost angry vehemence to the persuasion
   that all was going well, and that the new King had a real hold
   upon the people's affection. So completely had he deceived
   himself on this point, that he had decided to send back a
   portion of the English army, under General Sale, into
   Hindostan. He even intended to accompany it himself to enjoy
   the peaceful post of Governor of Bombay, with which his
   successful policy had been rewarded. His place was to be taken
   by Sir Alexander Burnes, whose view of the troubled condition
   of the country underlying the comparative calm of the surface
   was much truer than that of Macnaghten, but who, perhaps from
   that very fact, was far less popular among the chiefs. The
   army which was to remain at Candahar was under the command of
   General Nott, an able and decided if somewhat irascible man.
   But General Elphinstone, the commander of the troops at Cabul,
   was of quite a different stamp. He was much respected and
   liked for his honourable character and social qualities, but
   was advanced in years, a confirmed invalid, and wholly wanting
   in the vigour and decision which his critical position was
   likely to require. The fool's paradise with which the English
   Envoy had surrounded himself was rudely destroyed. He had
   persuaded himself that the frequently recurring disturbances,
   and especially the insurrection of the Ghilzyes between Cabul
   and Jellalabad, were mere local outbreaks. But In fact a great
   conspiracy was on foot in which the chiefs of nearly every
   important tribe in the country were implicated. On the evening
   of the 1st of November [1841] a meeting of the chiefs was
   held, and It was decided that an immediate attack should be
   made on the house of Sir Alexander Burnes. The following morning
   an angry crowd of assailants stormed the houses of Sir
   Alexander Burnes and Captain Johnson, murdering the inmates,
   and rifling the treasure-chests belonging to Soojah Dowlah's
   army. Soon the whole city was in wild insurrection. The
   evidence is nearly irresistible that a little decision and
   rapidity of action on the part of the military would have at
   once crushed the outbreak. But although the attack on Burnes's
   house was known, no troops were sent to his assistance.
   Indeed, that unbroken course of folly and mismanagement which
   marked the conduct of our military affairs throughout this
   crisis had already begun. Instead of occupying the fortress of
   the Bala Hissar, where the army would have been in comparative
   security, Elphlnstone had placed his troops in cantonments far
   too extensive to be properly defended, surrounded by an
   entrenchment of the most insignificant character, commanded on
   almost all sides by higher ground. To complete the unfitness
   of the position, the commissariat supplies were not stored
   within the cantonments, but were placed in an isolated fort at
   some little distance. An ill-sustained and futile assault was
   made upon the town on the 3d of November, but from that time
   onwards the British troops lay with incomprehensible
   supineness awaiting their fate in their defenceless position.
   The commissariat fort soon fell into the hands of the enemy
   and rendered their situation still more deplorable. Some
   flashes of bravery now and then lighted up the sombre scene of
   helpless misfortune, and served to show that destruction might
   even yet have been averted by a little firmness. ... But the
   commander had already begun to despair, and before many days
   had passed he was thinking of making terms with the enemy.
   Macnaghten had no course open to him under such circumstances
   but to adopt the suggestion of the general, and attempt as
   well as he could by bribes, cajolery, and intrigue, to divide
   the chiefs and secure a safe retreat for the English. Akbar
   Khan, the son of Dost Mohamed, though not present at the
   beginning of the insurrection, had arrived from the northern
   mountains, and at once asserted a predominant influence in the
   insurgent councils. With him and with the other insurgent
   chiefs Macnaghten entered into an arrangement by which he
   promised to withdraw the English entirely from the country if
   a safe passage were secured for the army through the passes.
   ... While ostensibly treating with the Barrukzye chiefs, he
   intrigued on all sides with the rival tribes. His double
   dealing was taken advantage of by Akbar Khan. He sent
   messengers to Macnaghten proposing that the English should
   make a separate treaty with himself and support him with their
   troops in an assault upon some of his rivals. The proposition
   was a mere trap, and the envoy fell into it. Ordering troops
   to be got ready, he hurried to a meeting with Akbar to
   complete the arrangement. There he found himself in the
   presence of the brother and relatives of the very men against
   whom he was plotting, and was seized and murdered by Akbar's
   own hand [December 23]. Still the General thought of nothing
   but surrender. The negotiations were entrusted to Major
   Pottinger. The terms of the chiefs gradually rose, and at
   length with much confusion the wretched army marched out of
   the cantonments [January 6, 1842], leaving behind nearly all
   the cannon and superfluous military stores. An Afghan escort
   to secure the safety of the troops on their perilous journey
   had been promised, but the promise was not kept. The horrors
   of the retreat form one of the darkest passages in English
   military history. In bitter cold and snow, which took all life
   out of the wretched Sepoys, without proper clothing or
   shelter, and hampered by a disorderly mass of thousands of
   camp-followers, the army entered the terrible defiles which
   lie between Cabul and Jellalabad. Whether Akbar Khan could,
   had he wished it, have restrained his fanatical followers is
   uncertain. As a fact the retiring crowd--it can scarcely be
   called an army--was a mere unresisting prey to the assaults of
   the mountaineers. Constant communication was kept up with
   Akbar; on the third day all the ladies and children with the
   married men were placed in his hands, and finally even the two
   generals gave themselves up as hostages, always in the hope
   that the remnant of the army might be allowed to escape."

      _J. F. Bright, History of England, volume 4, pages 61-66._

{14}

   "Then the march of the army, without a general, went on again.
   Soon it became the story of a general without an army; before
   very long there was neither general nor army. It is idle to
   lengthen a tale of mere horrors. The straggling
   remnant of an army entered the Jugdulluk Pass--a dark,
   steep, narrow, ascending path between crags. The miserable
   toilers found that the fanatical, implacable tribes had
   barricaded the pass. All was over. The army of Cabul was
   finally extinguished in that barricaded pass. It was a trap;
   the British were taken in it. A few mere fugitives escaped
   from the scene of actual slaughter, and were on the road to
   Jellalabad, where Sale and his little army were holding their
   own. When they were within sixteen miles of Jellalabad the
   number was reduced to six. Of these six five were killed by
   straggling marauders on the way. One man alone reached
   Jellalabad to tell the tale. Literally one man, Dr. Brydon,
   came to Jellalabad [January 13] out of a moving host which had
   numbered in all some 16,000 when it set out on its march. The
   curious eye will search through history or fiction in vain for
   any picture more thrilling with the suggestions of an awful
   catastrophe than that of this solitary survivor, faint and
   reeling on his jaded horse, as he appeared under the walls of
   Jellalabad, to bear the tidings of our Thermopylae of pain and
   shame. This is the crisis of the story. With this at least the
   worst of the pain and shame were destined to end. The rest is
   all, so far as we are concerned, reaction and recovery. Our
   successes are common enough; we may tell their tale briefly in
   this instance. The garrison at Jellalabad had received before
   Dr. Brydon's arrival an intimation that they were to go out
   and march toward India in accordance with the terms of the
   treaty extorted from Elphinstone at Cabul. They very properly
   declined to be bound by a treaty which, as General Sale
   rightly conjectured, had been 'forced from our envoy and
   military commander with the knives at their throats.' General
   Sale's determination was clear and simple. 'I propose to hold
   this place on the part of Government until I receive its order
   to the contrary.' This resolve of Sale's was really the
   turning point of the history. Sale held Jellalabad; Nott was
   at Candahar. Akbar Khan besieged Jellalabad. Nature seemed to
   have declared herself emphatically on his side, for a
   succession of earthquake shocks shattered the walls of the
   place, and produced more terrible destruction than the most
   formidable guns of modern warfare could have done. But the
   garrison held out fearlessly; they restored the parapets,
   re-established every battery, retrenched the whole of the
   gates and built up all the breaches. They resisted every
   attempt of Akbar Khan to advance upon their works, and at
   length, when it became certain that General Pollock was
   forcing the Khyber Pass to come to their relief, they
   determined to attack Akbar Khan's army; they issued boldly out
   of their forts, forced a battle on the Afghan chief, and
   completely defeated him. Before Pollock, having gallantly
   fought his way through the Khyber Pass, had reached Jellalabad
   [April 16] the beleaguering army had been entirely defeated and
   dispersed. ... Meanwhile the unfortunate Shah Soojah, whom we
   had restored with so much pomp of announcement to the throne
   of his ancestors, was dead. He was assassinated in Cabul, soon
   after the departure of the British, ... and his body, stripped
   of its royal robes and its many jewels, was flung into a
   ditch."

      _J. McCarthy, History of our own Times,
      volume 1, chapter 11._

      ALSO IN
      _J. W. Kaye, History of the War in Afghanistan._

      _G. R. Gleig, Sale's Brigade in Afghanistan_.

      _Lady Sale, Journal of the Disasters in Afghanistan._

      _Mohan Lal, Life of Dost Mohammed,
      chapters 15-18 (volume 2)._

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1842-1869.
   The British return to Cabul.
   Restoration of Dost Mahomed.

   It was not till September that General Pollock "could obtain
   permission from the Governor-General, Lord Ellenborough, to
   advance against Cabul, though both he and Nott were burning to
   do so. When Pollock did advance, he found the enemy posted at
   Jugdulluck, the scene of the massacre. 'Here,' says one
   writer, 'the skeletons lay so thick that they had to be
   cleared away to allow the guns to pass. The savage grandeur of
   the scene rendered it a fitting place for the deed of blood
   which had been enacted under its horrid shade, never yet
   pierced in some places by sunlight. The road was strewn for
   two miles with mouldering skeletons like a charnel house.' Now
   the enemy found they had to deal with other men, under other
   leaders, for, putting their whole energy into the work, the
   British troops scaled the heights and steep ascents, and
   defeated the enemy in their strongholds on all sides. After
   one more severe fight with Akbar Khan, and all the force he
   could collect, the enemy were beaten, and driven from their
   mountains, and the force marched quietly into Cabul. Nott, on
   his side, started from Candahar on the 7th of August, and,
   after fighting several small battles with the enemy, he
   captured Ghuzni, where Palmer and his garrison had been
   destroyed. From Ghuzni General Nott brought away, by command
   of Lord Ellenborough, the gates of Somnauth [said to have been
   taken from the Hindu temple of Somnauth by Mahmoud of Ghazni,
   the first Mohammedan invader of India, in 1024], which formed
   the subject of the celebrated 'Proclamation of the Gates,' as
   it was called. This proclamation, issued by Lord Ellenborough,
   brought upon him endless ridicule, and it was indeed at first
   considered to be a satire of his enemies, in imitation of
   Napoleon's address from the Pyramids; the Duke of Wellington
   called it 'The Song of Triumph.' ... This proclamation, put
   forth with so much flourishing of trumpets and ado, was really
   an insult to those whom it professed to praise, it was an
   insult to the Mohammedans under our rule, for their power was
   gone, it was also an insult to the Hindoos, for their temple
   of Somnauth was in ruins. These celebrated gates, which are
   believed to be imitations of the original gates, are now lying
   neglected and worm-eaten, in the back part of a small museum
   at Agra. But to return, General Nott, having captured Ghuzni
   and defeated Sultan Jan, pushed on to Cabul, where he arrived
   on the 17th of September, and met Pollock. The English
   prisoners (amongst whom were Brigadier Shelton and Lady Sale),
   who had been captured at the time of the massacre, were
   brought, or found their own way, to General Pollock's camp.
   General Elphinstone had died during his captivity. It was not
   now considered necessary to take any further steps; the bazaar
   in Cabul was destroyed, and on the 12th of October Pollock and
   Nott turned their faces southwards, and began their march into
   India by the Khyber route. The Afghans in captivity were sent
   back, and the Governor-General received the troops at Ferozepoor.
{15}
   Thus ended the Afghan war 01 1838-42. ... The war
   being over, we withdrew our forces into India, leaving the son
   of Shah Soojah, Fathi Jung, who had escaped from Cabul when
   his father was murdered, as king of the country, a position
   that he was unable to maintain long, being very shortly
   afterward, assassinated. In 1842 Dost Mahomed, the ruler whom
   we had deposed, and who had been living at our expense in
   India, returned to Cabul and resumed his former position as
   king of the country, still bearing ill-will towards us, which
   he showed on several occasions, notably during the Sikh war,
   when he sent a body of his horsemen to fight for the Sikhs,
   and he himself marched an army through the Khyber to Peshawur
   to assist our enemies. However, the occupation of the Punjab
   forced upon Dost Mahomed the necessity of being on friendly
   terms with his powerful neighbour; he therefore concluded a
   friendly treaty with us in 1854, hoping thereby that our power
   would be used to prevent the intrigues of Persia against his
   kingdom. This hope was shortly after realized, for in 1856 we
   declared war against Persia, an event which was greatly to the
   advantage of Dost Mahomed, as it prevented Persian
   encroachments upon his territory. This war lasted but a short
   time, for early in 1857 an agreement was signed between
   England and Persia, by which the latter renounced all claims
   over Herat and Afghanistan. Herat, however, still remained
   independent of Afghanistan, until 1863, when Dost Mahomed
   attacked and took the town, thus uniting the whole kingdom,
   including Candahar and Afghan Turkestan, under his rule. This
   was almost the last act of the Ameer's life, for a few days
   after taking Herat he died. By his will he directed that Shere
   Ali, one of his sons, should succeed him as Ameer of
   Afghanistan. The new Ameer immediately wrote to the
   Governor-General of India, Lord Elgin, in a friendly tone,
   asking that his succession might be acknowledged. Lord Elgin,
   however, as the commencement of the Liberal policy of
   'masterly inactivity' neglected to answer the letter, a
   neglect which cannot but be deeply regretted, as Shere Ali was
   at all events the de facto ruler of the country, and even had
   he been beaten by any other rival for the throne, it would
   have been time enough to acknowledge that rival as soon as he
   was really ruler of the country. When six months later a cold
   acknowledgement of the letter was given by Sir William
   Denison, and when a request that the Ameer made for 6,000
   muskets had been refused by Lord Lawrence, the Ameer concluded
   that the disposition of England towards him was not that of a
   friend; particularly as, when later on, two of his brothers
   revolted against him, each of them was told by the Government
   that he would be acknowledged for that part of the country
   which he brought under his power. However, after various
   changes in fortune, in 1869 Shere Ali finally defeated his two
   brothers Afzool and Azim, together with Afzool's son,
   Abdurrahman."

      _P. F. Walker,  Afghanistan, pages 45-51._

      ALSO IN
      _J. W. Kaye, History of the War in Afghanistan_.

      _G. B. Malleson, History of Afghanistan, chapters 11._

AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.
   The second war with the English and its causes.

   The period of disturbance in Afghanistan, during the struggle
   of Shere Ali with his brothers, coincided with the vice
   royalty of Lord Lawrence in India. The policy of Lord
   Lawrence, "sometimes slightingly spoken of as masterly
   inactivity, consisted in holding entirely aloof from the
   dynastic quarrels of the Afghans ... and in attempting to
   cultivate the friendship of the Ameer by gifts of money and
   arms, while carefully avoiding topics of offence. ... Lord
   Lawrence was himself unable to meet the Ameer, but his
   successor, Lord Mayo, had an interview with him at Umballah in
   1869. ... Lord Mayo adhered to the policy of his predecessor. He
   refused to enter into any close alliance, he refused to pledge
   himself to support any dynasty. But on the other hand he
   promised that he would not press for the admission of any
   English officers as Residents in Afghanistan. The return
   expected by England for this attitude of friendly
   non-interference was that every other foreign state, and
   especially Russia, should be forbidden to mix either directly
   or indirectly with the affairs of the country in which our
   interests were so closely involved. ... But a different view
   was held by another school of Indian politicians, and was
   supported by men of such eminence as Sir Bartle Frere and Sir
   Henry Rawlinson. Their view was known as the Sindh Policy as
   contrasted with that of the Punjab. It appeared to them
   desirable that English agents should be established at Quetta,
   Candahar, and Herat, if not at Cabul itself, to keep the
   Indian Government completely informed of the affairs of
   Afghanistan, and to maintain English influence in the country.
   In 1874, upon the accession of the Conservative Ministry, Sir
   Bartle Frere produced a memorandum in which this policy was
   ably maintained. ... A Viceroy whose views were more in
   accordance with those of the Government, and who was likely to
   be a more ready instrument in [its] hands, was found in Lord
   Lytton, who went to India intrusted with the duty of giving
   effect to the new policy. He was instructed. ... to continue
   payments of money, to recognise the permanence of the existing
   dynasty, and to give a pledge of material support in case of
   unprovoked foreign aggression, but to insist on the acceptance
   of an English Resident at certain places in Afghanistan in
   exchange for these advantages. ... Lord Lawrence and those who
   thought with him in England prophesied from the first the
   disastrous results which would arise from the alienation of
   the Afghans. ... The suggestion of Lord Lytton that an English
   Commission should go to Cabul to discuss matters of common
   interest to the two Governments, was calculated ... to excite
   feelings already somewhat unfriendly to England. He [Shere
   Ali] rejected the mission, and formulated his grievances. ...
   Lord Lytton waived for a time the despatch of the mission, and
   consented to a meeting between the Minister of the Ameer and
   Sir Lewis Pelly at Peshawur. ... The English Commissioner was
   instructed to declare that the one indispensable condition of
   the Treaty was the admission of an English representative
   within the limits of Afghanistan. The almost piteous request
   on the part of the Afghans for the relaxation of this demand
   proved unavailing, and the sudden death of the Ameer's envoy
   formed a good excuse for breaking off the negotiation.
{16}
   Lord Lytton treated the Ameer as incorrigible, gave
   him to understand that the English would proceed to secure
   their frontier without further reference to him, and withdrew
   his native agent from Cabul. While the relations between the
   two countries were in this uncomfortable condition,
   information reached India that a Russian mission had been
   received at Cabul. It was just at this time that the action of
   the Home Government seemed to be tending rapidly towards a war
   with Russia. ... As the despatch of a mission from Russia was
   contrary to the engagements of that country, and its reception
   under existing circumstances wore an unfriendly aspect, Lord
   Lytton saw his way with some plausible justification to demand
   the reception at Cabul of an English embassy. He notified his
   intention to the Ameer, but without waiting for an answer
   selected Sir Neville Chamberlain as his envoy, and sent him
   forward with an escort of more than 1,000 men, too large, as
   it was observed, for peace, too small for war. As a matter of
   course the mission was not admitted. ... An outcry was raised
   both in England and in India. ... Troops were hastily
   collected upon the Indian frontier; and a curious light was
   thrown on what had been done by the assertion of the Premier
   at the Guildhall banquet that the object in view was the
   formation of a 'scientific frontier;' in other words, throwing
   aside all former pretences, he declared that the policy of
   England was to make use of the opportunity offered for direct
   territorial aggression. ... As had been foreseen by all
   parties from the first, the English armies were entirely
   successful in their first advance [November, 1878]. ... By the
   close of December Jellalabad was in the hands of Browne, the
   Shutargardan Pass had been surmounted by Roberts, and in
   January Stewart established himself in Candahar. When the
   resistance of his army proved ineffectual, Shere Ali had taken
   to flight, only to die. His refractory son Yakoob Khan was
   drawn from his prison and assumed the reins of government as
   regent. ... Yakoob readily granted the English demands,
   consenting to place his foreign relations under British
   control, and to accept British agencies. With considerably
   more reluctance, he allowed what was required for the
   rectification of the frontier to pass into English hands. He
   received in exchange a promise of support by the British
   Government, and an annual subsidy of £60,000. On the
   conclusion of the treaty the troops in the Jellalabad Valley
   withdrew within the new frontier, and Yakoob Khan was left to
   establish his authority as best he could at Cabul, whither in
   July Cavagnari with an escort of twenty-six troopers and
   eighty infantry betook himself. Then was enacted again the sad
   story which preluded the first Afghan war. All the parts and
   scenes in the drama repeated themselves with curious
   uniformity--the English Resident with his little garrison
   trusting blindly to his capacity for influencing the Afghan
   mind, the puppet king, without the power to make himself
   respected, irritated by the constant presence of the Resident,
   the chiefs mutually distrustful and at one in nothing save
   their hatred of English interference, the people seething with
   anger against the infidel foreigner, a wild outbreak which the
   Ameer, even had he wished it, could not control, an attack
   upon the Residency and the complete destruction [Sept., 1879]
   after a gallant but futile resistance of the Resident and his
   entire escort. Fortunately the extreme disaster of the
   previous war was avoided. The English troops which were
   withdrawn from the country were still within reach. ... About
   the 24th of September, three weeks after the outbreak, the
   Cabul field force under General Roberts was able to move. On
   the 5th of October it forced its way into the Logar Valley at
   Charassiab, and on the 12th General Roberts was able to make
   his formal entry into the city of Cabul. ... The Ameer was
   deposed, martial law was established, the disarmament of the
   people required under pain of death, and the country scoured
   to bring in for punishment those chiefly implicated in the late
   outbreak. While thus engaged in carrying out his work of
   retribution, the wave of insurrection closed behind the
   English general, communication through the Kuram Valley was
   cut off, and he was left to pass the winter with an army of
   some 8,000 men connected with India only by the Kybur Pass.
   ... A new and formidable personage ... now made his appearance
   on the scene. This was Abdurahman, the nephew and rival of the
   late Shere Ali, who upon the defeat of his pretensions had
   sought refuge in Turkestan, and was supposed to be supported
   by the friendship of Russia. The expected attack did not take
   place, constant reinforcements had raised the Cabul army to
   20,000, and rendered it too strong to be assailed. ... It was
   thought desirable to break up Afghanistan into a northern and
   southern province. ... The policy thus declared was carried
   out. A certain Shere Ali, a cousin of the late Ameer of the
   same name, was appointed Wali or Governor of Candahar. In the
   north signs were visible that the only possible successor to
   the throne of Cabul would be Abdurahman. ... The Bengal army
   under General Stewart was to march northwards, and,
   suppressing on the way the Ghuznee insurgents, was to join the
   Cabul army in a sort of triumphant return to Peshawur. The
   first part of the programme was carried out. ... The second
   part of the plan was fated to be interrupted by a serious
   disaster which rendered it for a while uncertain whether the
   withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan was possible. ...
   Ayoob had always expressed his disapproval of his brother's
   friendship for the English, and had constantly refused to
   accept their overtures. Though little was known about him,
   rumours were afloat that he intended to advance upon Ghuznee,
   and join the insurgents there. At length about the middle of
   June [1880] his army started. ... But before the end of June
   Farah had been reached and it seemed plain that Candahar would
   be assaulted. ... General Burrows found it necessary to fall back
   to a ridge some forty-five miles from Candahar called
   Kush-y-Nakhud. There is a pass called Maiwand to the north of
   the high-road to Candahar, by which an army avoiding the
   position on the ridge might advance upon the city. On the 27th
   of July the Afghan troops were seen moving in the direction of
   this pass. In his attempt to stop them with his small force,
   numbering about 2,500 men, General Burrows was disastrously
   defeated. With difficulty and with the loss of seven guns,
   about half the English troops returned to Candahar.
{17}
   General Primrose, who was in command, had no
   choice but to strengthen the place, submit to an investment,
   and wait till he should be rescued. ... The troops at Cabul
   were on the point of withdrawing when the news of the disaster
   reached them. It was at once decided that the pick of the army
   under General Roberts should push forward to the beleaguered
   city, while General Stewart with the remainder should carry
   out the intended withdrawal. ... With about 10,000 fighting
   men and 8,000 camp followers General Roberts brought to a
   successful issue his remarkable enterprise, ... falling upon
   the army of the Ameer and entirely dispersing it a short
   distance outside the city. All those at all inclined to the
   forward policy clamoured for the maintenance of a British
   force in Candahar. But the Government firmly and decisively
   refused to consent to anything approaching to a permanent
   occupation. ... The struggle between Abdurahman and Ayoob
   continued for a while, and until it was over the English
   troops remained at Quetta. But when Abdurahman had been
   several times victorious over his rival and in October [1881]
   occupied Herat, it was thought safe to complete the
   evacuation, leaving Abdurahman for the time at least generally
   accepted as Ameer."

      _J. F. Bright, History of England, period 4, pages
      534-544._

      ALSO IN
      _A. Forbes, The Afghan Wars, part 2._

      _Duke of Argyll, The Afghan Question from 1841 to
      1878_.

      _G. B. Malleson, The Russo-Afghan Question_.

----------AFGHANISTAN: End----------

AFRICA: The name as anciently applied.

      See LIBYANS.

AFRICA: The Roman Province.

   "Territorial sovereignty over the whole of North Africa had
   doubtless already been claimed on the part of the Roman
   Republic, perhaps as a portion of the Carthaginian
   inheritance, perhaps because 'our sea' early became one of the
   fundamental ideas of the Roman commonwealth; and, in so far,
   all its coasts were regarded by the Romans even of the
   developed republic as their true property. Nor had this claim
   of Rome ever been properly contested by the larger states of
   North Africa after the destruction of Carthage. ... The
   arrangements which the emperors made were carried out quite
   after the same way in the territory of the dependent princes
   as in the immediate territory of Rome; it was the Roman
   government that regulated the boundaries in all North Africa,
   and constituted Roman communities at its discretion, in the
   kingdom of Mauretania no less than in the province of Numidia.
   We cannot therefore speak, in the strict sense, of a Roman
   subjugation of North Africa. The Romans did not conquer it
   like the Phœnicians or the French; but they ruled over Numidia
   as over Mauretania, first as suzerains, then as successors of
   the native governments. ... As for the previous rulers, so
   also doubtless for Roman civilization there was to be found a
   limit to the south, but hardly so for the Roman territorial
   supremacy. There is never mention of any formal extension or
   taking back of the frontier in Africa. ... The former
   territory of Carthage and the larger part of the earlier
   kingdom of Numidia, united with it by the dictator Cæsar, or,
   as they also called it, the old and new Africa, formed until
   the end of the reign of Tiberius the province of that name
   [Africa], which extended from the boundary of Cyrene to the
   river Ampsaga, embracing the modern state of Tripoli, as well
   as Tunis and the French province of Constantine. ...
   Mauretania was not a heritage like Africa and Numidia. ... The
   Romans can scarcely have taken over the Empire of the
   Mauretanian kings in quite the same extent as these possessed
   it; but ... probably the whole south as far as the great
   desert passed as imperial land."

      _T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 13._

      See, also, CARTHAGE, NUMIDIA, and CYRENE.

AFRICA: The Mediæval City.

      See BARBARY STATES: A. D. 1543-1560.

AFRICA:
   Moslem conquest and Moslem States in the North.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 640-646; 647-709,
      and 908-1171;
      also BARBARY STATES; EGYPT: A. D. 1250-1517, and after;
      and SUDAN.

AFRICA:
   Portuguese Exploration of the Atlantic Coast.
   The rounding of the Cape.

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1415-1460, and 1463-1498.

AFRICA:
   Dutch and English Colonization.

      See SOUTH AFRICA.

AFRICA: A. D. 1787-1807.
   Settlement of Sierra Leone.

      See SIERRA LEONE.

AFRICA: A. D. 1820-1822.
   The founding of Liberia.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO: A. D. 1816-1847.

AFRICA: A. D. 1884-1891.
   Partition of the interior between European Powers.

   "The partition of Africa may be said to date from the Berlin
   Conference of 1884--85 [see CONGO FREE STATE]. Prior to that
   Conference the question of inland boundaries was scarcely
   considered. ... The founding of the Congo Independent State
   was probably the most important result of the Conference. ...
   Two months after the Conference had concluded its labours,
   Great Britain and Germany had a serious dispute in regard to
   their respective spheres of influence on the Gulf of Guinea.
   ... The compromise ... arrived at placed the Mission Station
   of Victoria within the German sphere of influence." The
   frontier between the two spheres of influence on the Bight of
   Biafra was subsequently defined by a line drawn, in 1886, from
   the coast to Yola, on the Benué. The Royal Niger Company,
   constituted by a royal charter, ... "was given administrative
   powers over territories covered by its treaties. The regions
   thereby placed under British protection ... apart from the Oil
   Rivers District, which is directly administered by the Crown,
   embrace the coastal lands between Lagos and the northern
   frontier of Camarons, the Lower Niger (including territories
   of Sokoto, Gandu and Borgo), and the Benué from Yola to its
   confluence." By a Protocol signed December 24, 1885, Germany
   and France "defined their respective spheres of influence and
   action on the Bight of Biafra, and also on the Slave Coast and
   in Senegambia." This "fixed the inland extension of the German
   sphere of influence (Camarons) at 15° East longitude, Greenwich.
   ... At present it allows the French Congo territories to
   expand along the western bank of the M'bangi ... provided no
   other tributary of the M'bangi-Congo is found to the west, in
   which case, according to the Berlin Treaty of 1884-85, the
   conventional basin of the Congo would gain an extension." On
   the 12th of May, 1886, France and Portugal signed a convention
   by which France "secured the exclusive control of both banks
   of the Casamanza (in Senegambia), and the Portuguese frontier
   in the south was advanced approximately to the southern limit
   of the basin of the Casini.
{18}
   On the Congo, Portugal retained the Massabi district, to which
   France had laid claim, but both banks of the Loango were left
   to France." In 1884 three representatives of the Society for
   German Colonization--Dr. Peters, Dr. Jühlke, and Count
   Pfeil--quietly concluded treaties with the chiefs of Useguha,
   Ukami, Nguru, and Usagara, by which those territories were
   conveyed to the Society in question. "Dr. Peters ... armed
   with his treaties, returned to Berlin in February, 1885. On
   the 27th February, the day following the signature of the
   General Act of the Berlin Conference, an Imperial Schutzbrief,
   or Charter of Protection, secured to the Society for German
   Colonization the territories ... acquired for them through Dr.
   Peters' treaties: in other words, a German Protectorate was
   proclaimed. When it became known that Germany had seized upon
   the Zanzibar mainland, the indignation in colonial circles
   knew no bounds. ... Prior to 1884, the continental lands
   facing Zanzibar were almost exclusively under British
   influence. The principal traders were British subjects, and
   the Sultan's Government was administered under the advice of
   the British Resident. The entire region between the Coast and
   the Lakes was regarded as being under the nominal suzerainty
   of the Sultan. ... Still, Great Britain had no territorial
   claims on the dominions of the Sultan." The Sultan formally
   protested and Great Britain championed his cause; but to no
   effect. In the end the Sultan of Zanzibar yielded the German
   Protectorate over the four inland provinces and over Vitu, and
   the British and German Governments arranged questions between
   them, provisionally, by the Anglo-German Convention of 1886,
   which was afterwards superseded by the more definite
   Convention of July 1890, which will be spoken of below. In
   April 1887, the rights of the Society for German Colonization
   were transferred to the German East Africa Association, with
   Dr. Peters at its head. The British East Africa Company took
   over concessions that had been granted by the Sultan of
   Zanzibar to Sir William Mackinnon, and received a royal
   charter in September, 1888. In South-west Africa, "an
   enterprising Bremen merchant, Herr Lüderitz, and subsequently
   the German Consul-General, Dr. Nachtigal, concluded a series
   of political and commercial treaties with native chiefs,
   whereby a claim was instituted over Angra Pequeña, and over
   vast districts in the Interior between the Orange River and
   Cape Frio. ... It was useless for the Cape colonists to
   protest. On the 13th October 1884 Germany formally notified to
   the Powers her Protectorate over South-West Africa. ... On 3rd
   August 1885 the German Colonial Company for South-West Africa
   was founded, and .... received the Imperial sanction for its
   incorporation. But in August 1886 a new Association was
   formed--the German West-Africa Company--and the
   administration of its territories was placed under an Imperial
   Commissioner. ... The intrusion of Germany into South-West
   Africa acted as a check upon, no less than a spur to, the
   extension of British influence northwards to the Zambezi.
   Another obstacle to this extension arose from the Boer
   insurrection." The Transvaal, with increased independence had
   adopted the title of South African Republic. "Zulu-land,
   having lost its independence, was partitioned: a third of its
   territories, over which a republic had been proclaimed, was
   absorbed (October 1887) by the Transvaal; the remainder was
   added (14th May 1887) to the British possessions.
   Amatonga-land was in 1888 also taken under British protection.
   By a convention with the South African Republic, Britain
   acquired in 1884 the Crown colony of Bechuana-land; and in the
   early part of 1885 a British Protectorate was proclaimed over
   the remaining portion of Bechuana-land." Furthermore, "a
   British Protectorate was instituted [1885] over the country
   bounded by the Zambezi in the north, the British possessions
   in the south, 'the Portuguese province of Sofala' in the east,
   and the 20th degree of east longitude in the west. It was at
   this juncture that Mr. Cecil Rhodes came forward, and, having
   obtained certain concessions from Lobengula, founded the
   British South Africa Company, ... On the 29th October 1889,
   the British South Africa Company was granted a royal charter.
   It was declared in this charter that the principal field of
   the operations of the British South African Company shall be
   the region of South Africa lying immediately to the north of
   British Bechuanaland, and to the north and west of the South
   African Republic, and to the west of the Portuguese
   dominions.'" No northern limit was given, and the other
   boundaries were vaguely defined. The position of Swazi-land
   was definitely settled in 1890 by an arrangement between Great
   Britain and the South African Republic, which provides for the
   continued independence of Swazi-land and a joint control over
   the white settlers. A British Protectorate was proclaimed over
   Nyassa-Viand and the Shiré Highlands in 1889-90. To return now
   to the proceedings of other Powers in Africa: "Italy took
   formal possession, in July 1882, of the bay and territory of
   Assab. The Italian coast-line on the Red Sea was extended from
   Ras Kasar (18° 2' North Latitude) to the southern boundary of
   Raheita, towards Obok. During 1889, shortly after the death of
   King Johannes, Keren and Asmara were occupied by Italian
   troops. Menelik of Shoa, who succeeded to the throne of
   Abyssinia after subjugating all the Abyssinian provinces,
   except Tigré, dispatched an embassy to King Humbert, the
   result of which was that the new Negus acknowledged (29th
   September, 1889) the Protectorate of Italy over Abyssinia, and
   its sovereignty over the territories of Massawa, Keren and
   Asmara." By the Protocols of 24th March and 15th April, 1891,
   Italy and Great Britain define their respective Spheres of
   Influence in East Africa. "But since then Italy has
   practically withdrawn from her position. She has absolutely no
   hold over Abyssinia. ... Italy has also succeeded in
   establishing herself on the Somál Coast." By treaties
   concluded in 1889, "the coastal lands between Cape Warsheikh
   (about 2° 30' North latitude), and Cape Bedwin (8° 3' North
   latitude)--a distance of 450 miles--were placed under Italian
   protection. Italy subsequently extended (1890) her
   Protectorate over the Somál Coast to the Jub river. ... The
   British Protectorate on the Somál Coast facing Aden, now
   extends from the Italian frontier at Ras Hafún to Ras Jibute
   (43° 15' East longitude). ... The activity of France in her
   Senegambian province, ... during the last hundred years ...
   has finally resulted in a considerable expansion of her
   territory. ... The French have established a claim over the
   country intervening between our Gold Coast Colony and Liberia.
{19}
   A more precise delimitation of the frontier between Sierra
   Leone and Liberia resulted from the treaties signed at
   Monrovia on the 11th of November, 1887. In 1888 Portugal
   withdrew all rights over Dehomé. ... Recently, a French sphere
   of influence has been instituted over the whole of the Saharan
   regions between Algeria and Senegambia. ... Declarations were
   exchanged (5th August 1890) between [France and Great Britain]
   with the following results: France became a consenting party
   to the Anglo-German Convention of 1st July 1890. (2.) Great
   Britain recognised a French sphere of influence over
   Madagascar. ... And (3) Great Britain recognised the sphere of
   influence of France to the south of her Mediterranean
   possessions, up to a line from Say on the Niger to Barrua on
   Lake Tsad, drawn in such a manner as to comprise in the sphere
   of action of the British Niger Company all that fairly belongs
   to the kingdom of Sokoto." The Anglo-German Convention of
   July, 1890, already referred to, established by its main
   provisions the following definitions of territory: "The
   Anglo-German frontier in East Africa, which, by the Convention
   of 1886, ended at a point on the eastern shore of the Victoria
   Nyanza was continued on the same latitude across the lake to
   the confines of the Congo Independent State; but, on the
   western side of the lake, this frontier was, if necessary, to
   be deflected to the south, in order to include Mount M'fumbiro
   within the British sphere. ... Treaties in that district were
   made on behalf of the British East Africa Company by Mr.
   Stanley, on his return (May 1889) from the relief of Emin
   Pasha. ... (2.) The southern boundary of the German sphere of
   influence in East Africa was recognised as that originally
   drawn to a point on the eastern shore of Lake Nyassa, whence
   it was continued by the eastern, northern, and western shores
   of the lake to the northern bank of the mouth of the River
   Songwé. From this point the Anglo-German frontier was
   continued to Lake Tanganika, in such a manner as to leave the
   Stevenson Road within the British sphere. (3.) The Northern
   frontier of British East Africa was defined by the Jub River
   and the conterminous boundary of the Italian sphere of
   influence in Galla-land and Abyssinia up to the confines of
   Egypt; in the west, by the Congo State and the Congo-Nile
   watershed. (4.) Germany withdrew, in favor of Britain, her
   Protectorate over Vitu and her claims to all territories on
   the mainland to the north of the River Tana, as also over the
   islands of Patta and Manda. (5.) In South-West Africa, the
   Anglo-German frontier, originally fixed up to 22 south
   latitude, was confirmed; but from this point the boundary-line
   was drawn in such a manner eastward and northward as to give
   Germany free access to the Zambezi by the Chobe River. (6.)
   The Anglo-German frontier between Togo and Gold Coast Colony
   was fixed, and that between the Camarons and the British Niger
   Territories was provisionally adjusted. (7.) The Free-trade
   zone, defined by the Act of Berlin (1885) was recognised as
   applicable to the present arrangement between Britain and
   Germany. (8.) A British Protectorate was recognised over the
   dominions of the Sultan of Zanzibar within the British coastal
   zone and over the islands of Zanzibar and Pemba. Britain,
   however, undertook to use her influence to secure (what have
   since been acquired) corresponding advantages for Germany
   within the German coastal zone and over the island of Mafia.
   Finally (9), the island of Heligoland, in the North Sea, was
   ceded by Britain to Germany." By a treaty concluded in June,
   1891, between Great Britain and Portugal, "Great Britain
   acquired a broad central sphere of influence for the expansion
   of her possessions in South Africa northward to and beyond the
   Zambezi, along a path which provides for the uninterrupted
   passage of British goods and British enterprise, up to the
   confines of the Congo Independent State and German East
   Africa. ... Portugal, on the East Coast secured the Lower
   Zambezi from Zumbo, and the Lower Shiré from the Ruo
   Confluence, the entire Hinterland of Mosambique up to Lake
   Nyassa and the Hinterland of Sofala to the confines of the
   South African Republic and the Matabele kingdom. On the West
   Coast, Portugal received the entire Hinterland behind her
   provinces in Lower Guinea, up to the confines of the Congo
   Independent State, and the upper course of the Zambezi. ... On
   May 25th 1891 a Convention was signed at Lisbon, which has put an
   end to the dispute between Portugal and the Congo Independent
   State as to the possession of Lunda. Roughly speaking, the
   country was equally divided between the disputants. ... Lord
   Salisbury, in his negotiations with Germany and Portugal, very
   wisely upheld the principle of free-trade which was laid down by
   the Act of Berlin, 1885, in regard to the free transit of
   goods through territories in which two or more powers are
   indirectly interested."

      _A. S. White, The Development of Africa, Second Ed.,
      Revised._, 1892.

      ALSO IN:
      _J. S. Keltie, The Partition of Africa, chapter 12-23._

      See, also, SOUTH AFRICA, and UGANDA.

AFRICA: The inhabiting races.

   The indigenous races of Africa are considered to be four in
   number, namely: the Negroes proper, who occupy a central zone,
   stretching from the Atlantic to the Egyptian Sudan, and who
   comprise an enormous number of diverse tribes; the Fulahs
   (with whom the Nubians are associated) settled mainly between
   Lake Chad and the Niger; the Bantus, who occupy the whole
   South, except its extremity, and the Hottentots who are in
   that extreme southern region. Some anthropologists include
   with the Hottentots the Bosjesmans or Bushmen. The Kafirs and
   Bechuanas are Bantu tribes. The North and Northeast are
   occupied by Semitic and Hamitic races, the latter including
   Abyssinians and Gallas.

      _A. H. Keane, The African Races (Stanford's Compendium:
      Africa, appendix)._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Brown, The Races of Mankind, volume 2-3._

      _R. N. Cust, Sketch of the Modern Languages of
      Africa_.

      See, also, SOUTH AFRICA.

----------AFRICA: End----------

AGA MOHAMMED KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1795-1797.

AGADE.
      See BABYLONIA: THE EARLY (CHALDEAN) MONARCHY.

AGAPETUS II., Pope, A. D. 946-956.

AGAS.

      See SUBLIME PORTE.

AGATHO, Pope, A. D. 678-682.

AGATHOCLES, The tyranny of.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 317-289.

AGE OF STONE.--AGE OF BRONZE, &c.

      See STONE AGE.

{20}

AGELA.--AGELATAS.

   The youths and young men of ancient Crete were publicly
   trained and disciplined in divisions or companies, each of
   which was called an Agela, and its leader or director the
   Agelatas.

      _G. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 2._

AGEMA, The.

   The royal escort of Alexander the Great.

AGEN, Origin of.

      See NITIOBRIGES.

AGENDICUM OR AGEDINCUM.

      See SENONES.

AGER PUBLICUS.

   "Rome was always making fresh acquisitions of territory in her
   early history. ... Large tracts of country became Roman land,
   the property of the Roman state, or public domain (ager
   publicus), as the Romans called it. The condition of this
   land, the use to which it was applied, and the disputes which
   it caused between the two orders at Rome, are among the most
   curious and perplexing questions in Roman history. ... That
   part of newly acquired territory which was neither sold nor
   given remained public property, and it was occupied, according
   to the Roman term, by private persons, in whose hands it was a
   Possessio. Hyginus and Siculus Flaccus represent this
   occupation as being made without any order. Every Roman took
   what he could, and more than he could use profitably. ... We
   should be more inclined to believe that this public land was
   occupied under some regulations, in order to prevent disputes;
   but if such regulations existed we know nothing about them.
   There was no survey made of the public land which was from
   time to time acquired, but there were certainly general
   boundaries fixed for the purpose of determining what had
   become public property. The lands which were sold and given
   were of necessity surveyed and fixed by boundaries. ... There
   is no direct evidence that any payments to the state were
   originally made by the Possessors. It is certain, however,
   that at some early time such payments were made, or, at least,
   were due to the state."

      _G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, chapter 11._

AGGER.

      See CASTRA.

AGGRAVIADOS, The.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

AGHA MOHAMMED KHAN, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1795-1797.

AGHLABITE DYNASTY.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST AND EMPIRE: A. D.715-750.

AGHRIM, OR AUGHRIM, Battle of (A. D. 1691).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

AGILULPHUS, King of the Lombards. A. D. 590-616.

AGINCOURT, Battle of (1415).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1415.

AGINNUM.--Modern Agen.

      See NITIOBRIGES.

AGNADEL, Battle of (1509).

      See VENICE: A. D. 1508-1509.

AGNATI.--AGNATIC.

      See GENS, ROMAN.

AGNIERS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: AGNIERS.

AGOGE, The.

   The public discipline enforced in ancient Sparta; the
   ordinances attributed to Lycurgus, for the training of the
   young and for the regulating of the lives of citizens.

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

AGORA, The.

   The market-place of an ancient Greek city was, also, the
   centre of its political life. "Like the gymnasium, and even
   earlier than this, it grew into architectural splendour with
   the increasing culture of the Greeks. In maritime cities it
   generally lay near the sea; in inland places at the foot of
   the hill which carried the old feudal castle. Being the oldest
   part of the city, it naturally became the focus not only of
   commercial, but also of religious and political life. Here
   even in Homer's time the citizens assembled in consultation,
   for which purpose it was supplied with seats; here were the
   oldest sanctuaries; here were celebrated the first festive
   games; here centred the roads on which the intercommunication,
   both religious and commercial, with neighbouring cities and
   states was carried on; from here started the processions which
   continually passed between holy places of kindred origin,
   though locally separated. Although originally all public
   transactions were carried on in these market-places, special
   local arrangements for contracting public business soon became
   necessary in large cities. At Athens, for instance, the gently
   rising ground of the Philopappos hill, called Pnyx, touching
   the Agora, was used for political consultations, while most
   likely, about the time of the Pisistratides, the market of
   Kerameikos, the oldest seat of Attic industry (lying between
   the foot of the Akropolis, the Areopagos and the hill of
   Theseus), became the agora proper, i. e., the centre of
   Athenian commerce. ... The description by Vitruvius of an
   agora evidently refers to the splendid structures of
   post-Alexandrine times. According to him it was quadrangular
   in size [? shape] and surrounded by wide double colonades. The
   numerous columns carried architraves of common stone or of
   marble, and on the roofs of the porticoes were galleries for
   walking purposes. This, of course, does not apply to all
   marketplaces, even of later date; but, upon the whole, the
   remaining specimens agree with the description of Vitruvius."

      _E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      translated by Hueffer, part 1, section 26._

   In the Homeric time, the general assembly of freemen was
   called the Agora.

      _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 20._

AGRÆI, The.

      See AKARNANIANS.

AGRARIAN LAWS, Roman.

   "Great mistakes formerly prevailed on the nature of the Roman
   laws familiarly termed Agrarian. It was supposed that by these
   laws all land was declared common property, and that at
   certain intervals of time the state resumed possession and
   made a fresh distribution to all citizens, rich and poor. It
   is needless to make any remarks on the nature and consequences
   of such a law; sufficient it will be to say, what is now known
   to all, that at Rome such laws never existed, never were
   thought of. The lands which were to be distributed by Agrarian
   laws were not private property, but the property of the state.
   They were, originally, those public lands which had been the
   domain of the kings, and which were increased whenever any
   City or people was conquered by the Romans; because it was an
   Italian practice to confiscate the lands of the conquered, in
   whole or in part."

      _H. G. Liddell, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 8._

      See ROME: B. C. 376, and B. C. 133-121.

{21}

AGRI DECUMATES, The.

   "Between the Rhine and the Upper Danube there intervenes a
   triangular tract of land, the apex of which touches the
   confines of Switzerland at Basel; thus separating, as with an
   enormous wedge, the provinces of Gaul and Vindelicia, and
   presenting at its base no natural line of defence from one river
   to the other. This tract was, however, occupied, for the most
   part, by forests, and if it broke the line of the Roman
   defences, it might at least be considered impenetrable to an
   enemy. Abandoned by the warlike and predatory tribes of
   Germany, it was seized by wandering immigrants from Gaul, many
   of them Roman adventurers, before whom the original
   inhabitants, the Marcomanni, or men of the frontier, seem to
   have retreated eastward beyond the Hercynian forest. The
   intruders claimed or solicited Roman protection, and offered
   in return a tribute from the produce of the soil, whence the
   district itself came to be known by the title of the Agri
   Decumates, or Tithed Land. It was not, however, officially
   connected with any province of the Empire, nor was any attempt
   made to provide for its permanent security, till a period much
   later than that on which we are now engaged [the period of
   Augustus]."

      _C. Merivale, History of the Roman, chapter 36._.

   "Wurtemburg, Baden and Hohenzollern coincide with the Agri
   Decumates of the Roman writers."

      _R G. Latham, Ethnology of Europe, chapter 8._

     See, also, ALEMANNI, and SUEVI.

AGRICOLA'S CAMPAIGNS IN BRITAIN.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 78-84.

AGRIGENTUM.

   Acragas, or Agrigentum, one of the youngest of the Greek
   colonies in Sicily, founded about B. C. 582 by the older
   colony of Gela, became one of the largest and most splendid
   cities of the age, in the fifth century B. C., as is testified
   by its ruins to this day. It was the scene of the notorious
   tyranny of Phalaris, as well as that of Theron. Agrigentum was
   destroyed by the Carthagenians, B. C. 405, and rebuilt by
   Timoleon, but never recovered its former importance and
   grandeur.

      _E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 3._

      See, also, PHALARIS, BRAZEN BULL OF.

   Agrigentum was destroyed by the Carthagenians in 406 B. C.

      See SICILY: B. C. 409-405.

   Rebuilt by Timoleon, it was the scene of a great defeat of the
   Carthagenians by the Romans, in 262 B. C.

      See PUNIC WAR, THE FIRST.

AGRIPPINA AND HER SON NERO.

      See ROME: A. D. 47-54, and 54-64.

AHMED KHEL, Battle of (1880).

      See AFGHANISTAN: A. D. 1869-1881.

AIGINA.

      See ÆGINA.

AIGOSPOTAMOI, Battle of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 405.

AIGUILLON, Siege of.

   A notable siege in the "Hundred Years' War," A. D. 1346. An
   English garrison under the famous knight, Sir Walter Manny,
   held the great fortress of Aiguillon, near the confluence of
   the Garonne and the Lot, against a formidable French army.

   _J. Froissart, Chronicles, volume 1, book 1, chapter 120._

AIX, Origin of.

   See SALYES.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE:
   The Capital of Charlemagne.

   The favorite residence and one of the two capitals of
   Charlemagne was the city which the Germans call Aachen and the
   French have named Aix-la-Chapelle. "He ravished the ruins of
   the ancient world to restore the monumental arts. A new Rome
   arose in the depths of the forests of Austrasia--palaces,
   gates, bridges, baths, galleries, theatres, churches,--for the
   erection of which the mosaics and marbles of Italy were laid
   under tribute, and workmen summoned from all parts of Europe.
   It was there that an extensive library was gathered, there
   that the school of the palace was made permanent, there that
   foreign envoys were pompously welcomed, there that the monarch
   perfected his plans for the introduction of Roman letters and
   the improvement of music."

      _P. Godwin, History of France:
      Ancient Gaul, book 4, chapter 17._

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, Treaty of (A. D. 803).

      See VENICE: A. D. 697-810.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, Treaty of (A. D. 1668).

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1668.

AIX-LA-CHAPELLE,
   The Congress and Treaty which ended the War of the Austrian
   Succession (1748).

   The War of the Austrian Succession, which raged in Europe, and
   on the ocean, and in India and America, from 1740 to 1748 (see
   AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738, 1740-1741, and after), was brought
   to an end in the latter year by a Congress of all the
   belligerents which met at Aix-la-Chapelle, in April, and which
   concluded its labors on the 18th of October following. "The
   influence of England and Holland ... forced the peace upon
   Austria and Sardinia, though both were bitterly aggrieved by
   its conditions. France agreed to restore every conquest she
   had made during the war, to abandon the cause of the Stuarts,
   and expel the Pretender from her soil; to demolish, in
   accordance with earlier treaties, the fortifications of
   Dunkirk on the side of the sea, while retaining those on the
   side of the land, and to retire from the conquest without
   acquiring any fresh territory or any pecuniary compensation.
   England in like manner restored the few conquests she had
   made, and submitted to the somewhat humiliating condition of
   sending hostages to Paris as a security for the restoration of
   Cape Breton. ... The disputed boundary between Canada and Nova
   Scotia, which had been a source of constant difficulty with
   France, was left altogether undefined. The Assiento treaty for
   trade with the Spanish colonies was confirmed for the four
   years it had still to run; but no real compensation was
   obtained for a war expenditure which is said to have exceeded
   sixty-four millions, and which had raised the funded and
   unfunded debt to more than seventy-eight millions. Of the
   other Powers, Holland, Genoa, and the little state of Modena
   retained their territory as before the war, and Genoa remained
   mistress of the Duchy of Finale, which had been ceded to the king
   of Sardinia by the Treaty of Worms, and which it had been a
   main object of his later policy to secure. Austria obtained a
   recognition of the election of the Emperor, a general
   guarantee of the Pragmatic Sanction, and the restoration of
   everything she had lost in the Netherlands, but she gained no
   additional territory. She was compelled to confirm the cession
   of Silesia and Glatz to Prussia, to abandon her Italian
   conquests, and even to cede a considerable part of her former
   Italian dominions. To the bitter indignation of Maria Theresa,
   the Duchies of Parma, Placentia and Guastella passed to Don
   Philip of Spain, to revert, however, to their former
   possessors if Don Philip mounted the Spanish throne, or died
   without male issue. The King of Sardinia also obtained from
   Austria the territorial cessions enumerated In the Treaty of
   Worms [see ITALY: A. D. 1743], with the important exceptions
   of Placentia, which passed to Don Philip, and of Finale, which
   remained with the Genoese.
{22}
   For the loss of these he obtained no compensation. Frederick
   [the Great, of Prussia] obtained a general guarantee for the
   possession of his newly acquired territory, and a long list of
   old treaties was formally confirmed. Thus small were the
   changes effected in Europe by so much bloodshed and treachery,
   by nearly nine years of wasteful and desolating war. The
   design of the dismemberment of Austria had failed, but no
   vexed questions had been set at rest. ... Of all the ambitious
   projects that had been conceived during the war, that of
   Frederick alone was substantially realized."

      _W. E. H. Lecky, History of England, 18th Century,
      chapter 3._

   "Thus ended the War of the Austrian succession. In its origin
   and its motives one of the most wicked of all the many
   conflicts which ambition and perfidy have provoked in Europe,
   it excites a peculiarly mournful interest by the gross
   inequality in the rewards and penalties which fortune assigned
   to the leading actors. Prussia, Spain and Sardinia were all
   endowed out of the estates of the house of Hapsburg. But the
   electoral house of Bavaria, the most sincere and the most
   deserving of all the claimants to that vast inheritance, not
   only received no increase of territory, but even nearly lost
   its own patrimonial possessions. ... The most trying problem
   is still that offered by the misfortunes of the Queen of
   Hungary [Maria Theresa]. ... The verdict of history, as
   expressed by the public opinion, and by the vast majority of
   writers, in every country except Prussia, upholds the justice
   of the queen's cause and condemns the coalition that was
   formed against her."

      _H. Tuttle, History of Prussia, 1745-1756, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN
      _W. Russell, History of Modern Europe, part 2, letter 30._

      _W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria,
      chapter 108 (volume 3)._

      See, also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1745-1748.

AIZNADIN, Battle of (A. D. 634).

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

AKARNANIAN LEAGUE, The.

   "Of the Akarnanian League, formed by one of the least
   important, but at the same time one of the most estimable
   peoples in Greece ... our knowledge is only fragmentary. The
   boundaries of Akarnania fluctuated, but we always find the
   people spoken of as a political whole. ... Thucydides speaks,
   by implication at least, of the Akarnanian League as an
   institution of old standing in his time. The Akarnanians had,
   in early times, occupied the hill of Olpai as a place for
   judicial proceedings common to the whole nation. Thus the
   supreme court of the Akarnanian Union held its sittings, not
   in a town, but in a mountain fortress. But in Thucydides' own
   time Stratos had attained its position as the greatest city of
   Akarnania, and probably the federal assemblies were already
   held there. ... Of the constitution of the League we know but
   little. Ambassadors were sent by the federal body, and
   probably, just as in the Achaian League, it would have been
   held to be a breach of the federal tie if any single city had
   entered on diplomatic intercourse with other powers. As in
   Achaia, too, there stood at the head of the League a General
   with high authority. ... The existence of coins bearing the
   name of the whole Akarnanian nation shows that there was unity
   enough to admit of a federal coinage, though coins of
   particular cities also occur."

      _E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government.,
      chapter 4, section 1._

AKARNANIANS (Acarnanians).

   The Akarnanians formed "a link of transition" between the
   ancient Greeks and their barbarous or non-Hellenic neighbours
   in the Epirus and beyond. "They occupied the territory between
   the river Acheloûs, the Ionian sea and the Ambrakian gulf:
   they were Greeks and admitted as such to contend at the
   Pan-Hellenic games, yet they were also closely connected with
   the Amphilochi and Agræi, who were not Greeks. In manners,
   sentiments and intelligence, they were half-Hellenic and
   half-Epirotic,--like the Ætolians and the Ozolian Lokrians.
   Even down to the time of Thucydides, these nations were
   subdivided into numerous petty communities, lived in
   unfortified villages, were frequently in the habit of
   plundering each other, and never permitted themselves to be
   unarmed. ... Notwithstanding this state of disunion and
   insecurity, however, the Akarnanians maintained a loose
   political league among themselves. ... The Akarnanians appear
   to have produced many prophets. They traced up their mythical
   ancestry, as well as that of their neighbours the
   Amphilochians, to the most renowned prophetic family among the
   Grecian heroes,--Amphiaraus, with his sons Alkmæôn and
   Ampilochus: Akarnan, the eponymous hero of the nation, and
   other eponymous heroes of the separate towns, were supposed to
   be the sons of Alkmæôn. They are spoken of, together with the
   Ætolians, as mere rude shepherds, by the lyric poet Alkman,
   and so they seem to have continued with little alteration
   until the beginning of the Peloponnesian war, when we hear of
   them, for the first time, as allies of Athens and as bitter
   enemies of the Corinthian colonies on their coast. The contact
   of those colonies, however, and the large spread of Akarnanian
   accessible coast, could not fail to produce some effect in
   socializing and improving the people. And it is probable that
   this effect would have been more sensibly felt, had not the
   Akarnanians been kept back by the fatal neighbourhood of the
   Ætolians, with whom they were in perpetual feud,--a people the
   most unprincipled and unimprovable of all who bore the
   Hellenic name, and whose habitual faithlessness stood in
   marked contrast with the rectitude and steadfastness of the
   Akarnanian character."

      _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 24._

AKBAR (called The Great), Moghul Emperor or Padischah of India,
A. D. 1556-1605.

AKHALZIKH, Siege and capture of (1828).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

AKKAD.--AKKADIANS.

      See BABYLONIA, PRIMITIVE.

AKKARON.

      See PHILISTINES.

AKROKERAUNIAN PROMONTORY.

      See KORKYRA.

ALABAMA:
   The Aboriginal Inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES: MUSKHOGEE FAMILY;
      CHEROKEES.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1539-1542.
   Traversed by Hernando de Soto.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1629.
   Embraced in the Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1629.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1663.
   Embraced in the Carolina grant to Monk, Shaftesbury, and others.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

{23}

ALABAMA: A. D. 1702-1711.
   French occupation and first settlement.
   The founding of Mobile.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1732.
   Mostly embraced in the new province of Georgia.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1763.
   Cession and delivery to Great Britain.
   Partly embraced in West Florida.

      See SEVEN YEARS' WAR;
      and FLORIDA: A. D. 1763:
      and NORTHWEST TERRITORY: A. D. 1763.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1779-1781.
   Reconquest of West Florida by the Spaniards.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1779-1781.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1783.
   Mostly covered by the English cession to the United States.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

ALABAMA: A. D. 1783-1787.
   Partly in dispute with Spain.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1783-1787.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1798-1804.
   All but the West Florida District embraced in Mississippi Territory.

      See MISSISSIPPI: A. D. 1798-1804.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1803.
   Portion acquired by the Louisiana purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A.D. 1798-1803.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1813.
   Possession of Mobile and West Florida taken from the Spaniards.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1810-1813.

ALABAMA: A. D. 1813-1814.
   The Creek War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL).

ALABAMA: A. D. 1817-1819.
   Organized as a Territory.
   Constituted a State, and admitted to the Union.

   "By an act of Congress dated March 1, 1817, Mississippi
   Territory was divided. Another act, bearing the date March 3,
   thereafter, organized the western [? eastern] portion into a
   Territory, to be known as Alabama, and with the boundaries as
   they now exist. ... By an act approved March 2, 1819, congress
   authorized the inhabitants of the Territory of Alabama to form
   a state constitution, 'and that said Territory, when formed
   into a State, shall be admitted into the Union upon the same
   footing as the original States.' ... The joint resolution of
   congress admitting Alabama into the Union was approved by
   President Monroe, December 14, 1819."

      _W. Brewer, Alabama, chapter 5._

ALABAMA: A. D. 1861 (January).
   Secession from the Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1861 (JANUARY-FEBRUARY).

ALABAMA: A. D. 1862.
   General Mitchell's Expedition.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862 (APRIL--MAY: ALABAMA).

ALABAMA: A. D. 1864 (August).
   The Battle of Mobile Bay.
   Capture of Confederate forts and fleet.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864(AUGUST: ALABAMA).

ALABAMA: A. D. 1865 (March-April).
   The Fall of Mobile.
   Wilson's Raid.
   End of the Rebellion.

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

ALABAMA: A. D. 1865-1868.
   Reconstruction.

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

----------ALABAMA: End----------

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1861-1862.
   In their Origin.
   The Earlier Confederate cruisers.
   Precursors of the Alabama.

   The commissioning of privateers, and of more officially
   commanded cruisers, in the American civil war, by the
   government of the Southern Confederacy, was begun early in the
   progress of the movement of rebellion, pursuant to a
   proclamation issued by Jefferson Davis on the 17th of April,
   1861. "Before the close of July, 1861, more than 20 of those
   depredators were afloat, and had captured millions of property
   belonging to American citizens. The most formidable and
   notorious of the sea-going ships of this character, were the
   Nashville, Captain R. B. Pegram, a Virginian, who had
   abandoned his flag, and the Sumter [a regularly commissioned
   war vessel], Captain Raphael Semmes. The former was a
   side-wheel steamer, carried a crew of eighty men, and was
   armed with two long 12-pounder rifled cannon. Her career was
   short, but quite successful. She was finally destroyed by the
   Montauk, Captain Worden, in the Ogeechee River. The career of
   the Sumter, which had been a New Orleans and Havana packet
   steamer named Marquis de Habana, was also short, but much more
   active and destructive. She had a crew of sixty-five men and
   twenty-five marines, and was heavily armed. She ran the
   blockade at the mouth of the Mississippi River on the 30th of
   June, and was pursued some distance by the Brooklyn. She ran
   among the West India islands and on the Spanish Main, and soon
   made prizes of many vessels bearing the American flag. She was
   everywhere received in British Colonial ports with great
   favor, and was afforded every facility for her piratical
   operations. She became the terror of the American merchant
   service, and everywhere eluded National vessels of war sent
   out in pursuit of her. At length she crossed the ocean, and at
   the close of 1861 was compelled to seek shelter under British
   guns at Gibraltar, where she was watched by the Tuscarora.
   Early in the year 1862 she was sold, and thus ended her
   piratical career. Encouraged by the practical friendship of
   the British evinced for these corsairs, and the substantial
   aid they were receiving from British subjects in various ways,
   especially through blockade-runners, the conspirators
   determined to procure from those friends some powerful
   piratical craft, and made arrangements for the purchase and
   construction of vessels for that purpose. Mr. Laird, a
   ship-builder at Liverpool and member of the British
   Parliament, was the largest contractor in the business, and,
   in defiance of every obstacle, succeeded in getting pirate
   ships to sea. The first of these ships that went to sea was
   the Oreto, ostensibly built for a house in Palermo, Sicily.
   Mr. Adams, the American minister in London, was so well
   satisfied from information received that she was designed for
   the Confederates, that he called the attention of the British
   government to the matter so early as the 18th of February,
   1862. But nothing effective was done, and she was completed
   and allowed to depart from British waters. She went first to
   Nassau, and on the 4th of September suddenly appeared off
   Mobile harbor, flying the British flag and pennants. The
   blockading squadron there was in charge of Commander George H.
   Preble, who had been specially instructed not to give offense
   to foreign nations while enforcing the blockade. He believed
   the Oreto to be a British vessel, and while deliberating a few
   minutes as to what he should do, she passed out of range of
   his guns, and entered the harbor with a rich freight. For his
   seeming remissness Commander Preble was summarily dismissed
   from the service without a hearing--an act which subsequent
   events seemed to show was cruel injustice. Late in December
   the Oreto escaped from Mobile, fully armed for a piratical
   cruise, under the command of John Newland Maffit. ... The name
   of the Oreto was changed to that of Florida."

      _B. J. Lossing, Field Book of the Civil War,
      volume 2, chapter 21._

{24}

   The fate of the Florida is related below--A. D. 1862-1865.

      _R. Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, chapter 9-26._

      ALSO IN
      _J. Davis, Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government,
      chapter 30-31 (volume 2)._

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1864.
   The Alabama, her career and her fate.

   "The Alabama [the second cruiser built in England for the
   Confederates] ... is thus described by Semmes, her commander:
   'She was of about 900 tons burden, 230 feet in length, 32 feet
   in breadth, 20 feet in depth, and drew, when provisioned and
   coaled for cruise, 15 feet of water. She was
   barkentine-rigged, with long lower masts, which enabled her to
   carry large fore and aft sails, as jibs and try-sails. ... Her
   engine was of 300 horse-power, and she had attached an
   apparatus for condensing from the vapor of sea-water all the
   fresh water that her crew might require. ... Her armament
   consisted of eight guns.' ... The Alabama was built and, from
   the outset, was 'intended for a Confederate vessel of war.'
   The contract for her construction was signed by Captain
   Bullock on the one part and Messrs. Laird on the other.' ...
   On the 15th of May [1862] she was launched under the name of
   the 290. Her officers were in England awaiting her completion,
   and were paid their salaries 'monthly, about the first of the
   month, at Fraser, Trenholm & Co.'s office in Liverpool.' The
   purpose for which this vessel was being constructed was
   notorious in Liverpool. Before she was launched she became an
   object of suspicion with the Consul of the United States at
   that port, and she was the subject of constant correspondence
   on his part with his Government and with Mr. Adams. ... Early
   in the history of this cruiser the point was taken by the
   British authorities--a point maintained throughout the
   struggle--that they would originate nothing themselves for
   the maintenance and performance of their international duties,
   and that they would listen to no representations from the
   officials of the United States which did not furnish technical
   evidence for a criminal prosecution under the Foreign
   Enlistment Act. ... At last Mr. Dudley [the Consul of the
   United States at Liverpool] succeeded in finding the desired
   proof. On the 21st day of July, he laid it in the form of
   affidavits before the Collector at Liverpool in compliance
   with the intimations which Mr. Adams had received from Earl
   Russell. These affidavits were on the same day transmitted by
   the Collector to the Board of Customs at London, with a
   request for instructions by telegraph, as the ship appeared to
   be ready for sea and might leave any hour. ... It ... appears
   that notwithstanding this official information from the
   Collector, the papers were not considered by the law advisers
   until the 28th, and that the case appeared to them to be so
   clear that they gave their advice upon it that evening. Under
   these circumstances, the delay of eight days after the 21st in
   the order for the detention of the vessel was, in the opinion
   of the United States, gross negligence on the part of Her
   Majesty's Government. On the 29th the Secretary of the
   Commission of the Customs received a telegram from Liverpool
   saying that the vessel 290 came out of dock last night, and
   left the port this morning.' ... After leaving the dock she
   proceeded slowly down the Mersey.' Both the Lairds were on
   board, and also Bullock. ... The 290 slowly steamed on to
   Moelfra Bay, on the coast of Anglesey, where she remained 'all
   that night, all the next day, and the next night.' No effort
   was made to seize her. ... When the Alabama left Moelfra Bay
   her crew numbered about 90 men. She ran part way down the
   Irish Channel, then round the north coast of Ireland, only
   stopping near the Giant's Causeway. She then made for
   Terceira, one of the Azores, which she reached on the 10th of
   August. On 18th of August, while she was at Terceira, a sail
   was observed making for the anchorage. It proved to be the
   'Agrippina of London, Captain McQueen, having on board six
   guns, with ammunition, coals, stores, &c., for the Alabama.'
   Preparations were immediately made to transfer this important
   cargo. On the afternoon of the 20th, while employed
   discharging the bark, the screw-steamer Bahama, Captain
   Tessier (the same that had taken the armament to the Florida,
   whose insurgent ownership and character were well known in
   Liverpool), arrived, 'having on board Commander Raphael Semmes
   and officers of the Confederate States steamer Sumter.' There
   were also taken from this steamer two 32-pounders and some
   stores, which occupied all the remainder of that day and a
   part of the next. The 22d and 23d of August were taken up in
   transferring coal from the Agrippina to the Alabama. It was
   not until Sunday (the 24th) that the insurgents' flag was
   hoisted. Bullock and those who were not going in the 290 went
   back to the Bahama, and the Alabama, now first known under
   that name, went off with '26 officers and 85 men.'"

      _The Case of the United States before the Tribunal of
      Arbitration at Geneva (42d Congress, 2d Session,
      Senate Ex. Doc., No. 31, pages 146-151)._

   The Alabama "arrived at Porto Praya on the 19th August.
   Shortly thereafter Capt. Raphael Semmes assumed command.
   Hoisting the Confederate flag, she cruised and captured
   several vessels in the vicinity of Flores. Cruising to the
   westward, and making several captures, she approached within
   200 miles of New York; thence going southward, arrived, on the
   18th November, at Port Royal, Martinique. On the night of the
   19th she escaped from the harbour and the Federal steamer San
   Jacinto, and on the 20th November was at Blanquilla. On the
   7th December she captured the steamer Ariel in the passage
   between Cuba and St. Domingo. On January 11th, 1863, she sunk
   the Federal gunboat Hatteras off Galveston, and on the 30th
   arrived at Jamaica. Cruising to the eastward, and making many
   captures, she arrived on the 10th April, at Fernando de
   Noronha, 'and on the 11th May at Bahia, where, on the 13th,
   she was joined by the Confederate steamer Georgia. Cruising
   near the line, thence southward towards the Cape of Good Hope,
   numerous captures were made. On the 29th July she anchored in
   Saldanha Bay, South Africa, and near there on the 5th August,
   was joined by the Confederate bark Tuscaloosa, Commander Low.
   In September, 1863, she was at St. Simon's Bay, and in October
   was in the Straits of Sunda, and up to January 20, 1864,
   cruised in the Bay of Bengal and vicinity, visiting
   Singapore, and making a number of very valuable captures,
   including the Highlander, Sonora, etc.
{25}
   From this point she cruised on her homeward track via Cape of
   Good Hope, capturing the bark Tycoon and ship Rockingham, and
   arrived at Cherbourg, France, in June, 1864, where she
   repaired. A Federal steamer, the Kearsarge, was lying off the
   harbour. Capt. Semmes might easily have evaded this enemy; the
   business of his vessel was that of a privateer; and her value
   to the Confederacy was out of all comparison with a single
   vessel of the enemy. ... But Capt. Semmes had been twitted
   with the name of 'pirate;' and he was easily persuaded to
   attempt an éclat for the Southern Confederacy by a naval fight
   within sight of the French coast, which contest, it was
   calculated, would prove the Alabama a legitimate war vessel,
   and give such an exhibition of Confederate belligerency as
   possibly to revive the question of 'recognition' in Paris and
   London. These were the secret motives of the gratuitous fight
   with which Capt. Semmes obliged the enemy off the port of
   Cherbourg. The Alabama carried one 7-inch Blakely rifled gun,
   one 8-inch smooth-bore pivot gun, and six 32-pounders,
   smooth-bore, in broadside; the Kearsarge carried four
   broadside 32-pounders, two 11-inch and one 28-pound rifle. The
   two vessels were thus about equal in match and armament; and
   their tonnage was about the same."

      _E. A. Pollard, The Lost Cause, pages 549._

   Captain Winslow, commanding the United States Steamer
   Kearsarge, in a report to the Secretary of the Navy written on
   the afternoon of the day of his battle with the Alabama, June
   19, 1864, said: "I have the honor to inform the department
   that the day subsequent to the arrival of the Kearsarge off
   this port, on the 24th [14th] instant, I received a note from
   Captain Semmes, begging that the Kearsarge would not depart,
   as he intended to fight her, and would delay her but a day or
   two. According to this notice, the Alabama left the port of
   Cherbourg this morning at about half past nine o'clock. At
   twenty minutes past ten A. M., we discovered her steering
   towards us. Fearing the question of jurisdiction might arise,
   we steamed to sea until a distance of six or seven miles was
   attained from the Cherbourg break-water, when we rounded to
   and commenced steaming for the Alabama. As we approached her,
   within about 1,200 yards, she opened fire, we receiving two or
   three broadsides before a shot was returned. The action
   continued, the respective steamers making a circle round and
   round at a distance of about 900 yards from each other. At the
   expiration of an hour the Alabama struck, going down in about
   twenty minutes afterward, carrying many persons with her." In
   a report two days later, Captain Winslow gave the following
   particulars: "Toward the close of the action between the
   Alabama and this vessel, all available sail was made on the
   former for the purpose of again reaching Cherbourg. When the
   object was apparent, the Kearsarge was steered across the bow
   of the Alabama for a raking fire; but before reaching this
   point the Alabama struck. Uncertain whether Captain Semmes was
   not using some ruse, the Kearsarge was stopped. It was seen,
   shortly afterward, that the Alabama was lowering her boats,
   and an officer came alongside in one of them to say that they
   had surrendered, and were fast sinking, and begging that boats
   would be despatched immediately for saving life. The two boats
   not disabled were at once lowered, and as it was apparent the
   Alabama was settling, this officer was permitted to leave in
   his boat to afford assistance. An English yacht, the
   Deerhound, had approached near the Kearsarge at this time,
   when I hailed and begged the commander to run down to the
   Alabama, as she was fast sinking, and we had but two boats,
   and assist in picking up the men. He answered affirmatively,
   and steamed toward the Alabama, but the latter sank almost
   immediately. The Deerhound, however, sent her boats and was
   actively engaged, aided by several others which had come from
   shore.' These boats were busy in bringing the wounded and
   others to the Kearsarge; whom we were trying to make as
   comfortable as possible, when it was reported to me that the
   Deerhound was moving off. I could not believe that the
   commander of that vessel could be guilty of so disgraceful an
   act as taking our prisoners off, and therefore took no means
   to prevent it, but continued to keep our boats at work
   rescuing the men in the water. I am sorry to say that I was
   mistaken. The Deerhound made off with Captain Semmes and
   others, and also the very officer who had come on board to
   surrender."--In a still later report Captain Winslow gave the
   following facts: "The fire of the Alabama, although it is stated
   she discharged 370 or more shell and shot, was not of serious
   damage to the Kearsarge. Some 13 or 14 of these had taken
   effect in and about the hull, and 16 or 17 about the masts and
   rigging. The casualties were small, only three persons having
   been wounded. ... The fire of the Kearsarge, although only 173
   projectiles had been discharged, according to the prisoners'
   accounts, was terrific. One shot alone had killed and wounded
   18 men, and disabled a gun. Another had entered the
   coal-bunkers, exploding, and completely blocking up the engine
   room; and Captain Semmes states that shot and shell had taken
   effect in the sides of his vessel, tearing large holes by
   explosion, and his men were everywhere knocked down."

      _Rebellion Record, volume 9, pages 221-225._

      ALSO IN
      _J. R. Soley, The Blockade and the Cruisers (The Navy in
      the Civil War, volume 1), chapter 7._

      _J. R. Soley, J. McI. Kell and J. M. Browne, The
      Confederate Cruisers (Battles and Leaders, volume 3)._

      _R. Semmes, Memoirs of Service Afloat, chapter 29-55._

      _J. D. Bullock, Secret Service of the Confederate States
      in Europe, volume 1, chapter 5._

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1865.
   Other Confederate cruisers.

   "A score of other Confederate cruisers roamed the seas, to
   prey upon United States commerce, but none of them became
   quite so famous as the Sumter and the Alabama. They included
   the Shenandoah, which made 38 captures, the Florida, which
   made 36, the Tallahassee, which made 27, the Tacony, which
   made 15, and the Georgia, which made 10. The Florida was
   captured in the harbor of Bahia, Brazil, in October, 1864, by
   a United States man-of·war [the Wachusett: commander Collins],
   in violation of the neutrality of the port. For this the
   United States Government apologized to Brazil and ordered the
   restoration of the Florida to the harbor where she was
   captured. But in Hampton Roads she met with an accident and
   sank. It was generally believed that the apparent accident was
   contrived with the connivance, if not by direct order, of the
   Government. Most of these cruisers were built in British
   shipyards."

      _R. Johnson, Short History of the War of Secession,
      chapter 24._

{26}

   The last of the destroyers of American commerce, the
   Shenandoah, was a British merchant ship--the Sea King--built
   for the Bombay trade, but purchased by the Confederate agent,
   Captain Bullock, armed with six guns, and commissioned
   (October, 1865) under her new name. In June, 1865, the
   Shenandoah, after a voyage to Australia, in the course of
   which she destroyed a dozen merchant ships, made her
   appearance in the Northern Sea, near Behring Strait, where she
   fell in with the New Bedford whaling fleet. "In the course of
   one week, from the 21st to the 28th, twenty-five whalers were
   captured, of which four were ransomed, and the remaining 21
   were burned. The loss on these 21 whalers was estimated at
   upwards of $3,000,000, and considering that it occurred ...
   two months after the Confederacy had virtually passed out of
   existence, it may be characterized as the most useless act of
   hostility that occurred during the whole war." The captain of
   the Shenandoah had news on the 23d of the fall of Richmond;
   yet after that time he destroyed 15 vessels. On his way
   southward he received information, August 2d, of the final
   collapse of the Confederacy. He then sailed for Liverpool, and
   surrendered his vessel to the British Government, which delivered
   her to the United States.

      _J. R. Soley, The Confederate Cruisers (Battles and
      Leaders, volume 4)._

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1862-1869.
   Definition of the indemnity claims of the United States
   against Great Britain.
   First stages of the Negotiation.
   The rejected Johnson-Clarendon Treaty.

   "A review of the history of the negotiations between the two
   Governments prior to the correspondence between Sir Edward
   Thornton and Mr. Fish, will show ... what was intended by
   these words, 'generically known as the Alabama Claims,' used
   on each side in that correspondence. The correspondence
   between the two Governments was opened by Mr. Adams on the
   20th of November, 1862 (less than four months after the escape
   of the Alabama), in a note to Earl Russell, written under
   instructions from the Government of the United States. In this
   note Mr. Adams submitted evidence of the acts of the Alabama,
   and stated: 'I have the honor to inform Your Lordship of the
   directions which I have received from my Government to solicit
   redress for the national and private injuries thus sustained.'
   ... Lord Russell met this notice on the 19th of December,
   1862, by a denial of any liability for any injuries growing
   out of the acts of the Alabama. ... As new losses from time to
   time were suffered by individuals during the war, they were
   brought to the notice of Her Majesty's Government, and were
   lodged with the national and individual claims already
   preferred; but argumentative discussion on the issues involved
   was by common consent deferred. ... The fact that the first
   claim preferred grew out of the acts of the Alabama explains
   how it was that all the claims growing out of the acts of all
   the vessels came to be 'generically known as the Alabama
   claims.' On the 7th of April, 1865, the war being virtually
   over, Mr. Adams renewed the discussion. He transmitted to Earl
   Russell an official report showing the number and tonnage of
   American vessels transferred to the British flag during the
   war. He said: 'The United States commerce is rapidly vanishing
   from the face of the ocean, and that of Great Britain is
   multiplying in nearly the same ratio.' 'This process is going
   on by reason of the action of British subjects in cooperation
   with emissaries of the insurgents, who have supplied from the
   ports of Her Majesty's Kingdom all the materials, such as
   vessels, armament, supplies, and men, indispensable to the
   effective prosecution of this result on the ocean.' ... He
   stated that he 'was under the painful necessity of announcing
   that his Government cannot avoid entailing upon the Government
   of Great Britain the responsibility for this damage.' Lord
   Russell ... said in reply, 'I can never admit that the duties
   of Great Britain toward the United States are to be measured
   by the losses which the trade and commerce of the United
   States have sustained. ... Referring to the offer of
   arbitration, made on the 26th day of October, 1863, Lord
   Russell, in the same note, said: 'Her Majesty's Government
   must decline either to make reparation and compensation for
   the captures made by the Alabama, or to refer the question to
   any foreign State.' This terminated the first stage of the
   negotiations between the two Governments. ... In the summer of
   1866 a change of Ministry took place in England, and Lord
   Stanley became Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the
   place of Lord Clarendon. He took an early opportunity to give
   an intimation in the House of Commons that, should the
   rejected claims be revived, the new Cabinet was not prepared
   to say what answer might be given them; in other words, that,
   should an opportunity be offered, Lord Russell's refusal might
   possibly be reconsidered. Mr. Seward met these overtures by
   instructing Mr. Adams, on the 27th of August, 1866, 'to call
   Lord Stanley's attention in a respectful but earnest manner,'
   to 'a summary of claims of citizens of the United States, for
   damages which were suffered by them during the period of the
   civil war,' and to say that the Government of the United
   States, while it thus insists upon these particular claims, is
   neither desirous nor willing to assume an attitude unkind and
   unconciliatory toward Great Britain. ... Lord Stanley met this
   overture by a communication to Sir Frederick Bruce, in which
   he denied the liability of Great Britain, and assented to a
   reference, 'provided that a fitting Arbitrator can be found,
   and that an agreement can be come to as to the points to which
   the arbitration shall apply.' ... As the first result of these
   negotiations, a convention known as the Stanley-Johnson
   convention was signed at London on the 10th of November, 1868.
   It proved to be unacceptable to the Government of the United
   States. Negotiations were at once resumed, and resulted on the
   14th of January, 1869, in the Treaty known as the
   Johnson-Clarendon convention [having been negotiated by Mr.
   Reverdy Johnson, who had succeeded Mr. Adams as United States
   Minister to Great Britain]. This latter convention provided
   for the organization of a mixed commission with jurisdiction
   over 'all claims on the part of citizens of the United States
   upon the Government of Her Britannic Majesty, including the
   so-called Alabama claims, and all claims on the part of
   subjects of Her Britannic Majesty upon the Government of the
   United States which may have been presented to either
   government for its interposition with the other since the 26th
   July, 1853, and which yet remain unsettled.'" The
   Johnson-Clarendon treaty, when submitted to the Senate, was
   rejected by that body, in April, "because, although it made
   provision for the part of the Alabama claims which consisted
   of claims for individual losses, the provision for the more
   extensive national losses was not satisfactory to the Senate."

      _The Argument of the United States delivered to the
      Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, June 15, 1872, Division
      13, section 2._

{27}

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1869-1871.
   Renewed Negotiations.
   Appointment and meeting of the Joint High Commission.

   The action of the Senate in rejecting the Johnson-Clarendon
   treaty was taken in April, 1869, a few weeks after President
   Grant entered upon his office. At this time "the condition of
   Europe was such as to induce the British Ministers to take
   into consideration the foreign relations of Great Britain;
   and, as Lord Granville, the British Minister of Foreign
   Affairs, has himself stated in the House of Lords, they saw
   cause to look with solicitude on the uneasy relations of the
   British Government with the United States, and the
   inconvenience thereof in case of possible complications in
   Europe. Thus impelled, the Government dispatched to Washington
   a gentleman who enjoyed the confidence of both Cabinets, Sir John
   Rose, to ascertain whether overtures for reopening
   negotiations would be received by the President in spirit and
   terms acceptable to Great Britain. ... Sir John Rose found the
   United States disposed to meet with perfect correspondence of
   good-will the advances of the British Government. Accordingly,
   on the 26th of January, 1871, the British Government, through
   Sir Edward Thornton, finally proposed to the American
   Government the appointment of a joint High Commission to hold
   its sessions at Washington, and there devise means to settle
   the various pending questions between the two Governments
   affecting the British possessions in North America. To this
   overture Mr. Fish replied that the President would with
   pleasure appoint, as invited, Commissioners on the part of the
   United States, provided the deliberations of the Commissioners
   should be extended to other differences,--that is to say, to
   include the differences growing out of incidents of the late
   Civil War. ... The British Government promptly accepted this
   proposal for enlarging the sphere of the negotiation." The
   joint High Commission was speedily constituted, as proposed,
   by appointment of the two governments, and the promptitude of
   proceeding was such that the British commissioners landed at
   New York in twenty-seven days after Sir Edward Thornton's
   suggestion of January 26th was made. They sailed without
   waiting for their commissions, which were forwarded to them by
   special messenger. The High Commission was made up as follows:
   "On the part of the United States were five persons,--Hamilton
   Fish, Robert C. Schenck, Samuel Nelson, Ebenezer Rockwood
   Hoar, and George H. Williams,--eminently fit representatives
   of the diplomacy, the bench, the bar, and the legislature of
   the United States: on the part of Great Britain, Earl De Grey
   and Ripon, President of the Queen's Council; Sir Stafford
   Northcote, Ex-Minister and actual Member of the House of
   Commons; Sir Edward Thornton, the universally respected
   British Minister at Washington; Sir John [A.] Macdonald, the
   able and eloquent Premier of the Canadian Dominion; and, in
   revival of the good old time, when learning was equal to any
   other title of public honor, the Universities in the person of
   Professor Montague Bernard. ... In the face of many
   difficulties, the Commissioners, on the 8th of May, 1871,
   completed a treaty [known as the Treaty of Washington], which
   received the prompt approval of their respective Governments."

      _C. Cushing, The Treaty of Washington,
      pages 18-20, and 11-13._

      ALSO IN
      _A. Lang, Life, Letters, and Diaries of Sir Stafford
      Northcote, First Earl of Iddesleigh, chapter 12 (volume 2)._

      _A. Badeau, Grant in Peace, chapter 25._

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1871.
   The Treaty of Washington.

   The treaty signed at Washington on the 8th day of May, 1871,
   and the ratifications of which were exchanged at London on the
   17th day of the following June, set forth its principal
   agreement in the first two articles as follows: "Whereas
   differences have arisen between the Government of the United
   States and the Government of Her Brittanic Majesty, and still
   exist, growing out of the acts committed by the several
   vessels which have given rise to the claims generically known
   as the 'Alabama Claims;' and whereas Her Britannic Majesty has
   authorized Her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to
   express in a friendly spirit, the regret felt by Her Majesty's
   Government for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of
   the Alabama and other vessels from British ports, and for the
   depredations committed by those vessels: Now, in order to
   remove and adjust all complaints and claims on the part of the
   United States and to provide for the speedy settlement of such
   claims which are not admitted by Her Britannic Majesty's
   Government, the high contracting parties agree that all the
   said claims, growing out of acts committed by the aforesaid
   vessels, and generically known as the 'Alabama Claims,' shall
   be referred to a tribunal of arbitration to be composed of
   five Arbitrators, to be appointed in the following manner,
   that is to say: One shall be named by the President of the
   United States; one shall be named by Her Britannic Majesty;
   His Majesty the King of Italy shall be requested to name one;
   the President of the Swiss Confederation shall be requested to
   name one; and His Majesty the Emperor of Brazil shall be
   requested to name one. ... The Arbitrators shall meet at
   Geneva, in Switzerland, at the earliest convenient day after
   they shall have been named, and shall proceed impartially and
   carefully to examine and decide all questions that shall be
   laid before them on the part of the Governments of the United
   States and Her Britannic Majesty respectively. All questions
   considered by the tribunal, including the final award, shall
   be decided by a majority of all the Arbitrators. Each of the
   high contracting parties shall also name one person to attend
   the tribunal as its Agent to represent it generally in all
   matters connected with the arbitration." Articles 3, 4 and 5
   of the treaty specify the mode in which each party shall
   submit its case. Article 6 declares that, "In deciding the
   matters submitted to the Arbitrators, they shall be governed
   by the following three rules, which are agreed upon by the
   high contracting parties as rules to be taken as applicable to
   the case, and by such principles of international law not
   inconsistent therewith as the Arbitrators shall determine to
   have been applicable to the case:
{28}
   A neutral Government is bound--First, to use due diligence to
   prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its
   jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to
   believe is intended to cruise or to carry on war against a
   Power with which it is at peace; and also to use like
   diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of
   any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such
   vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part,
   within such jurisdiction, to warlike use. Secondly, not to
   permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports
   or waters as the base of naval operations against the other,
   or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military
   supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men. Thirdly to
   exercise due diligence in its own ports and waters, and, as to
   all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation
   of the foregoing obligations and duties. Her Britannic Majesty
   has commanded her High Commissioners and Plenipotentiaries to
   declare that Her Majesty's Government cannot assent to the
   foregoing rules as a statement of principles of international
   law which were in force at the time when the claims mentioned
   in Article 1 arose, but that Her Majesty's Government, in
   order to evince its desire of strengthening the friendly
   relations between the two countries and of making satisfactory
   provision for the future, agrees that in deciding the
   questions between the two countries arising out of those
   claims, the Arbitrators should assume that Her Majesty's
   Government had undertaken to act upon the principles set forth
   in these rules. And the high contracting parties agree to
   observe these rules as between themselves in future, and to
   bring them to the knowledge of other maritime powers, and to
   invite them to accede to them." Articles 7 to 17, inclusive,
   relate to the procedure of the tribunal of arbitration, and
   provide for the determination of claims, by assessors and
   commissioners, in case the Arbitrators should find any
   liability on the part of Great Britain and should not award a
   sum in gross to be paid in settlement thereof. Articles 18 to
   25 relate to the Fisheries. By Article 18 it is agreed that in
   addition to the liberty secured to American fishermen by the
   convention of 1818, "of taking, curing and drying fish on
   certain coasts of the British North American colonies therein
   defined, the inhabitants of the United States shall have, in
   common with the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, the liberty
   for [a period of ten years, and two years further after notice
   given by either party of its wish to terminate the
   arrangement] ... to take fish of every kind, except shell
   fish, on the sea-coasts and shores, and in the bays, harbours
   and creeks, of the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and New
   Brunswick, and the colony of Prince Edward's Island, and of
   the several islands thereunto adjacent, without being
   restricted to any distance from the shore, with permission to
   land upon the said coasts and shores and islands, and also
   upon the Magdalen Islands, for the purpose of drying their
   nets and curing their fish; provided that, in so doing, they
   do not interfere with the rights of private property, or with
   British fishermen, in the peaceable use of any part of the
   said coasts in their occupancy for the same purpose. It is
   understood that the above-mentioned liberty applies solely to
   the sea-fishery, and that the salmon and shad fisheries, and
   all other fisheries in rivers and the mouths of rivers, are
   hereby reserved exclusively for British fishermen." Article 19
   secures to British subjects the corresponding rights of
   fishing, &c., on the eastern sea-coasts and shores of the
   United States north of the 39th parallel of north latitude.
   Article 20 reserves from these stipulations the places that
   were reserved from the common right of fishing under the first
   article of the treaty of June 5, 1854. Article 21 provides for
   the reciprocal admission of fish and fish oil into each
   country from the other, free of duty (excepting fish of the
   inland lakes and fish preserved in oil). Article 22 provides
   that, "Inasmuch as it is asserted by the Government of Her
   Britannic Majesty that the privileges accorded to the citizens
   of the United States under Article XVIII of this treaty are of
   greater value than those accorded by Articles XIX and XXI of
   this treaty to the subjects of Her Britannic Majesty, and this
   assertion is not admitted by the Government of the United
   States, it is further agreed that Commissioners shall be
   appointed to determine ... the amount of any compensation
   which in their opinion, ought to be paid by the Government of
   the United States to the Government of Her Britannic Majesty."
   Article 23 provides for the appointment of such Commissioners,
   one by the President of the United States, one by Her
   Britannic Majesty, and the third by the President and Her
   Majesty conjointly; or, failing of agreement within three
   months, the third Commissioner to be named by the Austrian
   Minister at London. The Commissioners to meet at Halifax, and
   their procedure to be as prescribed and regulated by Articles
   24 and 25. Articles 26 to 31 define certain reciprocal
   privileges accorded by each government to the subjects of the
   other, including the navigation of the St. Lawrence, Yukon,
   Porcupine and Stikine Rivers, Lake Michigan, and the WeIland,
   St. Lawrence and St. Clair Flats canals; and the
   transportation of goods in bond through the territory of one
   country into the other without payment of duties. Article 32
   extends the provisions of Articles 18 to 25 of the treaty to
   Newfoundland if all parties concerned enact the necessary
   laws, but not otherwise. Article 33 limits the duration of
   Articles 18 to 25 and Article 30, to ten years from the date
   of their going into effect, and "further until the expiration
   of two years after either of the two high contracting parties
   shall have given notice to the other of its wish to terminate
   the same." The remaining articles of the treaty provide for
   submitting to the arbitration of the Emperor of Germany the
   Northwestern water-boundary question (in the channel between
   Vancouver's Island and the continent)--to complete the
   settlement of Northwestern boundary disputes.

      _Treaties and Conventions between the U. S. and other
      Powers (ed. of 1889), pages 478-493._

      ALSO IN
      _C. Cushing, The Treaty of Washington, appendix_

{29}

ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: A. D. 1871-1872.
   The Tribunal of Arbitration at Geneva, and its Award.

   "The appointment of Arbitrators took place in due course, and
   with the ready good-will of the three neutral governments. The
   United States appointed Mr. Charles Francis Adams; Great
   Britain appointed Sir Alexander Cockburn; the King of Italy
   named Count Frederic Sclopis; the President of the Swiss
   Confederation, Mr. Jacob Stæmpfii; and the Emperor of Brazil,
   the Baron d'Itajubá. Mr. J. C. Bancroft Davis was appointed
   Agent of the United States, and Lord Tenterden of Great
   Britain. The Tribunal was organized for the reception of the
   case of each party, and held its first conference [at Geneva,
   Switzerland] on the 15th of December, 1871," Count Sclopis
   being chosen to preside. "The printed Case of the United
   States, with accompanying documents, was filed by Mr. Bancroft
   Davis, and the printed Case of Great Britain, with documents,
   by Lord Tenterden. The Tribunal made regulation for the filing
   of the respective Counter-Cases on or before the 15th day of
   April next ensuing, as required by the Treaty; and for the
   convening of a special meeting of the Tribunal, if occasion
   should require; and then, at a second meeting, on the next
   day, they adjourned until the 15th of June next ensuing,
   subject to a prior call by the Secretary, if there should be
   occasion." The sessions of the Tribunal were resumed on the
   15th of June, 1872, according to the adjournment, and were
   continued until the 14th of September following, when the
   decision and award were announced, and were signed by all the
   Arbitrators except the British representative, Sir Alexander
   Cockburn, who dissented. It was found by the Tribunal that the
   British Government had "failed to use due diligence in the
   performance of its neutral obligations" with respect to the
   cruisers Alabama and Florida, and the several tenders of those
   vessels; and also with respect to the Shenandoah after her
   departure from Melbourne, February 18, 1865, but not before that
   date. With respect to the Georgia, the Sumter, the Nashville,
   the Tallahassee and the Chickamauga, it was the finding of the
   Tribunal that Great Britain had not failed to perform the
   duties of a neutral power. So far as relates to the vessels
   called the Sallie, the Jefferson Davis, the Music, the Boston,
   and the V. H. Joy, it was the decision of the Tribunal that
   they ought to be excluded from consideration for want of
   evidence. "So far as relates to the particulars of the
   indemnity claimed by the United States, the costs of pursuit
   of Confederate cruisers" are declared to be "not, in the
   judgment of the Tribunal, properly distinguishable from the
   general expenses of the war carried on by the United States,"
   and "there is no ground for awarding to the United States any
   sum by way of indemnity under this head." A similar decision
   put aside the whole consideration of claims for "prospective
   earnings." Finally, the award was rendered in the following
   language: "Whereas, in order to arrive at an equitable
   compensation for the damages which have been sustained, it is
   necessary to set aside all double claims for the same losses,
   and all claims for 'gross freights' so far as they exceed 'net
   freights;' and whereas it is just and reasonable to allow
   interest at a reasonable rate; and whereas, in accordance with
   the spirit and letter of the Treaty of Washington, it is
   preferable to adopt the form of adjudication of a sum in
   gross, rather than to refer the subject of compensation for
   further discussion and deliberation to a Board of Assessors,
   as provided by Article X of the said Treaty: The Tribunal,
   making use of the authority conferred upon it by Article VII
   of the said Treaty, by a majority of four voices to one,
   awards to the United States the sum of fifteen millions five
   hundred thousand Dollars in gold as the indemnity to be paid
   by Great Britain to the United States for the satisfaction of
   all the claims referred to the consideration of the Tribunal,
   conformably to the provisions contained in Article VII of the
   aforesaid Treaty." It should be stated that the so-called
   "indirect claims" of the United States, for consequential
   losses and damages, growing out of the encouragement of the
   Southern Rebellion, the prolongation of the war, &c., were
   dropped from consideration at the outset of the session of the
   Tribunal, in June, the Arbitrators agreeing then in a
   statement of opinion to the effect that "these claims do not
   constitute, upon the principles of international law
   applicable to such cases, good foundation for an award of
   compensation or computation of damages between nations." This
   declaration was accepted by the United States as decisive of
   the question, and the hearing proceeded accordingly.

      _C. Cushing, The Treaty of Washington._

      ALSO IN
      _F. Wharton, Digest of the International Law of
      the U. S., chapter 21 (volume 3)._

----------ALABAMA CLAIMS, The: End----------

ALACAB, OR TOLOSO, Battle of (1212).

      See ALMOHADES, and SPAIN: A. D. 1146-1232.

ALADSHA, Battles of (1877).
      See TURKS: A. D. 1877-1878.

ALAMANCE, Battle Of(1771).

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1766-1771.

ALAMANNI.

      See ALEMANNI.

ALAMO, The massacre of the (1836).

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1824-1836.

ALAMOOT, OR ALAMOUT, The castle of.

   The stronghold of the "Old Man of the Mountain," or Sheikh of
   the terrible order of the Assassins, in northern Persia. Its
   name signifies "the Eagle's nest," or "the Vulture's nest."

      See ASSASSINS.

ALANS, OR ALANI, The.

   "The Alani are first mentioned by Dionysius the geographer (B.
   C. 30-10) who joins them with the Daci and the Tauri, and
   again places them between the latter and the Agathyrsi. A
   similar position (in the south of Russia in Europe, the modern
   Ukraine) is assigned to them by Pliny and Josephus. Seneca
   places them further west upon the Ister. Ptolemy has two
   bodies of Alani, one in the position above described, the
   other in Scythia within the Imaus, north and partly east of
   the Caspian. It must have been from these last, the
   successors, and, according to some, the descendants of the
   ancient Massagetæ, that the Alani came who attacked Pacorus
   and Tiridates [in Media and Armenia, A. D. 75]. ... The result
   seems to have been that the invaders, after ravaging and
   harrying Media and Armenia at their pleasure, carried off a
   vast number of prisoners and an enormous booty into their own
   country."

      _G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 17._

      _E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 6, note H._

   "The first of this [the Tartar] race known to the
   Romans were the Alani. In the fourth century they pitched
   their tents in the country between the Volga and the Tanais,
   at an equal distance from the Black Sea and the Caspian."

      _J. C. L. Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 3._

{30}

ALANS: A. D. 376.
   Conquest by the Huns.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 376.

ALANS: A. D. 406-409.
   Final Invasion of Gaul.

      See GAUL: A. D. 406-409.

ALANS: A. D. 409-414.
   Settlement in Spain.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 409-414.

ALANS: A. D. 429.
   With the Vandals in Africa.

      See VANDALS: A. D. 429-439.

ALANS: A. D. 451.
   At the Battle of Chalons.

      See HUNS: A. D. 451.

----------ALANS: End----------

ALARCOS, Battle of (A. D. 1195).

      See ALMOHADES.

ALARIC'S RAVAGES IN GREECE AND CONQUEST OF ROME.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 395; 400-403,
      and ROME: A. D. 408-410.

ALARODIANS.--IBERIANS.--COLCHIANS.

   "The Alarodians of Herodotus, joined with the Sapeires ... are
   almost certainly the inhabitants of Armenia, whose Semitic
   name was Urarda, or Ararat. 'Alarud,' indeed, is a mere
   variant form of 'Ararud,' the l and r being undistinguishable
   in the old Persian, and 'Ararud' serves determinately to
   connect the Ararat of Scripture with the Urarda, or Urartha of
   the Inscriptions. ... The name of Ararat is constantly used in
   Scripture, but always to denote a country rather than a
   particular mountain. ... The connexion ... of Urarda with the
   Babylonian tribe of Akkad is proved by the application in the
   inscriptions of the ethnic title of Burbur (?) to the Armenian
   king ... ; but there is nothing to prove whether the Burbur or
   Akkad of Babylonia descended in a very remote age from the
   mountains to colonize the plains, or whether the Urardians
   were refugees of a later period driven northward by the
   growing power of the Semites. The former supposition, however,
   is most in conformity with Scripture, and incidentally with the
   tenor of the inscriptions."

      _H. C. Rawlinson, History of Herodotus,
      book 7, appendix 3._

   "The broad and rich valley of the Kur, which corresponds
   closely with the modern Russian province of Georgia, was
   [anciently] in the possession of a people called by Herodotus
   Saspeires or Sapeires, whom we may identify with the Iberians
   of later writers. Adjoining upon them towards the south,
   probably in the country about Erivan, and so in the
   neighbourhood of Ararat, were the Alarodians, whose name must
   be connected with that of the great mountain. On the other
   side of the Sapeirian country, in the tracts now known as
   Mingrelia and Imeritia, regions of a wonderful beauty and
   fertility, were the Colchians,--dependents, but not exactly
   subjects, of Persia."

      _G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Persia, chapter 1._

ALASKA: A. D. 1867.
   Purchase by the United States.

   As early as 1859 there were unofficial communications between
   the Russian and American governments, on the subject of the
   sale of Alaska by the former to the latter. Russia was more
   than willing to part with a piece of territory which she found
   difficulty in defending, in war; and the interests connected
   with the fisheries and the fur-trade in the north-west were
   disposed to promote the transfer. In March, 1867, definite
   negotiations on the subject were opened by the Russian
   minister at Washington, and on the 23d of that month he
   received from Secretary Seward an offer, subject to the
   President's approval, of $7,200,000, on condition that the
   cession be "free and unencumbered by any reservations,
   privileges, franchises, grants, or possessions by any
   associated companies, whether corporate or incorporate,
   Russian, or any other." "Two days later an answer was
   returned, stating that the minister believed himself
   authorized to accept these terms. On the 29th final
   instructions were received by cable from St. Petersburg. On
   the same day a note was addressed by the minister to the
   secretary of state, informing him that the tsar consented to
   the cession of Russian America for the stipulated sum of
   $7,200,000 in gold. At four o'clock the next morning the
   treaty was signed by the two parties without further phrase or
   negotiation. In May the treaty was ratified, and on June 20,
   1867, the usual proclamation was issued by the president of
   the United States." On the 18th of October, 1867, the formal
   transfer of the territory was made, at Sitka, General Rousseau
   taking possession in the name of the Government of the United
   States.

      _H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 28,
      chapter 28._

      ALSO IN
      _W. H. Dall, Alaska and its Resources, part 2, chapter 2._

   For some account of the aboriginal inhabitants,

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

ALATOONA, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

ALBA.
   Alban Mount.

   "Cantons ... having their rendezvous in some stronghold, and
   including a certain number of clanships, form the primitive
   political unities with which Italian history begins. At what
   period, and to what extent, such cantons were formed in
   Latium, cannot be determined with precision; nor is it a
   matter of special historical interest. The isolated Alban
   range, that natural stronghold of Latium, which offered to
   settlers the most wholesome air, the freshest springs, and the
   most secure position, would doubtless be first occupied by the
   new comers. Here accordingly, along the narrow plateau above
   Palazzuola, between the Alban lake (Lago di Castello) and the
   Alban mount (Monte Cavo) extended the town of Alba, which was
   universally regarded as the primitive seat of the Latin stock,
   and the mother-city of Rome, as well as of all the other Old
   Latin communities. Here, too, on the slopes lay the very
   ancient Latin canton-centres of Lanuvium, Aricia, and
   Tusculum. ... All these cantons were in primitive times
   politically sovereign, and each of them was governed by its
   prince with the co-operation of the council of elders and the
   assembly of warriors. Nevertheless the feeling of fellowship
   based on community of descent and of language not only
   pervaded the whole of them, but manifested itself in an
   important religious and political institution--the perpetual
   league of the collective Latin cantons. The presidency
   belonged originally, according to the universal Italian as
   well as Hellenic usage, to that canton within whose bounds lay
   the meeting-place of the league; in this case it was the canton
   of Alba. ... The communities entitled to participate in the
   league were in the beginning thirty. ... The rendezvous of
   this union was, like the Pambœotia and the Panionia among the
   similar confederacies of the Greeks, the 'Latin festival'
   (feriæ Latinæ) at which, on the Mount of Alba, upon a day
   annually appointed by the chief magistrate for the purpose, an
   ox was offered in sacrifice by the assembled Latin stock to
   the 'Latin god' (Jupiter Latiaris)."

      _T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 1, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN
      _Sir W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1._

{31}

ALBA DE TORMES, Battle of.

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

ALBAIS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAMPAS TRIBES.

ALBAN, Kingdom of.

      See ALBION;
      also, SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

ALBANI, The.

      See BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.

ALBANIANS: Ancient.

      See EPIRUS and ILLYRIANS.

ALBANIANS: Mediæval.

   "From the settlement of the Servian Sclavonians within the
   bounds of the empire [during the reign of Heraclius, first
   half of the seventh century], we may ... venture to date the
   earliest encroachments of the Illyrian or Albanian race on the
   Hellenic population. The Albanians or Arnauts, who are now
   called by themselves Skiptars, are supposed to be remains of
   the great Thracian race which, under various names, and more
   particularly as Paionians, Epirots and Macedonians, take an
   important part in early Grecian history. No distinct trace of
   the period at which they began to be co-proprietors of Greece
   with the Hellenic race can be found in history. ... It seems
   very difficult to trace back the history of the Greek nation
   without suspecting that the germs of their modern condition,
   like those of their neighbours, are to be sought in the
   singular events which occurred in the reign of Heraclius."

      _G. Finlay, Greece Under the Romans, chapter 4, section 6._

ALBANIANS: A. D. 1443-1467.
   Scanderbeg's War with the Turks.

   "John Castriot, Lord of Emalthia (the modern district of
   Moghlene) [in Epirus or Albania] had submitted, like the other
   petty despots of those regions, to Amurath early in his reign,
   and had placed his four sons in the Sultan's hands as hostages
   for his fidelity. Three of them died young. The fourth, whose
   name was George, pleased the Sultan by his beauty, strength
   and intelligence. Amurath caused him to be brought up in the
   Mahometan creed; and, when he was only eighteen, conferred on
   him the government of one of the Sanjaks of the empire. The
   young Albanian proved his courage and skill in many exploits
   under Amurath's eye, and received from him the name of
   Iskanderbeg, the lord Alexander. When John Castriot died,
   Amurath took possession of his principalities and kept the son
   constantly employed in distant wars. Scanderbeg brooded over
   this injury; and when the Turkish armies were routed by
   Hunyades in the campaign of 1443, Scanderbeg determined to
   escape from their side and assume forcible possession of his
   patrimony. He suddenly entered the tent of the Sultan's chief
   secretary, and forced that functionary, with the poniard at
   his throat, to write and seal a formal order to the Turkish
   commander of the strong city of Croia, in Albania, to deliver
   that place and the adjacent territory to Scanderbeg, as the
   Sultan's viceroy. He then stabbed the secretary and hastened
   to Croia, where his strategem gained him instant admittance
   and submission. He now publicly abjured the Mahometan faith,
   and declared his intention of defending the creed of his
   forefathers, and restoring the independence of his native
   land. The Christian population flocked readily to his banner
   and the Turks were massacred without mercy. For nearly
   twenty-five years Scanderbeg contended against all the power
   of the Ottomans, though directed by the skill of Amurath and
   his successor Mahomet, the conqueror of Constantinople."

      _Sir E. S. Creasy, History of the Ottoman Turks, chapter 4._

   "Scanderbeg died a fugitive at Lissus on the Venetian
   territory [A. D. 1467]. His sepulchre was soon violated by the
   Turkish conquerors; but the janizaries, who wore his bones
   enchased in a bracelet, declared by this superstitious amulet
   their involuntary reverence for his valour. ... His infant son
   was saved from the national shipwreck; the Castriots were
   invested with a Neapolitan dukedom, and their blood continues
   to flow in the noblest families of the realm."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 67.

      ALSO IN
      _A. Lamartine, History of Turkey, book 11, sections 11-25._

ALBANIANS: A. D. 1694-1696.
   Conquests by the Venetians.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

----------ALBANIANS:  End----------

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1623.
   The first Settlement.

   In 1614, the year after the first Dutch traders had
   established their operations on Manhattan Island, they built a
   trading house, which they called Fort Nassau, on Castle
   Island, in the Hudson River, a little below the site of the
   present city of Albany. Three years later this small fort was
   carried away by a flood and the island abandoned. In 1623 a
   more important fortification, named Fort Orange, was erected
   on the site afterwards covered by the business part of Albany.
   That year, "about eighteen families settled themselves at Fort
   Orange, under Adriaen Joris, who 'staid with them all winter,'
   after sending his ship home to Holland in charge of his son.
   As soon as the colonists had built themselves 'some huts of
   bark' around the fort, the Mahikanders or River Indians
   [Mohegans], the Mohawks, the Oneidas, the Onondagas, the
   Cayugas, and the Senecas, with the Mahawawa or Ottawawa
   Indians, 'came and made covenants of friendship ... and
   desired that they might come and have a constant free trade
   with them, which was concluded upon.'"

      _J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of N. Y., volume 1,
      pages 55 and 151._

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1630.-
   Embraced in the land-purchase of Patroon Van Rensselaer.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1621-1646.

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.
   Occupied and named by the English.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1664.

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.
   Again occupied by the Dutch.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

ALBANY, NEW YORK: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress and its plans of Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

----------ALBANY, NEW YORK: End----------

ALBANY AND SCHENECTADY RAILROAD OPENING.

      See STEAM LOCOMOTION ON LAND.

ALBANY REGENCY, The.

      See NEW YORK; A. D. 1823.

ALBEMARLE, The Ram, and her destruction.

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

ALBERONI, Cardinal, The Spanish Ministry of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1713-1725;
      and ITALY: A. D. 1715-1735.

{32}

ALBERT,
  King of Sweden, A. D. 1365-1388.
  Albert, Elector of Brandenburg, A. D. 1470-1486.
  Albert I., Duke of Austria and
    King of Germany, A. D. 1298-1308.
  Albert II., Duke of Austria, King of Hungary and
  Bohemia, A. D. 1437-1440;
  King of Germany, A. D. 1438-1440.

ALBERTA, The District of.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

ALBERTINE LINE OF SAXONY.

      See SAXONY: A. D. 1180-1553.

ALBICI, The.

   A Gallic tribe which occupied the hills above Massilia
   (Marseilles) and who are described as a savage people even in
   the time of Cæsar, when they helped the Massiliots to defend
   their city against him.

      _G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 5, chapter 4._

ALBIGENSES, OR ALBIGEOIS, The.

   "Nothing is more curious in Christian history than the
   vitality of the Manichean opinions. That wild, half poetic,
   half rationalistic theory of Christianity, ... appears almost
   suddenly in the 12th century, in living, almost irresistible
   power, first in its intermediate settlement in Bulgaria, and
   on the borders of the Greek Empire, then in Italy, in France,
   in Germany, in the remoter West, at the foot of the Pyrenees.
   ... The chief seat of these opinions was the south of France.
   Innocent III., on his accession, found not only these daring
   insurgents scattered in the cities of Italy, even, as it were,
   at his own gates (among his first acts was to subdue the
   Paterines of Viterbo), he found a whole province, a realm, in
   some respects the richest and noblest of his spiritual domain,
   absolutely dissevered from his Empire, in almost universal
   revolt from Latin Christianity. ... In no [other] European
   country had the clergy so entirely, or it should seem so
   deservedly, forfeited its authority. In none had the Church
   more absolutely ceased to perform its proper functions."

      _H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity,
      book 9, chapter 8._

   "By mere chance, the sects scattered in South France received
   the common name of Albigenses, from one of the districts where
   the agents of the church who came to combat them found them
   mostly to abound,--the district around the town of Alba, or
   Alby; and by this common name they were well known from the
   commencement of the thirteenth century. Under this general
   denomination parties of different tenets were comprehended
   together, but the Catharists seem to have constituted a
   predominant element among the people thus designated."

      _A. Neander, General History of the Christian Religion
      and Church, 5th per., division 2, section 4, part 3._

   "Of the sectaries who shared the errors of Gnosticism and
   Manichæism and opposed the Catholic Church and her hierarchy,
   the Albigenses were the most thorough and radical. Their
   errors were, indeed, partly Gnostic and partly Manichæan, but
   the latter was the more prominent and fully developed. They
   received their name from a district of Languedoc, inhabited by
   the Albigeois and surrounding the town of Albi. They are
   called Cathari and Patarini in the acts of the Council of
   Tours (A. D. 1163), and in those of the third Lateran,
   Publiciani (i. e., Pauliciani). Like the Cathari, they also
   held that the evil spirit created all visible things."

      _Johannes Baptist Alzog,
      Manual of Universal Church History,
      period 2, epoch 2, part 1, chapter 3, section 236.
      https://archive.org/details/manualofuniversa02alzo_

   "The imputations of irreligion, heresy, and shameless
   debauchery, which have been cast with so much bitterness on
   the Albigenses by their persecutors, and which have been so
   zealously denied by their apologists, are probably not ill
   founded, if the word Albigenses be employed as synonymous with
   the words Provençaux or Languedocians; for they were
   apparently a race among whom the hallowed charities of
   domestic life, and the reverence due to divine ordinances and
   the homage due to divine truth, were often impaired, and not
   seldom extinguished, by ribald jests, by infidel scoffings,
   and by heart-hardening impurities. Like other voluptuaries,
   the Provençaux (as their remaining literature attests) were
   accustomed to find matter for merriment in vices which would
   have moved wise men to tears. But if by the word Albigenses be
   meant the Vaudois, or those followers (or associates) of Peter
   Waldo who revived the doctrines against which the Church of
   Rome directed her censures, then the accusation of
   dissoluteness of manners may be safely rejected as altogether
   calumnious, and the charge of heresy may be considered, if not
   as entirely unfounded, yet as a cruel and injurious
   exaggeration."

      _Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France,
      lecture 7._

      ALSO IN _L. Mariotti, Frà Dolcino and his Times._

      See, also, Paulicians, and Catharists.

ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1209.
   The First Crusade.

   "Pope Innocent III., in organizing the persecution of the
   Catharins [or Catharists], the Patarins, and the Pauvres de
   Lyons, exercised a spirit, and displayed a genius similar to
   those which had already elevated him to almost universal
   dominion; which had enabled him to dictate at once to Italy
   and to Germany; to control the kings of France, of Spain, and
   of England; to overthrow the Greek Empire, and to substitute
   in its stead a Latin dynasty at Constantinople. In the zeal of
   the Cistercian Order, and of their Abbot, Arnaud Amalric; in
   the fiery and unwearied preaching of the first Inquisitor, the
   Spanish Missionary, Dominic; in the remorseless activity of
   Foulquet, Bishop of Toulouse; and above all, in the strong and
   unpitying arm of Simon de Montfort, Earl of Leicester,
   Innocent found ready instruments for his purpose. Thus aided;
   he excommunicated Raymond of Toulouse [A. D. 1207], as Chief
   of the Heretics, and he promised remission of sins, and all
   the privileges which had hitherto been exclusively conferred
   on adventurers in Palestine, to the champions who should
   enroll themselves as Crusaders in the far more easy enterprise
   of a Holy War against the Albigenses. In the first invasion of
   his territories [A. D. 1209], Raymond VI. gave way before the
   terrors excited by the 300,000 fanatics who precipitated
   themselves on Languedoc; and loudly declaring his personal
   freedom from heresy, he surrendered his chief castles,
   underwent a humiliating penance, and took the cross against
   his own subjects. The brave resistance of his nephew Raymond
   Roger, Viscount of Bezières, deserved but did not obtain
   success. When the crusaders surrounded his capital, which was
   occupied by a mixed population of the two Religions, a
   question was raised how, in the approaching sack, the
   Catholics should be distinguished from the Heretics. 'Kill
   them all,' was the ferocious reply of Amalric; 'the Lord will
   easily know His own.' In compliance with this advice, not one
   human being within the walls was permitted to survive;
{33}
  and the tale of slaughter has been variously estimated, by
  those who have perhaps exaggerated the numbers, at 60,000, but
  even in the extenuating despatch, which the Abbot himself
  addressed to the Pope, at not fewer than 15,000. Raymond Roger
  was not included in this fearful massacre, and he repulsed two
  attacks upon Carcassonne, before a treacherous breach of faith
  placed him at the disposal of de Montfort, by whom he was
  poisoned after a short imprisonment. The removal of that young
  and gallant Prince was indeed most important to the ulterior
  project of his captor, who aimed at permanent establishment in
  the South. The family of de Montfort had ranked among the
  nobles of France for more than two centuries; and it is traced
  by some writers through an illegitimate channel even to the
  throne: but the possessions of Simon himself were scanty;
  necessity had compelled him to sell the County of Evreux to
  Philippe Auguste; and the English Earldom of Leicester which he
  inherited maternally, and the Lordship of a Castle about ten
  leagues distant from Paris, formed the whole of his revenues."

      _E. Smedley, History of France, chapter _4.

      ALSO IN
      _J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of the Crusades against
      the Albigenses, chapter 1._

      _H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity,
      book 9, chapter 8._

      _J. Alzog, Manual of Universal Church History, period 2,
      epoch 2, part 1, chapter 3
      https://archive.org/details/manualofuniversa02alzo_.

      See, also, INQUISITION: A. D. 1203-1525.

ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1210-1213.
   The Second Crusade.

   "The conquest of the Viscounty of Beziers had rather inflamed
   than satiated the cupidity of De Montfort and the fanaticism
   of Amalric [legate of the Pope] and of the monks of Citeaux.
   Raymond, Count of Toulouse, still possessed the fairest part
   of Languedoc, and was still suspected or accused of affording
   shelter, if not countenance, to his heretical subjects. ...
   The unhappy Raymond was ... again excommunicated from the
   Christian Church, and his dominions offered as a reward to the
   champions who should execute her sentence against him. To earn
   that reward De Montfort, at the head of a new host of
   Crusaders, attracted by the promise of earthly spoils and of
   heavenly blessedness, once more marched through the devoted
   land [A. D. 1210], and with him advanced Amalric. At each
   successive conquest, slaughter, rapine, and woes such as may
   not be described tracked and polluted their steps. Heretics,
   or those suspected of heresy, wherever they were found, were
   compelled by the legate to ascend vast piles of burning
   faggots. ... At length the Crusaders reached and laid siege to
   the city of Toulouse. ... Throwing himself into the place,
   Raymond ... succeeded in repulsing De Montfort and Amalric. It
   was, however, but a temporary respite, and the prelude to a
   fearful destruction. From beyond the Pyrenees, at the head of
   1,000 knights, Pedro of Arragon had marched to the rescue of
   Raymond, his kinsman, and of the counts of Foix and of
   Comminges, and of the Viscount of Béarn, his vassals; and
   their united forces came into communication with each other at
   Muret, a little town which is about three leagues distant from
   Toulouse. There, also, on the 12th of September [A. D. 1213],
   at the head of the champions of the Cross, and attended by
   seven bishops, appeared Simon de Montfort in full military
   array. The battle which followed was fierce, short and
   decisive. ... Don Pedro was numbered with the slain. His army,
   deprived of his command, broke and dispersed, and the whole of
   the infantry of Raymond and his allies were either put to the
   sword, or swept a way by the current of the Garonne. Toulouse
   immediately surrendered, and the whole of the dominions of
   Raymond submitted to the conquerors. At a council subsequently
   held at Montpellier, composed of five archbishops and
   twenty-eight bishops, De Montfort was unanimously acknowledged
   as prince of the fief and city of Toulouse, and of the other
   counties conquered by the Crusaders under his command."

      _Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France, lecture 7._

      ALSO IN
      _J. C. L. de Sismondi, History of Crusades against the
      Albigenses, chapter 2._

ALBIGENSES: A. D. 1217-1229.
   The Renewed Crusades.
   Dissolution of the County of Toulouse.
   Pacification of Languedoc.

   "The cruel spirit of De Montfort would not allow him to rest
   quiet in his new Empire. Violence and persecution marked his
   rule; he sought to destroy the Provençal population by the
   sword or the stake, nor could he bring himself to tolerate the
   liberties of the citizens of Toulouse. In 1217 the Toulousans
   again revolted, and war once more broke out betwixt Count
   Raymond and Simon de Montfort. The latter formed the siege of
   the capital, and was engaged in repelling a sally, when a
   stone from one of the walls struck him and put an end to his
   existence. ... Amaury de Montfort, son of Simon, offered to
   cede to the king all his rights in Languedoc, which he was
   unable to defend against the old house of Toulouse. Philip
   [Augustus] hesitated to accept the important cession, and left
   the rival houses to the continuance of a struggle carried
   feebly on by either side." King Philip died in 1223 and was
   succeeded by a son, Louis VIII., who had none of his father's
   reluctance to join in the grasping persecution of the
   unfortunate people of the south. Amaury de Montfort had been
   fairly driven out of old Simon de Montfort's conquests, and he
   now sold them to King Louis for the office of constable of
   France. "A new crusade was preached against the Albigenses;
   and Louis marched towards Languedoc at the head of a
   formidable army in the spring of the year 1226. The town of
   Avignon had proferred to the crusaders the facilities of
   crossing the Rhone under her walls, but refused entry within
   them to such a host. Louis having arrived at Avignon, insisted
   on passing through the town: the Avignonais shut their gates,
   and defied the monarch, who instantly formed the siege. One of
   the rich municipalities of the south was almost a match for
   the king of France. He was kept three months under its walls;
   his army a prey to famine, to disease and to the assaults of a
   brave garrison. The crusaders lost 20,000 men. The people of
   Avignon at length submitted, but on no dishonourable terms.
   This was the only resistance that Louis experienced in
   Languedoc. ... All submitted. Louis retired from his facile
   conquest; he himself, and the chiefs of his army stricken by
   an epidemy which had prevailed in the conquered regions. The
   monarch's feeble frame could not resist it; he expired at
   Montpensier, in Auvergne, in November, 1226." Louis VIII. was
   succeeded by his young son, Louis IX. (Saint Louis), then a
   boy, under the regency of his energetic and capable mother,
   Blanche of Castile.
{34}
   "The termination of the war with the Albigenses, and
   the pacification, or it might be called the acquisition, of
   Languedoc, was the chief act of Queen Blanche's regency. Louis
   VIII. had overrun the country without resistance in his last
   campaign; still, at his departure, Raymond VI. again appeared,
   collected soldiers and continued to struggle against the royal
   lieutenant. For upward of two years he maintained himself; the
   attention of Blanche being occupied by the league of the
   barons against her. The successes of Raymond VII., accompanied
   by cruelties, awakened the vindictive zeal of the pope.
   Languedoc was threatened with another crusade; Raymond was
   willing to treat, and make considerable cessions, in order to
   avoid such extremities. In April, 1229, a treaty was signed:
   in it the rights of De Montfort were passed over. About
   two-thirds of the domains of the count of Toulouse were ceded
   to the king of France; the remainder was to fall, after
   Raymond's death, to his daughter Jeanne, who by the same
   treaty was to marry one of the royal princes: heirs failing
   them, it was to revert to the crown [which it did in 1271]. On
   these terms, with the humiliating addition of a public
   penance, Raymond VII. once more was allowed peaceable
   possession of Toulouse, and of the part of his domains
   reserved to him. Alphonse, brother of Louis IX., married
   Jeanne of Toulouse soon after, and took the title of count of
   Poitiers; that province being ceded to him in apanage. Robert,
   another brother, was made count of Artois at the same time.
   Louis himself married Margaret, the eldest daughter of Raymond
   Berenger, count of Provence."

      _E. E. Crowe, History of France, volume 1, chapter 2-3._

   "The struggle ended in a vast increase of the power of the
   French crown, at the expense alike of the house of Toulouse
   and of the house of Aragon. The dominions of the count of
   Toulouse were divided. A number of fiefs, Beziers, Narbonne,
   Nimes, Albi, and some other districts were at once annexed to
   the crown. The capital itself and its county passed to the
   crown fifty years later. ... The name of Toulouse, except as
   the name of the city itself, now passed away, and the new
   acquisitions of France came in the end to be known by the name
   of the tongue which was common to them with Aquitaine and
   Imperial Burgundy [Provence]. Under the name of Languedoc they
   became one of the greatest and most valuable provinces of the
   French kingdom."

      _E. A. Freeman, History Geography of Europe, chapter 9._

   The brutality and destructiveness of the Crusades.

   "The Church of the Albigenses had been drowned in blood. These
   supposed heretics had been swept away from the soil of France.
   The rest of the Languedocian people had been overwhelmed with
   calamity, slaughter, and devastation. The estimates
   transmitted to us of the numbers of the invaders and of the
   slain are such as almost surpass belief. We can neither verify
   nor correct them; but we certainly know that, during a long
   succession of years, Languedoc had been invaded by armies more
   numerous than had ever before been brought together in
   European warfare since the fall of the Roman empire. We know
   that these hosts were composed of men inflamed by bigotry and
   unrestrained by discipline; that they had neither military pay
   nor magazines; that they provided for all their wants by the
   sword, living at the expense of the country, and seizing at
   their pleasure both the harvests of the peasants and the
   merchandise of the citizens. More than three-fourths of the
   landed proprietors had been despoiled of their fiefs and
   castles. In hundreds of villages, every inhabitant had been
   massacred. ... Since the sack of Rome by the Vandals, the
   European world had never mourned over a national disaster so
   wide in its extent or so fearful in its character."

      _Sir J. Stephen, Lectures on the History of France,
      lecture 7._

----------ALBIGENSES: End----------

ALBION.

   "The most ancient name known to have been given to this island
   [Britain] is that of Albion. ... There is, however, another
   allusion to Britain which seems to carry us much further back,
   though it has usually been ill understood. It occurs in the
   story of the labours of Hercules, who, after securing the cows
   of Geryon, comes from Spain to Liguria, where he is attacked
   by two giants, whom he kills before making his way to Italy.
   Now, according to Pomponius Mela, the names of the giants were
   Albiona and Bergyon, which one may, without much hesitation,
   restore to the forms of Albion and Iberion, representing,
   undoubtedly, Britain and Ireland, the position of which in the
   sea is most appropriately symbolized by the story making them
   sons of Neptune or the sea-god. ... Even in the time of Pliny,
   Albion, as the name of the island, had fallen out of use with
   Latin authors; but not so with the Greeks, or with the Celts
   themselves, at any rate those of the Goidelic branch; for they
   are probably right who suppose that we have but the same word
   in the Irish and Scotch Gælic Alba, genitive Alban, the
   kingdom of Alban or Scotland beyond the Forth. Albion would be
   a form of the name according to the Brythonic pronunciation of
   it. ... It would thus appear that the name Albion is one that
   has retreated to a corner of the island, to the whole of which
   it once applied."

      _J. Rhys, Celtic Britain, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN _E. Guest, Origines Celticae, chapter 1._

      See SCOTLAND: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

ALBIS, The.
   The ancient name of the river Elbe.

ALBOIN, King of the Lombards, A. D. 569-573.

ALCALDE.--ALGUAZIL.--CORREGIDOR.

   "The word alcalde is from the Arabic 'al cadi,' the judge or
   governor. ... Alcalde mayor signifies a judge, learned in the
   law, who exercises [in Spain] ordinary jurisdiction, civil and
   criminal, in a town or district." In the Spanish colonies the
   Alcalde mayor was the chief judge. "Irving (Columbus, ii.
   331) writes erroneously alguazil mayor, evidently confounding
   the two offices. ... An alguacil mayor, was a chief constable
   or high sheriff." "Corregidor, a magistrate having civil and
   criminal jurisdiction in the first instance ('nisi prius')
   and gubernatorial inspection in the political and economical
   government in all the towns of the district assigned to him."

      _H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, pages 297 and 250, foot-notes._

ALCANIZ, Battle of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

ALCANTARA, Battle of the (1580).

      See PORTUGAL; A. D. 1579-1580.

{35}

ALCANTARA, Knights of.

   "Towards the close of Alfonso's reign [Alfonso VIII. of
   Castile and Leon, who called himself 'the Emperor,'
   A. D. 1126-1157], may be assigned the origin of the
   military order of Alcantara. Two cavaliers of Salamanca, don
   Suero and don Gomez, left that city with the design of
   choosing and fortifying some strong natural frontier, whence
   they could not only arrest the continual incursions of the
   Moors, but make hostile irruptions themselves into the
   territories of the misbelievers. Proceeding along the banks of
   the Coales, they fell in with a hermit, Amando by name, who
   encouraged them in their patriotic design and recommended the
   neighbouring hermitage of St. Julian as an excellent site for
   a fortress. Having examined and approved the situation, they
   applied to the bishop of Salamanca for permission to occupy
   the place: that permission was readily granted: with his
   assistance, and that of the hermit Amando, the two cavaliers
   erected a castle around the hermitage. They were now joined by
   other nobles and by more adventurers, all eager to acquire
   fame and wealth in this life, glory in the next. Hence the
   foundation of an order which, under the name, first, of St.
   Julian, and subsequently of Alcantara, rendered good service
   alike to king and church."

      _S. A. Dunham, History of Spain and Portugal, book 3,
      section 2, chapter 1, division. 2._

ALCAZAR, OR "THE THREE KINGS," Battle of (1578 or 1579).

      See MAROCCO: THE ARAB CONQUEST AND SINCE.

ALCIBIADES, The career of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 421-418, and 411-407;
      and ATHENS: B. C. 415, and 413-411.

ALCLYDE.

   Rhydderch, a Cumbrian prince of the sixth century who was the
   victor in a civil conflict, "fixed his headquarters on a rock
   in the Clyde, called in the Welsh Alclud [previously a Roman
   town known as Theodosia], whence it was known to the English
   for a time as Alclyde; but the Goidels called it Dunbrettan,
   or the fortress of the Brythons, which has prevailed in the
   slightly modified form of Dumbarton. ... Alclyde was more than
   once destroyed by the Northmen."

      _J. Rhys; Celtic Britain, chapter 4._

      See, also, CUMBRIA.

ALCMÆONIDS, The curse and banishment of the.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.

ALCOLEA, Battle of (1868).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1866-1873.

ALDIE, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
      (JUNE-JULY: PENNSYLVANIA).

ALDINE PRESS, The.

      See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1469-1515.

ALEMANNIA: The Mediæval Duchy.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 843-962.

ALEMANNI, OR ALAMANNI: A. D. 213.
   Origin and first appearance.

   "Under Antoninus, the Son of Severus, a new and more severe
   war once more (A. D. 213) broke out in Raetia. This also was
   waged against the Chatti; but by their side a second people is
   named, which we here meet for the first time--the Alamanni.
   Whence they came, we known not. According to a Roman writing a
   little later, they were a conflux of mixed elements; the
   appellation also seems to point to a league of communities, as
   well as the fact that, afterwards, the different tribes
   comprehended under this name stand forth--more than is the
   case among the other great Germanic peoples--in their separate
   character, and the Juthungi, the Lentienses, and other
   Alamannic peoples not seldom act independently. But that it is
   not the Germans of this region who here emerge, allied under the
   new name and strengthened by the alliance, is shown as well by
   the naming of the Alamanni along side of the Chatti, as by the
   mention of the unwonted skilfulness of the Alamanni in
   equestrian combat. On the contrary, it was certainly, in the
   main, hordes coming on from the East that lent new strength to
   the almost extinguished German resistance on the Rhine; it is
   not improbable that the powerful Semnones, in earlier times
   dwelling on the middle Elbe, of whom there is no further
   mention after the end of the second century, furnished a
   strong contingent to the Alamanni."

      _T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 4._

   "The standard quotation respecting the derivation of the name
   from 'al'='all' and m-n= man', so that the word (somewhat
   exceptionably) denotes 'men of all sorts,' is from Agathias,
   who quotes Asinius Quadratus. ... Notwithstanding this, I
   think it is an open question, whether the name may not have
   been applied by the truer and more unequivocal Germans of
   Suabia and Franconia, to certain less definitely Germanic
   allies from Wurtemberg and Baden,--parts of the Decumates
   Agri--parts which may have supplied a Gallic, a Gallo-Roman,
   or even a Slavonic element to the confederacy; in which case,
   a name so German as to have given the present French and
   Italian name for Germany, may, originally, have applied to a
   population other than Germanic. I know the apparently
   paradoxical elements in this view; but I also know that, in
   the way of etymology, it is quite as safe to translate 'all'
   by 'alii' as by 'omnes': and I cannot help thinking that the
   'al-' in Ale-manni is the 'al-' in 'alir-arto' (a foreigner
   or man of another sort), 'eli-benzo' (an alien), and
   'ali-land' (captivity in foreign land).--Grimm, ii.
   628.--Rechsalterth, page 359. And still more satisfied am I that
   the 'al-' in Al-emanni is the 'al-' in
   Alsatia='el-sass'='ali-satz'='foreign settlement.' In other
   words, the prefix in question is more probably the 'al-' in
   'el-se', than the 'al-' in 'all.' Little, however, of
   importance turns on this. The locality of the Alemanni was the
   parts about the Limes Romanus, a boundary which, in the time
   of Alexander Severus, Niebuhr thinks they first broke through.
   Hence they were the Marchmen of the frontier, whoever those
   Marchmen were. Other such Marchmen were the Suevi; unless,
   indeed, we consider the two names as synonymous. Zeuss admits
   that, between the Suevi of Suabia, and the Alemanni, no
   tangible difference can be found."

      _R. G. Lathan, The Germania of Tacitus; Epilegomena,
      section 11._

      ALSO IN _T. Smith, Arminius, part 2, chapter 1._

      See also, SUEVI, and BAVARIANS.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 259.
   Invasion of Gaul and Italy.

   The Alemanni, "hovering on the frontiers of the Empire ...
   increased the general disorder that ensued after the death of
   Decius. They inflicted severe wounds on the rich provinces of
   Gaul; they were the first who removed the veil that covered
   the feeble majesty of Italy. A numerous body of the Alemanni
   penetrated across the Danube and through the Rhætian Alps into
   the plains of Lombardy, advanced as far as Ravenna and
   displayed the victorious banners of barbarians almost in sight
   of Rome [A. D. 259]. The insult and the danger
   rekindled in the senate some sparks of their ancient virtue.
   Both the Emperors were engaged in far distant wars--Valerian
   in the East and Galienus on the Rhine." The senators, however,
   succeeded in confronting the audacious invaders with a force
   which checked their advance, and they "retired into Germany
   laden with spoil."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 10.

{36}

ALEMANNI: A. D. 270.
   Invasion of Italy.

   Italy was invaded by the Alemanni, for the second time, in the
   reign of Anrelian, A. D. 270. They ravaged the provinces from
   the Danube to the Po, and were retreating, laden with spoils,
   when the vigorous Emperor intercepted them, on the banks of
   the former river. Half the host was permitted to cross the
   Danube; the other half was surprised and surrounded. But these
   last, unable to regain their own country, broke through the
   Roman lines at their rear and sped into Italy again, spreading
   havoc as they went. It was only after three great
   battles,--one near Placentia, in which the Romans were almost
   beaten, another on the Metaurus (where Hasdrubal was
   defeated), and a third near Pavia,--that the Germanic
   invaders were destroyed.

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 11.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 355-361.
   Repulse by Julian.

      See GAUL: A. D. 355-361.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 365-367.
   Invasion of Gaul.

   The Alemanni invaded Gaul in 365, committing widespread
   ravages and carrying away into the forests of Germany great
   spoil and many captives. The next winter they crossed the
   Rhine, again, in still greater numbers, defeated the Roman
   forces and captured the standards of the Herulian and Batavian
   auxiliaries. But Valentinian was now Emperor, and he adopted
   energetic measures. His lieutenant Jovinus overcame the
   invaders in a great battle fought near Chalons and drove them
   back to their own side of the river boundary. Two years later,
   the Emperor, himself, passed the Rhine and inflicted a
   memorable chastisement on the Alemanni. At the same time he
   strengthened the frontier defences, and, by diplomatic arts,
   fomented quarrels between the Alemanni and their neighbors,
   the Burgundians, which weakened both.

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 25.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.
   Defeat by Gratian.

   On learning that the young Emperor Gratian was preparing to
   lead the military force of Gaul and the West to the help of
   his uncle and colleague, Valens, against the Goths, the
   Alemanni swarmed across the Rhine into Gaul. Gratian instantly
   recalled the legions that were marching to Pannonia and
   encountered the German invaders in a great battle fought near
   Argentaria (modern Colmar) in the month of May, A. D. 378. The
   Alemanni were routed with such slaughter that no more than
   5,000 out of 40,000 to 70,000, are said to have escaped.
   Gratian afterwards crossed the Rhine and humbled his
   troublesome neighbors in their own country.

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 26.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 496-504.
   Overthrow by the Franks.

   "In the year 496 A. D. the Salians [Salian Franks] began that
   career of conquest which they followed up with scarcely any
   intermission until the death of their warrior king. The
   Alemanni, extending themselves from their original seats on
   the right bank of the Rhine, between the Main and the Danube,
   had pushed forward into Germanica Prima, where they came into
   collision with the Frankish subjects of King Sigebert of
   Cologne. Clovis flew to the assistance of his kinsman and
   defeated the Alemanni in a great battle in the neighbourhood
   of Zülpich [called, commonly, the battle of Tolbiac]. He then
   established a considerable number of his Franks in the
   territory of the Alemanni, the traces of whose residence are
   found in the names of Franconia and Frankfort."

      _V. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 2._

   "Clovis had been intending to cross the Rhine, but the hosts
   of the Alamanni came upon him, as it seems, unexpectedly and
   forced a battle on the left bank of the river. He seemed to be
   overmatched, and the horror of an impending defeat
   overshadowed the Frankish king. Then, in his despair, he
   bethought himself of the God of Clotilda [his queen, a
   Burgundian Christian princess, of the orthodox or Catholic
   faith]. Raising his eyes to heaven, he said: 'Oh Jesus Christ,
   whom Clotilda declares to be the Son of the living God, who
   art said to give help to those who are in trouble and who
   trust in Thee, I humbly beseech Thy succour! I have called on
   my gods and they are far from my help. If Thou wilt deliver me
   from mine enemies, I will believe in Thee, and be baptised in
   Thy name.' At this moment, a sudden change was seen in the
   fortunes of the Franks. The Alamanni began to waver, they
   turned, they fled. Their king, according to one account was
   slain; and the nation seems to have accepted Clovis as its
   over-lord." The following Christmas day Clovis was baptised at
   Reims and 3,000 of his warriors followed the royal example.
   "In the early years of the new century, probably about 503 or
   504, Clovis was again at war with his old enemies, the
   Alamanni. ... Clovis moved his army into their territories and
   won a victory much more decisive, though less famous than that
   of 496. This time the angry king would make no such easy terms
   as he had done before. From their pleasant dwellings by the
   Main and the Neckar, from all the valley of the Middle Rhine,
   the terrified Alamanni were forced to flee. Their place was
   taken by Frankish settlers, from whom all this district
   received in the Middle Ages the name of the Duchy of Francia,
   or, at a rather later date, that of the Circle of Franconia.
   The Alamanni, with their wives and children, a broken and
   dispirited host, moved southward to the shores of the Lake of
   Constance and entered the old Roman province of Rhætia. Here
   they were on what was held to be, in a sense, Italian ground;
   and the arm of Theodoric, as ruler of Italy, as successor to
   the Emperors of the West, was stretched forth to protect them.
   ... Eastern Switzerland, Western Tyrol, Southern Baden and
   Würtemberg and Southwestern Bavaria probably formed this new
   Alamannis, which will figure in later history as the 'Ducatus
   Alamanniæ,' or the Circle of Swabia."

      _T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 9._

      ALSO IN
      _P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 3, chapter 11._

      See, also, SUEVI: A. D. 460-500;
      and FRANKS: A. D. 481-511.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 528-729.
   Struggles against the Frank Dominion.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 481-768.

ALEMANNI: A. D. 547.
   Final subjection to the Franks.

      See BAVARIA: A. D. 547.

{37}

ALEPPO: A. D. 638-969.
   Taken by the Arab followers of Mahomet in 638, this city was
   recovered by the Byzantines in 969.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 963-1025.

ALEPPO: A. D. 1260.
   Destruction by the Mongols.

   The Mongols, under Khulagu, or Houlagou, brother of Mangu
   Khan, having overrun Mesopotamia and extinguished the
   Caliphate at Bagdad, crossed the Euphrates in the spring of
   1260 and advanced to Aleppo. The city was taken after a siege
   of seven days and given up for five days to pillage and
   slaughter. "When the carnage ceased, the streets were cumbered
   with corpses. ... It is said that 100,000 women and children
   were sold as slaves. The walls of Aleppo were razed, its
   mosques destroyed, and its gardens ravaged." Damascus
   submitted and was spared. Khulagu was meditating, it is said,
   the conquest of Jerusalem, when news of the death of the Great
   Khan called him to the East.

      _H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, pages 209-211._

ALEPPO: A. D. 1401.
   Sack and Massacre by Timour.

      See TIMOUR.

ALESIA, Siege of, by Cæsar.

      See GAUL: B. C. 58-51.

ALESSANDRIA: The creation of the city (1168).

   See ITALY: A. D. 1174--1183.

ALEUTS, The.

   See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ESKIMO.

ALEXANDER
  ALEXANDER the Great, B. C. 334-323.
  Conquests and Empire.

     See MACEDONIA, &c., B. C. 334-330, and after.

  Alexander, King of Poland, A. D. 1501-1507.

  Alexander, Prince of Bulgaria.--Abduction and Abdication.

     See BULGARIA: A. D. 1878-1886..

  Alexander I., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1801-1825..

  Alexander I., King of Scotland, A. D. 1107-1124.

  Alexander II., Pope, A. D. 1061-1073.

  Alexander II., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1855-1881.

  Alexander II., King of Scotland, A. D. 1214--1249..

  Alexander III., Pope, A. D. 1159-1181.

  Alexander III., Czar of Russia, A. D. 1881-.

  Alexander III., King of Scotland, A. D. 1249-1286.

  Alexander IV., Pope, A. D. 1254--1261.

  Alexander V., Pope, A. D. 1409-1410
  (elected by the Council of Pisa).

  Alexander VI., Pope, A. D. 1492-1503.

  Alexander VII., Pope, A. D. 1655-1667.

  Alexander VIII., Pope, A. D. 1689-1691.

  Alexander Severus, Roman Emperor, A. D. 222-235.

ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 332.
   The Founding of the City.

   "When Alexander reached the Egyptian military station at the
   little town or village of Rhakotis, he saw with the quick eye
   of a great commander how to turn this petty settlement into a
   great city, and to make its roadstead, out of which ships
   could be blown by a change of wind, into a double harbour
   roomy enough to shelter the navies of the world. All that was
   needed was to join the island by a mole to the continent. The
   site was admirably secure and convenient, a narrow strip of
   land between the Mediterranean and the great inland Lake
   Mareotis. The whole northern side faced the two harbours,
   which were bounded east and west by the mole, and beyond by
   the long, narrow rocky island of Pharos, stretching parallel
   with the coast. On the south was the inland port of Lake
   Mareotis. The length of the city was more than three miles,
   the breadth more than three-quarters of a mile; the mole was
   above three-quarters of a mile long and six hundred feet
   broad; its breadth is now doubled, owing to the silting up of
   the sand. Modern Alexandria until lately only occupied the
   mole, and was a great town in a corner of the space which
   Alexander, with large provision for the future, measured out.
   The form of the new city was ruled by that of the site, but
   the fancy of Alexander designed it in the shape of a
   Macedonian cloak or chlamys, such as a national hero wears on
   the coins of the kings of Macedon, his ancestors. The
   situation is excellent for commerce. Alexandria, with the best
   Egyptian harbour on the Mediterranean, and the inland port
   connected with the Nile streams and canals, was the natural
   emporium of the Indian trade. Port Said is superior now,
   because of its grand artificial port and the advantage for
   steamships of an unbroken sea route."

      _R. S. Poole, Cities of Egypt, chapter 12._--

      See, also, MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 334-330;
      and EGYPT: B. C. 332.

ALEXANDRIA: Reign of Ptolemy Philadelphus, B. C. 282-246.
   Greatness and splendor of the City.
   Its Commerce.
   Its Libraries.
   Its Museum.
   Its Schools.

   Ptolemy Philadelphus, son of Ptolemy Soter, succeeded to the
   throne of Egypt in 282 B. C. when his father retired from it
   in his favor, and reigned until 246 B. C. "Alexandria, founded
   by the great conqueror, increased and beautified by Ptolemy
   Soter, was now far the greatest city of Alexander's Empire. It
   was the first of those new foundations which are a marked
   feature in Hellenism; there were many others of great size and
   importance--above all, Antioch, then Seleucia on the Tigris,
   then Nicomedia, Nicæa, Apamea, which lasted; besides such as
   Lysimacheia, Antigoneia, and others, which early disappeared.
   ... Alexandria was the model for all the rest. The
   intersection of two great principal thoroughfares, adorned
   with colonnades for the footways, formed the centre point, the
   omphalos of the city. The other streets were at right angles
   with these thoroughfares, so that the whole place was quite
   regular. Counting its old part, Rhakotis, which was still the
   habitation of native Egyptians, Alexandria had five quarters,
   one at least devoted to Jews who had originally settled there
   in great numbers. The mixed population there of Macedonians,
   Greeks, Jews, and Egyptians gave a peculiarly complex and
   variable character to the population. Let us not forget the
   vast number of strangers from all parts of the world whom
   trade and politics brought there. It was the great mart where
   the wealth of Europe and of Asia changed hands. Alexander had
   opened the sea-way by exploring the coasts of Media and
   Persia. Caravans from the head of the Persian Gulf, and ships
   on the Red Sea, brought all the wonders of Ceylon and China,
   as well as of Further India, to Alexandria. There, too, the
   wealth of Spain and Gaul, the produce of Italy and Macedonia,
   the amber of the Baltic and the salt fish of Pontus, the
   silver of Spain and the copper of Cyprus, the timber of
   Macedonia and Crete, the pottery and oil of Greece--a thousand
   imports from all the Mediterranean--came to be exchanged for
   the spices of Arabia, the splendid birds and embroideries of
   India and Ceylon, the gold and ivory of Africa, the antelopes,
   the apes, the leopards, the elephants of tropical climes.
   Hence the enormous wealth of the Lagidæ, for in addition to
   the marvellous fertility and great population--it is said to
   have been seven millions--of Egypt, they made all the profits
   of this enormous carrying trade.
{38}
   We gain a good idea of what the splendours of the capital were
   by the very full account preserved to us by Athenæus of the
   great feast which inaugurated the reign of Philadelphus. ...
   All this seems idle pomp, and the doing of an idle sybarite.
   Philadelphus was anything but that. ... It was he who opened
   up the Egyptian trade with Italy, and made Puteoli the great
   port for ships from Alexandria, which it remained for
   centuries. It was he who explored Ethiopia and the southern
   parts of Africa, and brought back not only the curious fauna
   to his zoological gardens, but the first knowledge of the
   Troglodytes for men of science. The cultivation of science and
   of letters too was so remarkably one of his pursuits that the
   progress of the Alexandria of his day forms an epoch in the
   world's history, and we must separate his University and its
   professors from this summary, and devote to them a separate
   section. ... The history of the organization of the University
   and its staff is covered with almost impenetrable mist. For
   the Museum and Library were in the strictest sense what we
   should now call an University, and one, too, of the Oxford
   type, where learned men were invited to take Fellowships, and
   spend their learned leisure close to observatories in science,
   and a great library of books. Like the mediæval universities,
   this endowment of research naturally turned into an engine for
   teaching, as all who desired knowledge flocked to such a
   centre, and persuaded the Fellow to become a Tutor. The model
   came from Athens. There the schools, beginning with the
   Academy of Plato, had a fixed property--a home with its
   surrounding garden, and in order to make this foundation sure,
   it was made a shrine where the Muses were worshipped, and
   where the head of the school, or a priest appointed, performed
   stated sacrifices. This, then, being held in trust by the
   successors of the donor, who bequeathed it; to them, was a
   property which it would have been sacrilegious to invade, and
   so the title Museum arose for a school of learning. Demetrius
   the Phalerean, the friend and protector of Theophrastus,
   brought this idea with him to Alexandria, when his namesake
   drove him into exile [see GREECE: B. C. 307-197] and it was no
   doubt his advice to the first Ptolemy which originated the
   great foundation, though Philadelphus, who again exiled
   Demetrius, gets the credit of it. The pupil of Aristotle
   moreover impressed on the king the necessity of storing up in
   one central repository all that the world knew or could
   produce, in order to ascertain the laws of things from a
   proper analysis of detail. Hence was founded not only the
   great library, which in those days had a thousand times the
   value a great library has now, but also observatories,
   zoological gardens, collections of exotic plants, and of other
   new and strange things brought by exploring expeditions from
   the furthest regions of Arabia and Africa. This library and
   museum proved indeed a home for the Muses, and about it a most
   brilliant group of students in literature and science was
   formed. The successive librarians were Zenodotus, the
   grammarian or critic; Callimachus, to whose poems we shall
   presently return; Eratosthenes, the astronomer, who originated
   the process by which the size of the earth is determined
   to-day; Appollonius the Rhodian, disciple and enemy of
   Callimachus; Aristophanes of Byzantium, founder of a school of
   philological criticism; and Aristarchus of Samos, reputed to
   have been the greatest critic of ancient times. The study of
   the text of Homer was the chief labour of Zenodotus,
   Aristophanes, and Aristarchus, and it was Aristarchus who
   mainly fixed the form in which the Iliad and Odyssey remain to
   this day. ... The vast collections of the library and museum
   actually determined the whole character of the literature of
   Alexandria. One word sums it all up--erudition, whether in
   philosophy, in criticism, in science, even in poetry. Strange
   to say, they neglected not only oratory, for which there was
   no scope, but history, and this we may attribute to the fact
   that history before Alexander had no charms for Hellenism.
   Mythical lore, on the other hand, strange uses and curious
   words, were departments of research dear to them. In science
   they did great things, so did they in geography. ... But were
   they original in nothing? Did they add nothing of their own to
   the splendid record of Greek literature? In the next
   generation came the art of criticism, which Aristarchus
   developed into a real science, and of that we may speak in its
   place; but even in this generation we may claim for them the
   credit of three original, or nearly original, developments in
   literature--the pastoral idyll, as we have it in Theocritus;
   the elegy, as we have it in the Roman imitators of Philetas
   and Callimachus; and the romance, or love story, the parent of
   our modern novels. All these had early prototypes in the folk
   songs of Sicily, in the love songs of Mimnermus and of
   Antimachus, in the tales of Miletus, but still the revival was
   fairly to be called original. Of these the pastoral idyll was
   far the most remarkable, and laid hold upon the world for
   ever."

      _J. P. Mahaffy, The Story of Alexander's Empire, chapter 13-14._

   "There were two Libraries of Alexandria under the Ptolemies,
   the larger one in the quarter called the Bruchium, and the
   smaller one, named 'the daughter,' in the Serapeum, which was
   situated in the quarter called Rhacotis. The former was
   totally destroyed in the conflagration of the Bruchium during
   Cæsar's Alexandrian War [see below: B. C. 48-47]; but the
   latter, which was of great value, remained uninjured (see
   Matter, _Histoire de l'École d'Alexandrie, volume 1, page 133
   seg., 237 seq.)_ It is not stated by any ancient writer
   where the collection of Pergamus [see PERGAMUM] was placed,
   which Antony gave to Cleopatra (Plutarch, Anton., c. 58); but
   it is most probable that it was deposited in the Bruchium, as
   that quarter of the city was now without a library, and the
   queen was anxious to repair the ravages occasioned by the
   civil war. If this supposition is correct, two Alexandrian
   libraries continued to exist after the time of Cæsar, and this
   is rendered still more probable by the fact that during the
   first three centuries of the Christian era the Bruchium was
   still the literary quarter of Alexandria. But a great change
   took place in the time of Aurelian. This Emperor, in
   suppressing the revolt of Firmus in Egypt, A. D. 273 [see
   below: A. D. 273] is said to have destroyed the Bruchium; and
   though this statement is hardly to be taken literally, the
   Bruchium ceased from this time to be included within the walls
   of Alexandria, and was regarded only as a suburb of the city.
 {39}
   Whether the great library in the Bruchium with the museum and
   its other literary establishments, perished at this time, we
   do not know; but the Serapeum for the next century takes its
   place as the literary quarter of Alexandria, and becomes the
   chief library in the city. Hence later writers erroneously
   speak of the Serapeum as if it had been from the beginning the
   great Alexandrian library. ... Gibbon seems to think that the
   whole of the Serapeum was destroyed [A. D. 389, by order of
   the Emperor Theodosius--see below]; but this was not the case.
   It would appear that it was only the sanctuary of the god that
   was levelled with the ground, and that the library, the halls
   and other buildings in the consecrated ground remained
   standing long afterwards."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
      chapter 28. Notes by Dr. William Smith.

   Concerning the reputed final destruction of the Library by the
   Moslems,

      See below: A. D. 641-646.

      ALSO IN
      _O. Delepierre, Historical Difficulties, chapter 3._

      _S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapters 7, 8 and 12._

      See, also, NEOPLATONICS.

ALEXANDRIA: B. C. 48-47.
   Cæsar and Cleopatra.
   The Rising against the Romans.
   The Siege.
   Destruction of the great Library.
   Roman victory.

   From the battle field of Pharsalia (see ROME: B. C. 48)
   Pompeius fled to Alexandria in Egypt; and was treacherously
   murdered as he stepped on shore. Cæsar arrived a few days
   afterwards, in close pursuit, and shed tears, it is said, on
   being shown his rival's mangled head. He had brought scarcely
   more than 3,000 of his soldiers with him, and he found Egypt
   in a turbulent state of civil war. The throne was in dispute
   between children of the late king, Ptolemæus Auletes.
   Cleopatra, the elder daughter, and Ptolemæus, a son, were at
   war with one another, and Arsinoë, a younger daughter, was
   ready to put forward claims (see EGYPT: B. C. 80-48).
   Notwithstanding the insignificance of his force, Cæsar did not
   hesitate to assume to occupy Alexandria and to adjudicate the
   dispute. But the fascinations of Cleopatra (then twenty years
   of age) soon made him her partisan, and her scarcely disguised
   lover. This aggravated the irritation which was caused in
   Alexandria by the presence of Cæsar's troops, and a furious
   rising of the city was provoked. He fortified himself in the
   great palace, which he had taken possession of, and which
   commanded the causeway to the island, Pharos, thereby
   commanding the port. Destroying a large part of the city in
   that neighborhood, he made his position exceedingly strong. At
   the same time he seized and burned the royal fleet, and thus
   caused a conflagration in which the greater of the two
   priceless libraries of Alexandria--the library of the
   Museum--was, much of it, consumed. [See above: B. C. 282-246.]
   By such measures Cæsar withstood, for several months, a siege
   conducted on the part of the Alexandrians with great
   determination and animosity. It was not until March, B. C. 47,
   that he was relieved from his dangerous situation, by the
   arrival of a faithful ally, in the person of Mithridates, king
   of Pergamus, who led an army into Egypt, reduced Pelusium, and
   crossed the Nile at the head of the Delta. Ptolemæus advanced
   with his troops to meet this new invader and was followed and
   overtaken by Cæsar. In the battle which then occurred the
   Egyptian army was utterly routed and Ptolemæus perished in the
   Nile. Cleopatra was then married, after the Egyptian fashion,
   to a younger brother, and established on the throne, while
   Arsinoë was sent a prisoner to Rome.

      _A. Hirtius, The Alexandrian War._

      ALSO IN
      _G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 5, chapter 20._

      _C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 18._

      _S. Sharpe, History of Egypt, chapter 12._

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 116.
   Destruction of the Jews.

      See JEWS: A. D. 116.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 215.
   Massacre by Caracalla.

   "Caracalla was the common enemy of mankind. He left the
   capital (and he never returned to it) about a year after the
   murder of Geta [A. D. 213]. The rest of his reign [four years]
   was spent in the several provinces of the Empire, particularly
   those of the East, and every province was, by turns, the scene
   of his rapine and cruelty. ... In the midst of peace, and upon
   the slightest provocation, he issued his commands at
   Alexandria, Egypt [A. D. 215], for a general massacre. From a
   secure post in the temple of Serapis, he viewed and directed
   the slaughter of many thousand citizens, as well as strangers,
   without distinguishing either the number or the crime of the
   sufferers."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 6.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 260-272.
   Tumults of the Third Century.

   "The people of Alexandria, a various mixture of nations,
   united the vanity and inconstancy of the Greeks with the
   superstition and obstinacy of the Egyptians. The most trifling
   occasion, a transient scarcity of flesh or lentils, the
   neglect of an accustomed salutation, a mistake of precedency
   in the public baths, or even a religious dispute, were at any
   time sufficient to kindle a sedition among that vast
   multitude, whose resentments were furious and implacable.
   After the captivity of Valerian [the Roman Emperor, made
   prisoner by Sapor, king of Persia, A. D. 260] and the
   insolence of his son had relaxed the authority of the laws,
   the Alexandrians abandoned themselves to the ungoverned rage
   of their passions, and their unhappy country was the theatre
   of a civil war, which continued (with a few short and
   suspicious truces) above twelve years. All intercourse was cut
   off between the several quarters of the afflicted city, every
   street was polluted with blood, every building of strength
   converted into a citadel; nor did the tumult subside till a
   considerable part of Alexandria was irretrievably ruined. The
   spacious and magnificent district of Bruchion, with its
   palaces and museum, the residence of the kings and
   philosophers of Egypt, is described, above a century
   afterwards, as already reduced to its present state of dreary
   solitude."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,  chapter 10.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 273.
   Destruction of the Bruchium by Aurelian.

   After subduing Palmyra and its Queen Zenobia, A. D. 272, the
   Emperor Aurelian was called into Egypt to put down a rebellion
   there, headed by one Firmus, a friend and ally of the
   Palmyrene queen. Firmus had great wealth, derived from trade,
   and from the paper-manufacture of Egypt, which was mostly in
   his hands. He was defeated and put to death. "To Aurelian's
   war against Firmus, or to that of Probus a little before in
   Egypt, may be referred the destruction of Bruchium, a great
   quarter of Alexandria, which according to Ammianus
   Marcellinus, was ruined under Aurelian and remained deserted
   everafter."

      _J. B. L. Crevier, History of the Roman Emperors,
      book 27._

{40}

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 296.
   Siege by Diocletian.

   A general revolt of the African provinces of the Roman Empire
   occurred A. D. 296. The barbarous tribes of Ethiopia and the
   desert were brought into alliance with the provincials of
   Egypt, Cyrenaica, Carthage and Mauritania, and the flame of
   war was universal. Both the emperors of the time, Diocletian
   and Maximian, were called to the African field. "Diocletian,
   on his side, opened the campaign in Egypt by the siege of
   Alexandria, cut off the aqueducts which conveyed the waters of
   the Nile into every quarter of that immense city, and,
   rendering his camp impregnable to the sallies of the besieged
   multitude, he pushed his reiterated attacks with caution and
   vigor. After a siege of eight months, Alexandria, wasted by
   the sword and by fire, implored the clemency of the conqueror,
   but it experienced the full extent of his severity. Many
   thousands of the citizens perished in a promiscuous slaughter,
   and there were few obnoxious persons in Egypt who escaped a
   sentence either of death or at least of exile. The fate of
   Busiris and of Coptos was still more melancholy than that of
   Alexandria; those proud cities ... were utterly destroyed."

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

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 365.
   Great Earthquake.

      See EARTHQUAKE IN THE ROMAN WORLD: A. D.365.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 389.
   Destruction of the Serapeum.

   "After the edicts of Theodosius had severely prohibited the
   sacrifices of the pagans, they were still tolerated in the
   city and temple of Serapis. ... The archepiscopal throne of
   Alexandria was filled by Theophilus, the perpetual enemy of
   peace and virtue; a bold, bad man, whose hands were
   alternately polluted with gold and with blood. His pious
   indignation was excited by the honours of Serapis. ... The
   votaries of Serapis, whose strength and numbers were much
   inferior to those of their antagonists, rose in arms [A. D.
   389] at the instigation of the philosopher Olympius, who
   exhorted them to die in the defence of the altars of the gods.
   These pagan fanatics fortified themselves in the temple, or
   rather fortress, of Serapis; repelled the besiegers by daring
   sallies and a resolute defence; and, by the inhuman cruelties
   which they exercised on their Christian prisoners, obtained
   the last consolation of despair. The efforts of the prudent
   magistrate were usefully exerted for the establishment of a
   truce till the answer of Theodosius should determine the fate
   of Serapis." The judgment of the emperor condemned the great
   temple to destruction and it was reduced to a heap of ruins.
   "The valuable library of Alexandria was pillaged or destroyed;
   and, near twenty years afterwards, the appearance of the empty
   shelves excited the regret and indignation of every spectator
   whose mind was not totally darkened by religious
   prejudice."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 28.

   Gibbon's statement as to the destruction of the great library
   in the Serapeum is called in question by his learned
   annotator, Dr. Smith.

      See above: B. C. 282-246.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 413-415.
   The Patriarch Cyril and his Mobs.

   "His voice [that of Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, A. D.
   412-444] inflamed or appeased the passions of the multitude:
   his commands were blindly obeyed by his numerous and fanatic
   parabolani, familiarized in their daily office with scenes of
   death; and the præfects of Egypt were awed or provoked by the
   temporal power of these Christian pontiffs. Ardent in the
   prosecution of heresy, Cyril auspiciously opened his reign by
   oppressing the Novatians, the most innocent and harmless of
   the sectaries. ... The toleration, and even the privileges of
   the Jews, who had multiplied to the number of 40,000, were
   secured by the laws of the Cæsars and Ptolemies, and a long
   prescription of 700 years since the foundation of Alexandria.
   Without any legal sentence, without any royal mandate, the
   patriarch, at the dawn of day, led a seditious multitude to
   the attack of the synagogues. Unarmed and unprepared, the Jews
   were incapable of resistance; their houses of prayer were
   levelled with the ground, and the episcopal warrior, after
   rewarding his troops with the plunder of their goods, expelled
   from the city the remnant of the misbelieving nation. Perhaps
   he might plead the insolence of their prosperity, and their
   deadly hatred of the Christians, whose blood they had recently
   shed in a malicious or accidental tumult. Such crimes would
   have deserved the animadversions of the magistrate; but in
   this promiscuous outrage the innocent were confounded with the
   guilty."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 47.

   "Before long the adherents of the archbishop were guilty of a
   more atrocious and unprovoked crime, of the guilt of which a
   deep suspicion attached to Cyril. All Alexandria respected,
   honoured, took pride in the celebrated Hypatia. She was a
   woman of extraordinary learning; in her was centred the
   lingering knowledge of that Alexandrian Platonism cultivated
   by Plotinus and his school. Her beauty was equal to her
   learning; her modesty commended both. ... Hypatia lived in
   great intimacy with the præfect Orestes; the only charge
   whispered against her was that she encouraged him in his
   hostility to the patriarch. ... Some of Cyril's ferocious
   partisans seized this woman, dragged her from her chariot, and
   with the most revolting indecency tore her clothes off and then
   rent her limb from limb."

      _H. H. Milman, History of Latin Christianity,
      book 2, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN
      _C. Kingsley, Hypatia._

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 616.
   Taken by Chosroes.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 616-628.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 641-646.
   The Moslem Conquest.

   The precise date of events in the Moslem conquest of Egypt, by
   Amru, lieutenant of the Caliph Omar, is uncertain. Sir William
   Muir fixes the first surrender of Alexandria to Amru in A. D.
   641. After that it was reoccupied by the Byzantines either
   once or twice, on occasions of neglect by the Arabs, as they
   pursued their conquests elsewhere. The probability seems to be
   that this occurred only once, in 646. It seems also probable,
   as remarked by Sir W. Muir, that the two sieges on the taking
   and retaking of the city--641 and 646--have been much confused
   in the scanty accounts which have come down to us. On the
   first occasion Alexandria would appear to have been generously
   treated; while, on the second, it suffered pillage and its
   fortifications were destroyed. How far there is truth in the
   commonly accepted story of the deliberate burning of the great
   Alexandrian Library--or so much of it as had escaped
   destruction at the hands of Roman generals and Christian
   patriarchs--is a question still in dispute. Gibbon discredited
   the story, and Sir William Muir, the latest of students in
   Mahometan history, declines even the mention of it in his
   narrative of the conquest of Egypt. But other historians of
   repute maintain the probable accuracy of the tale told by
   Abulpharagus--that Caliph Omar ordered the destruction of the
   Library, on the ground that, if the books in it agreed with
   the Koran they were useless, if they disagreed with it they
   were pernicious.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 640-646.

{41}

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 815-823.
   Occupied by piratical Saracens from Spain.

      See CRETE: A. D. 823.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1798.
   Captured by the French under Bonaparte.

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

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1801-1802.
   Battle of French and English.
   Restoration to the Turks.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1807.
   Surrendered to the English.
   The brief occupation and humiliating capitulation.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1806-1807.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1840.
   Bombardment by the English.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1831-1840.

ALEXANDRIA: A. D. 1882.
   Bombardment by the English fleet.
   Massacre of Europeans.
   Destruction.

      See EGYPT: A. D. 1875-1882, and 1882-1883.

----------ALEXANDRIA: End----------

ALEXANDRIA, LA., The Burning of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (MARCH-MAY: LOUISIANA).

ALEXANDRIA, VA., A. D. 1861 (May).
   Occupation by Union troops.
   Murder of Colonel Ellsworth.

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

ALEXANDRIAN TALENT.

      See TALENT.

ALEXIS, Czar of Russia, A. D. 1645-1676.

ALEXIUS I. (Comnenus),
   Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek), A. D. 1081-1118.

   Alexius II. (Comnenus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
   Greek), A. D. 1181-1183.

   Alexius III. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
   Greek), A. D. 1195-1203

   Alexius IV. (Angelus), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or
   Greek), A. D. 1203-1204

   Alexius V. (Ducas), Emperor in the East (Byzantine, or Greek),
   A. D. 1204.

ALFONSO
  ALFONSO I., King of Aragon and Navarre, A. D. 1104-1134

  Alfonso I., King of Castile, A. D. 1072-1109;
    and VI. of Leon, A. D. 1065-1109.

  Alfonso I., King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo,
  A. D. 739-757.

  Alfonso I., King of Portugal, A. D. 1112-1185.

  Alfonso II., King of Aragon, A D. 1163-1196.

  Alfonso II., King of Castile, A. D. 1126-1157.

  Alfonso II., King of Leon and the Asturias,
  or Oviedo, A. D. 791-842.

  Alfonso II., King of Naples, A. D. 1494-1495.

  Alfonso II., King of Portugal, A. D. 1211-1223.

  Alfonso III., King of Aragon, A. D. 1285-1291.

  Alfonso III., King of Castile, A. D. 1158-1214.

  Alfonso III., King of Leon and the Asturias,
  or Oviedo, A. D. 866-910.

  Alfonso III., King of Portugal, A. D. 1244-1279.

  Alfonso IV., King of Aragon, A. D. 1327-1336.

  Alfonso IV., King of Leon and the Asturias,
  or Oviedo, A. D. 925-930.

  Alfonso IV., King of Portugal, A. D. 1323-1357.

  Alfonso V., King of Aragon and I. of Sicily, A. D. 1416-1458;
  I. of Naples, A. D. 1443-1458.

  Alfonso V., King of Leon and the Asturias,
  or Oviedo, A. D. 9919-1027.

  Alfonso V., King of Portugal, A. D. 1438-1481.

  Alfonso VI., King of Portugal, A. D., 1656-1667.

  Alfonso VII., King of Leon, A. D. 1109-1126.

  Alfonso VIII., King of Leon, A. D. 1126-1157.

  Alfonso IX., King of Leon, A. D. 1188-1230.

  Alfonso X., King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1252-1284.

  Alfonso XI., King of Leon and Castile, A. D. 1312-1350.

  Alfonso XII., King of Spain, A. D. 1874-1885.

ALFORD, Battle of (A. D. 1645).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

ALFRED, called the Great, King of Wessex, A. D. 871-901.

ALGIERS AND ALGERIA.

   "The term Algiers literally signifies 'the island,' and was
   derived from the original construction of its harbour, one
   side of which was separated from the land."

      _M. Russell, History of the Barbary States, page 314._

      For history, see BARBARY STATES.

ALGIHED, The.

   The term by which a war is proclaimed among the Mahometans to
   be a Holy War.

ALGONKINS, OR ALGONQUINS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONKIN FAMILY.

ALGUAZIL.

      See ALCALDE.

ALHAMA, The taking of.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1476-1492.

ALHAMBRA, The building of the.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1238-1273.

ALI, Caliph, A. D. 655-661.

ALIA, Battle of the (B. C. 390).

      See ROME: B. C. 390-347.

ALIBAMUS, OR ALIBAMONS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: MUSKHOGEE FAMILY.

ALIEN AND SEDITION LAWS, The.

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

ALIGARH, Battle of (1803).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

ALIWAL, Battle of (1846).

      See INDIA: A D. 1845-1849.

ALJUBAROTA, Battle of (1385).

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1383-1385,
      and SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

ALKMAAR, Siege by the Spaniards and successful defense (1573).

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1573-1574.

ALKMAR, Battle of.

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

"ALL THE TALENTS," The Ministry of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1801-1806, and 1806-1812.

ALLEGHANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS.

ALLEMAGNE.

   The French name for Germany, derived from the confederation of
   the Alemanni.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

ALLEN, Ethan, and the Green Mountain Boys.

      See VERMONT, A. D. 1749-1774.

   And the Capture of Fort Ticonderoga.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY).

ALLERHEIM, Battle of (or Second battle of Nördlingen,--1645.)

      See GERMANY: A.. D. 1640-1645.

ALLERTON Isaac, and the Plymouth Colony.

      See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH): A. D. 1623-1629. and after.

ALLIANCE, The Farmers'.

   See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1877-1891.

{42}

ALLOBROGES, Conquest of the.

   The Allobroges (see ÆDUI; also GAULS) having sheltered the
   chiefs of the Salyes, when the latter succumbed to the Romans,
   and having refused to deliver them up, the proconsul Cn.
   Domitius marched his army toward their country, B. C. 121. The
   Allobroges advanced to meet him and were defeated at
   Vindalium, near the junction of the Sorgues with the Rhone,
   and not far from Avignon, having 20,000 men slain and 3,000
   taken prisoners. The Arverni, who were the allies of the
   Allobroges, then took the field, crossing the Cevennes
   mountains and the river Rhone with a vast host, to attack the
   small Roman army of 30,000 men, which had passed under the
   command of Q. Fabius Maximus Æmilianus. On the 8th of August,
   B. C. 121, the Gaulish horde encountered the legions of Rome,
   at a point near the junction of the Isere and the Rhone, and
   were routed with such enormous slaughter that 150,000 are said
   to have been slain or drowned. This battle settled the fate of
   the Allobroges, who surrendered to Rome without further
   struggle; but the Arverni were not pursued. The final conquest
   of that people was reserved for Cæsar.

      _G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 1, chapter 21._

ALMA, Battle of the.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1854 (SEPTEMBER).

ALMAGROS AND PIZARROS, The quarrel of the.

      See PERU: A. D. 1533-1548.

ALMANZA, Battle of (A. D. 1707).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1707.

ALMENARA, Battle of (A. D. 1710).

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1707-1710.

ALMOHADES, The.

   The empire of the Almoravides, in Morocco and Spain, which
   originated in a Moslem missionary movement, was overturned in
   the middle of the twelfth century by a movement of somewhat
   similar nature. The agitating cause of the revolution was a
   religious teacher named Mahomet ben Abdallah, who rose in the
   reign of Ali (successor to the great Almoravide prince,
   Joseph), who gained the odor of sanctity at Morocco and who
   took the title of Al Mehdi, or El Mahdi, the Leader, "giving
   himself out for the person whom many Mahometans expect under
   that title. As before, the sect grew into an army, and the
   army grew into an empire. The new dynasty were called
   Almohades from Al Mehdi, and by his appointment a certain
   Abdelmumen was elected Caliph and Commander of the Faithful.
   Under his vigorous guidance the new kingdom rapidly grew, till
   the Almohades obtained quite the upper hand in Africa, and in
   1146 they too passed into Spain. Under Abdelmumen and his
   successors, Joseph and Jacob Almansor, the Almohades entirely
   supplanted the Almoravides, and became more formidable foes
   than they had been to the rising Christian powers. Jacob
   Almansor won in 1195 the terrible battle of Alarcos against
   Alfonso of Castile, and carried his conquests deep into that
   kingdom. His fame spread through the whole Moslem world. ...
   With Jacob Almansor perished the glory of the Almohade. His
   successor, Mahomet, lost in 1211 [June 16] the great battle of
   Alacab or Tolosa against Alfonso, and that day may be said to
   have decided the fate of Mahometanism in Spain. The Almohade
   dynasty gradually declined. ... The Almohades, like the
   Ommiads and the Almoravides, vanish from history amidst a
   scene of confusion the details of which it were hopeless to
   attempt to remember."

      _E. A. Freeman, History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 5._

      ALSO IN
      _H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors,
      book 8, chapter 4_

      See, also, SPAIN. A. D. 1146-1232.

ALMONACID, Battle of.

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

ALMORAVIDES, The.

   During the confusions of the 11th century in the Moslem world,
   a missionary from Kairwan--one Abdallah--preaching the faith
   of Islam to a wild tribe in Western North Africa, created a
   religious movement which "naturally led to a political one."
   "The tribe now called themselves Almoravides, or more properly
   Morabethah, which appears to mean followers of the Marabout or
   religious teacher. Abdallah does not appear to have himself
   claimed more than a religious authority, but their princes
   Zachariah and Abu Bekr were completely guided by his counsels.
   After his death Abu Bekr founded in 1070 the city of Morocco.
   There he left as his lieutenant his cousin Joseph, who grew so
   powerful that Abu Bekr, by a wonderful exercise of moderation,
   abdicated in his favour, to avoid a probable civil war. This
   Joseph, when he had become lord of most part of Western
   Africa, was requested, or caused himself to be requested, to
   assume the title of Emir al Momenin, Commander of the
   Faithful. As a loyal subject of the Caliph of Bagdad, he
   shrank from such sacrilegious usurpation, but he did not
   scruple to style himself Emir Al Muslemin, Commander of the
   Moslems. ... The Almoravide Joseph passed over into Spain,
   like another Tarik; he vanquished Alfonso [the Christian
   prince of the rising kingdom of Castile] at Zalacca [Oct. 23,
   A. D. 1086] and then converted the greater portion of
   Mahometan Spain into an appendage to his own kingdom of
   Morocco. The chief portion to escape was the kingdom of
   Zaragossa, the great out-post of the Saracens in northeastern
   Spain. ... The great cities of Andalusia were all brought
   under a degrading submission to the Almoravides. Their dynasty
   however was not of long duration, and it fell in turn [A. D.
   1147] before one whose origin was strikingly similar to their
   own" [the Almohades].

      _E. A. Freeman, History and Conquests of the Saracens,
      lecture 5._

      ALSO IN
      _H. Coppée, Conquest of Spain by the Arab-Moors, book 8,
      chapter 2 and 4_.

      See, also, PORTUGAL: EARLY HISTORY.

ALOD.--ALODIAL

   "It may be questioned whether any etymological connexion
   exists between the words odal and alod, but their
   signification applied to land is the same: the alod is the
   hereditary estate derived from primitive occupation; for which
   the owner owes no service except the personal obligation to
   appear in the host and in the council. ... The land held in
   full ownership might be either an ethel, an inherited or
   otherwise acquired portion of original allotment; or an estate
   created by legal process out of public land. Both these are
   included in the more common term alod; but the former looks
   for its evidence in the pedigree of its owner or in the
   witness of the community, while the latter can produce the
   charter or· book by which it is created, and is called
   bocland. As the primitive allotments gradually lost their
   historical character, as the primitive modes of transfer
   became obsolete, and the use of written records took their
   place, the ethel is lost sight of in the bookland. All the
   land that is not so accounted for is folcland, or public
   land."

      _William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, c
      hapter 3, section 24, and chapter 5, section 36._

{43}

   "Alodial lands are commonly opposed to beneficiary or feudal;
   the former being strictly proprietary, while the latter
   depended upon a superior. In this sense the word is of
   continual recurrence in ancient histories, laws and
   instruments. It sometimes, however, bears the sense of
   inheritance. . . . Hence, in the charters of the eleventh
   century, hereditary fiefs are frequently termed alodia."

      _H. Hallam, Middle Ages, chapter 2, part 1, note._

      ALSO IN
      _J. M. Kemble, The Saxon in England, book 1, chapter 11._

      See, also, FOLCLAND.

ALP ARSLAN, Seljouk Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1063-1073.

ALPHONSO.

      See ALFONSO.

ALSACE.--ALSATIA:
   The Name.

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 213.

ALSACE: A. D. 843-870.
   Included in the Kingdom of Lorraine.

        See LORRAINE: A. D. 843-870.

ALSACE: 10th Century.
   Joined to the Empire.

      See LORRAINE: A. D. 911-980.

ALSACE: 10th Century.
   Origin of the House of Hapsburg.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246--1282.

ALSACE: A. D. 1525.
   Revolt of the Peasants.

      See   GERMANY: A. D. 1524-1525.

ALSACE: A. D. 1621-1622.
   Invasions by Mansfeld and his predatory army.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1621-1623.

ALSACE: A. D. 1636-1639.
   Invasion and conquest by Duke Bernhard of Weimar.
   Richelieu's appropriation of the conquest for France.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1634-1639.

ALSACE: A. D. 1648.
   Cession to France in the Peace of Westphalia.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1648.

ALSACE: A. D. 1659.
   Renunciation of the claims of the King of Spain.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1659-1661.

ALSACE: A. D. 1674-1678.
   Ravaged in the Campaigns of Turenne and Condé.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

ALSACE: A. D. 1679-1681.
   Complete Absorption in France.
   Assumption of entire Sovereignty by Louis XIV.
   Encroachments of the Chamber of Reannexation.
   Seizure of Strasburg.
   Overthrow of its independence as an Imperial City.

     See FRANCE: A. D. 1679-1681.

ALSACE: A. D. 1744.
   Invasion by the Austrians.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1743-1744.

ALSACE: A. D. 1871.
   Ceded to the German Empire by France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1871 (JANUARY-MAY).

ALSACE: 1871-1879.
   Organization of government as   a German Impanel Province.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1871-1879.

----------ALSACE: End----------

ALTA CALIFORNIA.--Upper California.

      See CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1543-1781.

ALTENHElM, Battle of (A. D. 1675).

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674-1678.

ALTENHOVEN, Battle of (1793).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (FEBRUARY-APRIL).

ALTHING, The.

      See THING;

      Also, NORMANS.--NORTHMEN: A. D. 860-1100;

      And SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874.

ALTIS, The.

      See OLYMPIC FESTIVAL.

ALTMARCK.

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 1142-1152.

ALTONA: A. D. 1713.
   Burned by the Swedes.

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

ALTOPASCIO, Battle of (1325).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1313-1330.

ALVA IN THE NETHERLANDS.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568 to 1573-1574.

AMADEO, King of Spain, A. D. 1871-1873.

AMAHUACA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ANDESIANS.

AMALASONTHA, Queen of the Ostrogoths.

      See ROME: A. D. 535-553.

AMALEKITES, The.

   "The Amalekites were usually regarded as a branch of the
   Edomites or 'Red-skins'. Amalek, like Kenaz, the father of the
   Kenizzites or 'Hunters,' was the grandson of Esau (Gen. 36:
   12, 16). He thus belonged to the group of nations,--Edomites,
   Ammonites, and Moabites,--who stood in a relation of close
   kinship to Israel. But they had preceded the Israelites in
   dispossessing the older inhabitants of the land, and
   establishing themselves in their place. The Edomites had
   partly destroyed, partly amalgamated the Horites of Mount Seir
   (Deuteronomy 2: 12); the Moabites had done the same to the Emim,
   'a people great and many, and tall as the Anakim' (Deuteronomy
   2: 10), while the Ammonites had extirpated and succeeded to
   the Rephaim or 'Giants,' who in that part of the country were
   termed Zamzummim (Deuteronomy 2: 20; Gen. 14: 5). Edom however
   stood in a closer relation to Israel than its two more
   northerly neighbours. ... Separate from the Edomites or
   Amalekites were the Kenites or wandering 'smiths.' They formed
   an important Guild in an age when the art of metallurgy was
   confined to a few. In the time of Saul we hear of them as
   camping among the Amalekites (1. Samuel 15: 6.) ... The
   Kenites ... did not constitute a race, or even a tribe. They
   were, at most, a caste. But they had originally come, like the
   Israelites or the Edomites, from those barren regions of
   Northern Arabia which were peopled by the Menti of the
   Egyptian inscriptions. Racially, therefore, we may regard them
   as allied to the descendants of Abraham. While the Kenites and
   Amalekites were thus Semitic in their origin, the Hivites or
   'Villagers' are specially associated with Amorites."

      _A. H. Sayce, Races of the Old Testament, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN
      _H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 1, section 4._

      See, also, ARABIA.

AMALFI.

   "It was the singular fate of this city to have filled up the
   interval between two periods of civilization, in neither of
   which she was destined to be distinguished. Scarcely known
   before the end of the sixth century, Amalfi ran a brilliant
   career, as a free and trading republic [see ROME: A. D.
   554-800], which was checked by the arms of a conqueror in the
   middle of the twelfth. ... There must be, I suspect, some
   exaggeration about the commerce and opulence of Amalfi, in the
   only age when she possessed any at all."

      _H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 9, part 1, with note._

{44}

   "Amalfi and Atrani lie close together in two ... ravines, the
   mountains almost arching over them, and the sea washing their
   very house-walls. ... It is not easy to imagine the time when
   Amalfi and Atrani were one town, with docks and arsenals and
   harbourage for their associated fleets, and when these little
   communities were second in importance to no naval power of
   Christian Europe. The Byzantine Empire lost its hold on Italy
   during the eighth century; and after this time the history of
   Calabria is mainly concerned with the republics of Naples and
   Amalfi, their conflict with the Lombard dukes of Benevento,
   their opposition to the Saracens, and their final subjugation
   by the Norman conquerors of Sicily. Between the year 839 A.
   D., when Amalfi freed itself from the control of Naples and
   the yoke of Benevento, and the year 1131, when Roger of
   Hauteville incorporated the republic in his kingdom of the Two
   Sicilies, this city was the foremost naval and commercial port
   of Italy. The burghers of Amalfi elected their own doge;
   founded the Hospital of Jerusalem, whence sprang the knightly
   order of S. John; gave their name to the richest quarter in
   Palermo; and owned trading establishments or factories in all
   the chief cities of the Levant. Their gold coinage of 'tari'
   formed the standard of currency before the Florentines had
   stamped the lily and S. John upon the Tuscan florin. Their
   shipping regulations supplied Europe with a code of maritime
   laws. Their scholars, in the darkest depths of the dark ages,
   prized and conned a famous copy of the Pandects of Justinian,
   and their seamen deserved the fame of having first used, if
   they did not actually invent, the compass. ... The republic
   had grown and flourished on the decay of the Greek Empire.
   When the hard-handed race of Hauteville absorbed the heritage
   of Greeks and Lombards and Saracens in Southern Italy [see
   ITALY (Southern): A. D. 1000-1090], these adventurers
   succeeded in annexing Amalfi. But it was not their interest to
   extinguish the state. On the contrary, they relied for
   assistance upon the navies and the armies of the little
   commonwealth. New powers had meanwhile arisen in the North of
   Italy, who were jealous of rivalry upon the open seas; and
   when the Neapolitans resisted King Roger in 1135, they called
   Pisa to their aid, and sent her fleet to destroy Amalfi. The
   ships of Amalfi were on guard with Roger's navy in the Bay of
   Naples. The armed citizens were, under Roger's orders, at
   Aversa. Meanwhile the home of the republic lay defenceless on
   its mountain-girdled seaboard. The Pisans sailed into the
   harbour, sacked the city and carried off the famous Pandects
   of Justinian as a trophy. Two years later they returned, to
   complete the work of devastation. Amalfi never recovered from
   the injuries and the humiliation of these two attacks. It was
   ever thus that the Italians, like the children of the dragon's
   teeth which Cadmus sowed, consumed each other."

      _J. A. Symonds, Sketches and Studies in Italy,
      pages 2-4._

AMALINGS, OR AMALS.

   The royal race of the ancient Ostragoths, as the Balthi or
   Balthings were of the Visigoths, both claiming a descent from
   the gods.

AMAZIGH, The.

      See LIBYANS.

AMAZONS.

   "The Amazons, daughters of Arês and Harmonia, are both early
   creations, and frequent reproductions, of the ancient epic.
   ... A nation of courageous, hardy and indefatigable women,
   dwelling apart from men, permitting only a short temporary
   intercourse for the purpose of renovating their numbers, and
   burning out their right breast with a view of enabling
   themselves to draw the bow freely,--this was at once a general
   type stimulating to the fancy of the poet, and a theme
   eminently popular with his hearers. Nor was it at all
   repugnant to the faith of the latter--who had no recorded
   facts to guide them, and no other standard of credibility as
   to the past except such poetical narratives themselves--to
   conceive communities of Amazons as having actually existed in
   anterior time. Accordingly we find these warlike females
   constantly reappearing in the ancient poems, and universally
   accepted as past realities. In the Iliad, when Priam wishes to
   illustrate emphatically the most numerous host in which he
   ever found himself included, he tells us that it was assembled
   in Phrygia, on the banks of the Sangarius, for the purpose of
   resisting the formidable Amazons. When Bellerophon is to be
   employed on a deadly and perilous undertaking, by those who
   indirectly wish to procure his death, he is despatched against
   the Amazons. ... The Argonautic heroes find the Amazons on the
   river Thermôdon in their expedition along the southern coast
   of the Euxine. To the same spot Hêrakles goes to attack them,
   in the performance of the ninth labour imposed upon him by
   Eurystheus, for the purpose of procuring the girdle of the
   Amazonian queen, Hippolyte; and we are told that they had not
   yet recovered from the losses sustained in this severe
   aggression when Theseus also assaulted and defeated them,
   carrying off their queen Antiopê. This injury they avenged by
   invading Attica ... and penetrated even into Athens itself:
   where the final battle, hard-fought and at one time doubtful,
   by which Thêseus crushed them, was fought--in the very heart
   of the city. Attic antiquaries confidently pointed out the
   exact position of the two contending armies. ... No portion of
   the ante-historical epic appears to have been more deeply
   worked into the national mind of Greece than this invasion and
   defeat of the Amazons. ... Their proper territory was asserted
   to be the town and plain of Themiskyra, near the Grecian
   colony of Amisus, on the river Thermôdon [northern Asia
   Minor], a region called after their name by Roman historians
   and geographers. ... Some authors placed them in Libya or
   Ethiopia."

      _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 11._

AMAZONS RIVER, Discovery and Naming of the.

   The mouth of the great river of South America was discovered
   in 1500 by Pinzon, or Pinçon (see AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500),
   who called it 'Santa Maria de la Mar Dulce' (Saint Mary of the
   Fresh-Water Sea). "This was the first name given to the river,
   except that older and better one of the Indians, 'Parana,' the
   Sea; afterwards it was Marañon and Rio das Amazonas, from the
   female warriors that were supposed to live near its banks. ...
   After Pinçon's time, there were others who saw the fresh-water
   sea, but no one was hardy enough to venture into it. The honor
   of its real discovery was reserved for Francisco de Orellana;
   and he explored it, not from the east, but from the west, in
   one of the most daring voyages that was ever recorded. It was
   accident rather than design that led him to it. After ...
   Pizarro had conquered Peru, he sent his brother Gonzalo, with
   340 Spanish soldiers, and 4,000 Indians, to explore the great
   forest east of Quito, 'where there were cinnamon trees.' The
   expedition started late in 1539, and it was two years before
   the starved and ragged survivors returned to Quito. In the
   course of their wanderings they had struck the river Coco;
   building here a brigantine, they followed down the current, a
   part of them in the vessel, a part on shore.
{45}
   After a while they met some Indians, who told them of a rich
   country ten days' journey beyond--a country of gold, and with
   plenty of provisions. Gonzalo placed Orellana in command of
   the brigantine, and ordered him, with 50 soldiers, to go on to
   this gold-land, and return with a load of provisions. Orellana
   arrived at the mouth of the Coco in three days, but found no
   provisions; 'and he considered that if he should return with
   this news to Pizarro, he would not reach him in a year, on
   account of the strong current, and that if he remained where
   he was, he would be of no use to the one or to the other. Not
   knowing how long Gonzalo Pizarro would take to reach the
   place, without consulting anyone he set sail and prosecuted
   his voyage onward, intending to ignore Gonzalo, to reach
   Spain, and obtain that government for himself.' Down the Napo
   and the Amazons, for seven months, these Spaniards floated to
   the Atlantic. At times they suffered terribly from hunger:
   'There was nothing to eat but the skins which formed their
   girdles, and the leather of their shoes, boiled with a few
   herbs.' When they did get food they were often obliged to
   fight hard for it; and again they were attacked by thousands
   of naked Indians, who came in canoes against the Spanish
   vessel. At some Indian villages, however, they were kindly
   received and well fed, so they could rest while building a new
   and stronger vessel. ... On the 26th of August, 1541, Orellana
   and his men sailed out to the blue water 'without either
   pilot, compass, or anything useful for navigation; nor did
   they know what direction they should take.' Following the
   coast, they passed inside of the island of Trinidad, and so at
   length reached Cubagua in September. From the king of Spain
   Orellana received a grant of the land he had discovered; but
   he died while returning to it, and his company was dispersed.
   It was not a very reliable account of the river that was given
   by Orellana and his chronicler, Padre Carbajal. So Herrera
   tells their story of the warrior females, and very properly
   adds: 'Every reader may believe as much as he likes.'"

      _H. H. Smith, Brazil, the Amazons, and the Coast, chapter 1._

   In chapter 18 of this same work "The Amazon Myth" is discussed at
   length, with the reports and opinions of numerous travellers,
   both early and recent, concerning it.--Mr. Southey had so much
   respect for the memory of Orellana that he made an effort to
   restore that bold but unprincipled discoverer's name to the
   great river. "He discarded Maranon, as having too much
   resemblance to Maranham, and Amazon, as being founded upon
   fiction and at the same time inconvenient. Accordingly, in his
   map, and in all his references to the great river he
   denominates it Orellana. This decision of the poet-laureate of
   Great Britain has not proved authoritative in Brazil. O
   Amazonas is the universal appellation of the great river among
   those who float upon its waters and who live upon its banks.
   ... Pará, the aboriginal name of this river, was more
   appropriate than any other. It signifies 'the father of
   waters.' ... The origin of the name and mystery concerning the
   female warriors, I think, has been solved within the last few
   years by the intrepid Mr. Wallace. ... Mr. Wallace, I think,
   shows conclusively that Friar Gaspar [Carbajal] and his
   companions saw Indian male warriors who were attired in
   habiliments such as Europeans would attribute to women. ... I
   am strongly of the opinion that the story of the Amazons has
   arisen from these feminine-looking warriors encountered by the
   early voyagers."

      _J. C. Fletcher and D. P. Kidder, Brazil and the
      Brazilians, chapter 27._

      ALSO IN
      _A. R. Wallace, Travels on the Amazon and Rio Negro,
      chapter 17._

      _R. Southey, History of Brazil, chapter 4 (volume 1)._

AMAZULUS, OR ZULUS.-The Zulu War.

      See SOUTH AFRICA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS;
      and the same: A. D. 1877-1879.

AMBACTI.

   "The Celtic aristocracy [of Gaul] ... developed the system of
   retainers, that is, the privilege of the nobility to surround
   themselves with a number of hired mounted servants--the
   ambacti as they were called--and thereby to form a state
   within a state; and, resting on the support of these troops of
   their own, they defied the legal authorities and the common
   levy and practically broke up the commonwealth. ... This
   remarkable word [ambacti] must have been in use as early as
   the sixth century of Rome among the Celts in the valley of the
   Po. ... It is not merely Celtic, however, but also German, the
   root of our 'Amt,' as indeed the retainer-system itself is
   common to the Celts and the Germans. It would be of great
   historical importance to ascertain whether the word--and
   therefore the thing--came to the Celts from the Germans or to
   the Germans from the Celts. If, as is usually supposed, the
   word is originally German and primarily signified the servant
   standing in battle 'against the back' ('and '=against,
   'bak'=back) of his master, this is not wholly irreconcilable
   with the singularly early occurrence of the word among the
   Celts. ... It is ... probable that the Celts, in Italy as in
   Gaul, employed Germans chiefly as those hired
   servants-at-arms. The 'Swiss guard' would therefore in that
   case be some thousands of years older than people suppose."

      _T. Mommsen, History of Rome,
      book 5, chapter 7, and foot-note._

AMBARRI, The.

   A small tribe in Gaul which occupied anciently a district
   between the Saone, the Rhone and the Ain.

      _Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 2, note._

AMBIANI, The.

      See BELGÆ.

AMBITUS.

   Bribery at elections was termed ambitus among the Romans, and
   many unavailing laws were enacted to check it.

      _W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 9._

AMBIVARETI, The.

   A tribe in ancient Gaul which occupied the left bank of the
   Meuse, to the south of the marsh of Peel.

      _Napoleon III., History of Cæsar,
      book 3, chapter 2, note._

AMBLEVE, Battle of (716.)

      See FRANKS (MEROVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 511-752.

AMBOISE, Conspiracy or Tumult of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1559-1561.

AMBOISE, Edict of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

AMBOYNA, Massacre of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1600-1702.

AMBRACIA (Ambrakia).

      See KORKYRA.

AMBRONES, The.

      See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.

AMBROSIAN CHURCH.--AMBROSIAN CHANT.

      See MILAN: A. D. 374-397.

AMEIXAL, OR ESTREMOS, Battle of (1663).

      See PORTUGAL: A. D. 1637-1668.

[Image: ETHNOLOGICAL MAP OF MODERN EUROPE (right)]

{46}

AMERICA, The Name.

      See below: A. D. 1500-1514.

AMERICA, Prehistoric.

   "Widely scattered throughout the United States, from sea to
   sea, artificial mounds are discovered, which may be enumerated
   by the thousands or hundreds of thousands. They vary greatly
   in size; some are so small that a half-dozen laborers with
   shovels might construct one of them in a day, while others
   cover acres and are scores of feet in height. These mounds
   were observed by the earliest explorers and pioneers of the
   country. They did not attract great attention, however, until
   the science of archæology demanded their investigation. Then
   they were assumed to furnish evidence of a race of people
   older than the Indian tribes. Pseud-archæologists descanted on
   the Mound-builders that once inhabited the land, and they told
   of swarming populations who had reached a high condition of
   culture, erecting temples, practicing arts in the metals, and
   using hieroglyphs. So the Mound-builders formed the theme of
   many an essay on the wonders of ancient civilization. The
   research of the past ten or fifteen years has put this subject
   in a proper light. First, the annals of the Columbian epoch
   have been carefully studied, and it is found that some of the
   mounds have been constructed in historical time, while early
   explorers and settlers found many actually used by tribes of
   North American Indians; so we know that many of them were
   builders of mounds. Again, hundreds and thousands of these
   mounds have been carefully examined, and the works of art
   found therein have been collected and assembled in museums. At
   the same time, the works of art of the Indian tribes, as they
   were produced before modification by European culture, have
   been assembled in the same museums, and the two classes of
   collections have been carefully compared. All this has been
   done with the greatest painstaking, and the Mound-builder's
   arts and the Indian's arts are found to be substantially
   identical. No fragment of evidence remains to support the
   figment of theory that there was an ancient race of
   Mound-builders superior in culture to the North American
   Indians. ... That some of these mounds were built and used in
   modern times is proved in another way. They often contain
   articles manifestly made by white men, such as glass beads and
   copper ornaments. ... So it chances that to-day unskilled
   archæologists are collecting many beautiful things in copper,
   stone, and shell which were made by white men and traded to
   the Indians. Now, some of these things are found in the
   mounds; and bird pipes, elephant pipes, banner stones, copper
   spear heads and knives, and machine-made wampum are collected
   in quantities and sold at high prices to wealthy amateurs. ...
   The study of these mounds, historically and archæologically,
   proves that they were used for a variety of purposes. Some
   were for sepulture, and such are the most common and widely
   scattered. Others were used as artificial hills on which to
   build communal houses. ... Some of the very large mounds were
   sites of large communal houses in which entire tribes dwelt.
   There is still a third class ... constructed as places for
   public assembly. ... But to explain the mounds and their uses
   would expand this article into a book. It is enough to say
   that the Mound-builders were the Indian tribes discovered by
   white men. It may well be that some of the mounds were erected
   by tribes extinct when Columbus first saw these shores, but
   they were kindred in culture to the peoples that still
   existed. In the southwestern portion of the United States,
   conditions of aridity prevail. Forests are few and are found
   only at great heights. ... The tribes lived in the plains and
   valleys below, while the highlands were their hunting grounds.
   The arid lands below were often naked of vegetation; and the
   ledges and cliffs that stand athwart the lands, and the canyon
   walls that inclose the streams, were everywhere quarries of
   loose rock, lying in blocks ready to the builder's hand. Hence
   these people learned to build their dwellings of stone; and
   they had large communal houses, even larger than the
   structures of wood made by the tribes of the east and north.
   Many of these stone pueblos are still occupied, but the ruins
   are scattered wide over a region of country embracing a little
   of California and Nevada, much of Utah, most of Colorado, the
   whole of New Mexico and Arizona, and far southward toward the
   Isthmus. ... No ruin has been discovered where evidences of a
   higher culture are found than exists in modern times at Zuni,
   Oraibi, or Laguna. The earliest may have been built thousands
   of years ago, but they were built by the ancestors of existing
   tribes and their congeners. A careful study of these ruins,
   made during the last twenty years, abundantly demonstrates
   that the pueblo culture began with rude structures of stone
   and brush, and gradually developed, until at the time of the
   exploration of the country by the Spaniards, beginning about
   1540, it had reached its highest phase. Zuni [in New Mexico]
   has been built since, and it is among the largest and best
   villages ever established within the territory of the United
   States without the aid of ideas derived from civilized men."
   With regard to the ruins of dwellings found sheltered in the
   craters of extinct volcanoes, or on the shelves of cliffs, or
   otherwise contrived, the conclusion to which all recent
   archæological study tends is the same. "All the stone pueblo
   ruins, all the clay ruins, all the cliff dwellings, all the
   crater villages, all the cavate chambers, and all the
   tufa-block houses are fully accounted for without resort to
   hypothetical peoples inhabiting the country anterior to the
   Indian tribes. ... Pre-Columbian culture was indigenous; it
   began at the lowest stage of savagery and developed to the
   highest, and was in many places passing into barbarism when
   the good queen sold her jewels."

      _Major J. W. Powell, Prehistoric Man in America;
      in "The Forum," January, 1890._

   "The writer believes ... that the majority of American
   archæologists now sees no sufficient reason for supposing that
   any mysterious superior race has ever lived in any portion of
   our continent. They find no archæological evidence proving
   that at the time of its discovery any tribe had reached a
   stage of culture that can properly be called civilization.
   Even if we accept the exaggerated statements of the Spanish
   conquerors, the most intelligent and advanced peoples found
   here were only semi-barbarians, in the stage of transition
   from the stone to the bronze age, possessing no written
   language, or what can properly be styled an alphabet, and not
   yet having even learned the use of beasts of burden."

      _H. W. Haynes, Prehistoric Archæology of North America
      (volume 1, chapter 6, of "Narrative and Critical History of
      America")._

{47}

   "It may be premised ... that the Spanish adventurers who
   thronged to the New World after its discovery found the same
   race of Red Indians in the West India Islands, in Central and
   South America, in Florida and in Mexico. In their mode of life
   and means of subsistence, in their weapons, arts, usages and
   customs, in their institutions, and in their mental and
   physical characteristics, they were the same people in
   different stages of advancement. ... There was neither a
   political society, nor a state, nor any civilization in
   America when it was discovered; and excluding the Eskimos, but
   one race of Indians, the Red Race."

      _L. H. Morgan, Houses and House-life of the American
      Aborigines: (Contributions to North American Ethnology,
      v, 5.), chapter 10_.

   "We have in this country the conclusive evidence of the
   existence of man before the time of the glaciers, and from the
   primitive conditions of that time, he has lived here and
   developed, through stages which correspond in many particulars
   to the Homeric age of Greece."

      _F. W. Putnam, Report, Peabody Museum of Archæology,
      1886._

      ALSO IN
      _L. Carr, The Mounds of the Mississippi Valley_.

      _C. Thomas, Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the
      United States: Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology,
      1883-84_.

      _Marquis de Nadaillac, Prehistoric America_.

      _J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 1._

      See, also, MEXICO; PERU;
      and AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALLEGHANS, CHEROKEES, and MAYAS.

AMERICA: 10th-11th Centuries.
   Supposed Discoveries by the Northmen.

   The fact that the Northmen knew of the existence of the
   Western Continent prior to the age of Columbus, was
   prominently brought before the people of this country in the
   year 1837, when the Royal Society of Northern Antiquaries at
   Copenhagen published their work on the Antiquities of North
   America, under the editorial supervision of the great
   Icelandic scholar, Professor Rafn. But we are not to suppose
   that the first general account of these voyages was then
   given, for it has always been known that the history of
   certain early voyages to America by the Northmen were
   preserved in the libraries of Denmark and Iceland. ... Yet,
   owing to the fact that the Icelandic language, though simple
   in construction and easy of acquisition, was a tongue not
   understood by scholars, the subject has until recent years
   been suffered to lie in the background, and permitted, through
   a want of interest, to share in a measure the treatment meted
   out to vague and uncertain reports. ... It now remains to give
   the reader some general account of the contents of the
   narratives which relate more or less to the discovery of the
   western continent. ... The first extracts given are very
   brief. They are taken from the 'Landanama Book,' and relate to
   the report in general circulation, which indicated one
   Gunniborn as the discoverer of Greenland, an event which has
   been fixed at the year 876. ... The next narrative relates to
   the rediscovery of Greenland by the outlaw, Eric the Red, in
   983, who there passed three years in exile, and afterwards
   returned to Iceland. About the year 986, he brought out to
   Greenland a considerable colony of settlers, who fixed their
   abode at Brattahlid, in Ericsfiord. Then follow two versions
   of the voyage of Biarne Heriulfson, who, in the same year,
   986, when sailing for Greenland, was driven away during a
   storm, and saw a new land at the southward, which he did not
   visit. Next is given three accounts of the voyage of Leif, son
   of Eric the Red, who in the year 1000 sailed from Brattahlid
   to find the land which Biarne saw. Two of these accounts are
   hardly more than notices of the voyage, but the third is of
   considerable length, and details the successes of Leif, who
   found and explored this new land, where he spent the winter,
   returning to Greenland the following spring [having named
   different regions which he visited Helluland, Markland and
   Vinland, the latter name indicative of the finding of grapes].
   After this follows the voyage of Thorvald Ericson, brother of
   Leif, who sailed to Vinland from Greenland, which was the
   point of departure in all these voyages. This expedition was
   begun in 1002, and it cost him his life, as an arrow from one
   of the natives pierced his side, causing death. Thorstein, his
   brother, went to seek Vinland, with the intention of bringing
   home his body, but failed in the attempt. The most
   distinguished explorer was Thorfinn Karlsefne, the Hopeful, an
   Icelander whose genealogy runs back in the old Northern
   annals, through Danish, Swedish, and even Scotch and Irish
   ancestors, some of whom were of royal blood. In the year 1006
   he went to Greenland, where he met Gudrid, widow of Thorstein,
   whom he married. Accompanied by his wife, who urged him to the
   undertaking, he sailed to Vinland in the spring of 1007, with
   three vessels and 160 men, where he remained three years. Here
   his son Snorre was born. He afterwards became the founder of a
   great family in Iceland, which gave the island several of its
   first bishops. Thorfinn finally left Vinland because he found
   it difficult to sustain himself against the attacks of the
   natives. The next to undertake a voyage was a wicked woman
   named Freydis, a sister to Leif Ericson, who went to Vinland
   in 1011, where she lived for a time with her two ships, in the
   same places occupied by Leif and Thorfinn. Before she
   returned, she caused the crew of one ship to be cruelly
   murdered, assisting in the butchery with her own hands. After
   this we have what are called the Minor Narratives, which are
   not essential.

      _B. F. De Costa, Pre-Columban Discovery of America,
      General Introduction._

   By those who accept fully the claims made for the Northmen, as
   discoverers of the American continent in the voyages believed
   to be authentically narrated in these sagas, the Helluland of
   Leif is commonly identified with Newfoundland, Markland with
   Nova Scotia, and Vinland with various parts of New England.
   Massachusetts Bay, Cape Cod, Nantucket Island, Martha's
   Vineyard, Buzzard's Bay, Narragansett Bay, Mount Hope Bay,
   Long Island Sound, and New York Bay are among the localities
   supposed to be recognized in the Norse narratives, or marked
   by some traces of the presence of the Viking explorers. Professor
   Gustav Storm, the most recent of the Scandinavian
   investigators of this subject, finds the Helluland of the
   sagas in Labrador or Northern Newfoundland, Markland in
   Newfoundland, and Vinland in Nova Scotia and Cape Breton
   Island.

      _G. Storm, Studies of the Vineland Voyages._

{48}

   "The only discredit which has been thrown upon the story of
   the Vinland voyages, in the eyes either of scholars or of the
   general public, has arisen from the eager credulity with which
   ingenious antiquarians have now and then tried to prove more
   than facts will warrant. ... Archælogical remains of the
   Northmen abound in Greenland, all the way from Immartinek to
   near Cape Farewell; the existence of one such relic on the
   North American continent has never yet been proved. Not a
   single vestige of the Northmen's presence here, at all worthy
   of credence, has ever been found. ... The most convincing
   proof that the Northmen never founded a colony in America,
   south of Davis Strait, is furnished by the total absence of
   horses, cattle and other domestic animals from the soil of
   North America until they were brought hither by the Spanish,
   French and English settlers."

      _J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 2._

   "What Leif and Karlsefne knew they experienced," writes Professor
   Justin Winsor, "and what the sagas tell us they underwent,
   must have just the difference between a crisp narrative of
   personal adventure and the oft-repeated and embellished story
   of a fireside narrator, since the traditions of the Norse
   voyages were not put in the shape of records till about two
   centuries had elapsed, and we have no earlier manuscript of
   such a record than one made nearly two hundred years later
   still. ... A blending of history and myth prompts Horn to say
   that 'some of the sagas were doubtless originally based on
   facts, but the telling and retelling have changed them into
   pure myths.' The unsympathetic stranger sees this in stories
   that the patriotic Scandinavians are over-anxious to make
   appear as genuine chronicles. ... The weight of probability is
   in favor of a Northman descent upon the coast of the American
   mainland at some point, or at several, somewhere to the south
   of Greenland; but the evidence is hardly that which attaches
   to well established historical records. ... There is not a
   single item of all the evidence thus advanced from time to
   time which can be said to connect by archæological traces the
   presence of the Northmen on the soil of North America south of
   Davis' Straits." Of other imagined pre-Columban discoveries of
   America, by the Welsh, by the Arabs, by the Basques, &c., the
   possibilities and probabilities are critically discussed by
   Professor Winsor in the same connection.

      J. Winsor, _Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 1, chapter 2, and Critical Notes to the same._

      ALSO IN
      _Bryant and Gay, Popular History of the United States,
      chapter 3._

      _E. F. Slafter, Editor,
      Voyages of the Northmen to America (Prince Society, 1877)_.

      _E. F. Slafter, Editor,
      Discovery of America by the Northmen (N. H. History
      Society, 1888)_.

      _N. L. Beamish, Discovery of America by the
      Northmen._

      _A. J. Weise, Discoveries of America, chapter 1._

AMERICA: A. D. 1484-1492.
   The great project of Columbus, and the sources of its inspiration.
   His seven years' suit at the Spanish Court.
   His departure from Palos.

   "All attempts to diminish the glory of Columbus' achievement
   by proving a previous discovery whose results were known to
   him have signally failed. ... Columbus originated no new
   theory respecting the earth's form or size, though a popular
   idea has always prevailed, notwithstanding the statements of
   the best writers to the contrary, that he is entitled to the
   glory of the theory as well as to that of the execution of the
   project. He was not in advance of his age, entertained no new
   theories, believed no more than did Prince Henry, his
   predecessor, or Toscanelli, his contemporary; nor was he the
   first to conceive the possibility of reaching the east by
   sailing west. He was however the first to act in accordance
   with existing beliefs. The Northmen in their voyages had
   entertained no ideas of a New World, or of an Asia to the
   West. To knowledge of theoretical geography, Columbus added
   the skill of a practical navigator, and the iron will to
   overcome obstacles. He sailed west, reached Asia as he
   believed, and proved old theories correct. There seem to be
   two undecided points in that matter, neither of which can ever
   be settled. First, did his experience in the Portuguese
   voyages, the perusal of some old author, or a hint from one of
   the few men acquainted with old traditions, first suggest to
   Columbus his project? ... Second, to what extent did his
   voyage to the north [made in 1477, probably with an English
   merchantman from Bristol, in which voyage he is believed to
   have visited Iceland] influence his plan? There is no
   evidence, but a strong probability, that he heard in that
   voyage of the existence of land in the west. ... Still, his
   visit to the north was in 1477, several years after the first
   formation of his plan, and any information gained at the time
   could only have been confirmatory rather than suggestive."

      _H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1,
      summary appendix to chapter 1._

   "Of the works of learned men, that which, according to
   Ferdinand Columbus, had most weight with his father, was the
   'Cosmographia' of Cardinal Aliaco. Columbus was also confirmed
   in his views of the existence of a western passage to the
   Indies by Paulo Toscanelli, the Florentine philosopher, to
   whom much credit is due for the encouragement he afforded to
   the enterprise. That the notices, however, of western lands
   were not such as to have much weight with other men, is
   sufficiently proved by the difficulty which Columbus had in
   contending with adverse geographers and men of science in
   general, of whom he says he never was able to convince any
   one. After a new world had been discovered, many scattered
   indications were then found to have foreshown it. One thing
   which cannot be denied to Columbus is that he worked out his
   own idea himself. ... He first applied himself to his
   countrymen, the Genoese, who would have nothing to say to his
   scheme. He then tried the Portuguese, who listened to what he
   had to say, but with bad faith sought to anticipate him by
   sending out a caravel with instructions founded upon his plan.
   ... Columbus, disgusted at the treatment he had received from
   the Portuguese Court, quitted Lisbon, and, after visiting
   Genoa, as it appears, went to see what favour he could meet
   with in Spain, arriving at Palos in the year 1485." The story
   of the long suit of Columbus at the Court of Ferdinand and
   Isabella; of his discouragement and departure, with intent to
   go to France; of his recall by command of Queen Isabella; of
   the tedious hearings and negotiations that now took place; of
   the lofty demands adhered to by the confident Genoese, who
   required "to be made an admiral at once, to be appointed
   viceroy of the countries he should discover, and to have an
   eighth of the profits of the expedition;" of his second
   rebuff, his second departure for France, and second recall by
   Isabella, who finally put her heart into the enterprise and
   persuaded her more skeptical consort to assent to it--the
   story of those seven years of the struggle of Columbus to
   obtain means for his voyage is familiar to all readers.
{49}
   "The agreement between Columbus and their Catholic highnesses
   was signed at Santa Fe on the 17th of April, 1492; and
   Columbus went to Palos to make preparation for his voyage,
   bearing with him an order that the two vessels which that city
   furnished annually to the crown for three months should be
   placed at his disposal. ... The Pinzons, rich men and skilful
   mariners of Palos, joined in the undertaking, subscribing an
   eighth of the expenses; and thus, by these united exertions,
   three vessels were manned with 90 mariners, and provisioned
   for a year. At length all the preparations were complete, and
   on a Friday (not inauspicious in this case), the 3d of August,
   1492, after they had all confessed and received the sacrament,
   they set sail from the bar of Saltes, making for the Canary
   Islands."

      _Sir A. Helps, The Spanish Conquest in America, book 2,
      chapter 1._

      ALSO IN
      _J. Winsor, Christopher Columbus, chapter 5-9, and 20._

AMERICA: A. D. 1492.
   The First Voyage of Columbus.
   Discovery of the Bahamas, Cuba and Hayti.

   The three vessels of Columbus were called the Santa Maria, the
   Pinta and the Nina. "All had forecastles and high poops, but
   the 'Santa Maria' was the only one that was decked amidships,
   and she was called a 'nao' or ship. The other two were
   caravelas, a class of small vessels built for speed. The
   'Santa Maria,' as I gather from scattered notices in the
   letters of Columbus, was of 120 to 130 tons, like a modern
   coasting schooner, and she carried 70 men, much crowded. Her
   sails were a foresail and a foretop-sail, a sprit-sail, a
   main-sail with two bonnets, and maintop sail, a mizzen, and a
   boat's sail were occasionally hoisted on the poop. The 'Pinta'
   and 'Nina' only had square sails on the foremast and lateen
   sails on the main and mizzen. The former was 50 tons, the
   latter 40 tons, with crews of 20 men each. On Friday, the 3d
   of August, the three little vessels left the haven of Palos,
   and this memorable voyage was commenced. ... The expedition
   proceeded to the Canary Islands, where the rig of the 'Pinta'
   was altered. Her lateen sails were not adapted for running
   before the wind, and she was therefore fitted with square
   sails, like the 'Santa Maria.' Repairs were completed, the
   vessels were filled up with wood and water at Gomera, and the
   expedition took its final departure from the island of Gomera,
   one of the Canaries, on September 6th, 1492. ... Columbus had
   chosen his route most happily, and with that fortunate
   prevision which often waits upon genius. From Gomera, by a
   course a little south of west, he would run down the trades to
   the Bahama Islands. From the parallel of about 30° N. nearly
   to the equator there is a zone of perpetual winds--namely, the
   north-east trade winds--always moving in the same direction,
   as steadily as the current of a river, except where they are
   turned aside by local causes, so that the ships of Columbus
   were steadily carried to their destination by a law of nature
   which, in due time, revealed itself to that close observer of
   her secrets. The constancy of the wind was one cause of alarm
   among the crews, for they began to murmur that the provisions
   would all be exhausted if they had to beat against these
   unceasing winds on the return voyage. The next event which
   excited alarm among the pilots was the discovery that the
   compasses had more than a point of easterly variation. ...
   This was observed on the 17th of September, and about 300
   miles westward of the meridian of the Azores, when the ships
   had been eleven days at sea. Soon afterwards the voyagers
   found themselves surrounded by masses of seaweed, in what is
   called the Sargasso Sea, and this again aroused their fears.
   They thought that the ships would get entangled in the beds of
   weed and become immovable, and that the beds marked the limit
   of navigation. The cause of this accumulation is well known
   now. If bits of cork are put into a basin of water, and a
   circular motion given to it, all the corks will be found
   crowding together towards the centre of the pool where there
   is the least motion. The Atlantic Ocean is just such a basin,
   the Gulf Stream is the whirl, and the Sargasso Sea is in the
   centre. There Columbus found it, and there it has remained to
   this day, moving up and down and changing its position
   according to seasons, storms and winds, but never altering its
   mean position. ... As day after day passed, and there was no
   sign of land, the crews became turbulent and mutinous.
   Columbus encouraged them with hopes of reward, while he told
   them plainly that he had come to discover India, and that,
   with the help of God, he would persevere until he found it. At
   length, on the 11th of October, towards ten at night, Columbus
   was on the poop and saw a light. ... At two next morning, land
   was distinctly seen. ... The island, called by the natives
   Guanahani, and by Columbus San Salvador, has now been
   ascertained to be Watling Island, one of the Bahamas, 14 miles
   long by 6 broad, with a brackish lake in the centre, in 24°
   10' 30'' north latitude. ... The difference of latitude
   between Gomera and Watling Island is 235 miles. Course, West 5°
   South; distance 3,114 miles; average distance made good daily,
   85'; voyage 35 days. ... After discovering several smaller
   islands the fleet came in sight of Cuba on the 27th October,
   and explored part of the northern coast. Columbus believed it
   to be Cipango, the island placed on the chart of Toscanelli,
   between Europe and Asia. ... Crossing the channel between Cuba
   and St. Domingo [or Hayti], they anchored in the harbour of
   St. Nicholas Mole on December 4th. The natives came with
   presents and the country was enchanting. Columbus ... named
   the island 'Española' [or Hispaniola]. But with all this
   peaceful beauty around him he was on the eve of disaster." The
   Santa Maria was drifted by a strong current upon a sand bank
   and hopelessly wrecked. "It was now necessary to leave a small
   colony on the island. ... A fort was built and named 'La
   Navidad,' 39 men remaining behind supplied with stores and
   provisions," and on Friday, January 4, 1493, Columbus began his
   homeward voyage. Weathering a dangerous gale, which lasted
   several days, his little vessels reached the Azores February 17,
   and arrived at Palos March 15, bearing their marvellous news.

      _C. R. Markham, The Sea Fathers, chapter 2._

      _C. R. Markham, Life of Columbus, chapter 5._

{50}

   The statement above that the island of the Bahamas on which
   Columbus first landed, and which he called San Salvador, "has
   now been ascertained to be Watling Island" seems hardly
   justified. The question between Watling Island, San Salvador
   or Cat Island, Samana, or Attwood's Cay, Mariguana, the Grand
   Turk, and others is still in dispute. Professor Justin Winsor
   says "the weight of modern testimony seems to favor Watling's
   Island;" but at the same time he thinks it "probable that men
   will never quite agree which of the Bahamas it was upon which
   these startled and exultant Europeans first stepped."

      _J. Winsor, Christopher Columbus, chapter 9._

      _J. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, chapter 1, note B._

   Professor John Fiske, says: "All that can be positively
   asserted of Guanahani is that it was one of the Bahamas; there
   has been endless discussion as to which one, and the question
   is not easy to settle. Perhaps the theory of Captain Gustavus
   Fox, of the United States Navy, is on the whole best
   supported. Captain Fox maintains that the true Guanahani was
   the little Island now known as Samana or Attwood's Cay."

      _J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 5 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN
      _U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, Report, 1880,
      appendix 18._

AMERICA: A. D. 1493.
   Papal grant of the New World to Spain.

   "Spain was at this time connected with the Pope about a most
   momentous matter. The Genoese, Cristoforo Colombo, arrived at
   the Spanish court in March, 1493, with the astounding news of
   the discovery of a new continent. ... Ferdinand and Isabella
   thought it wise to secure a title to all that might ensue from
   their new discovery. The Pope, as Vicar of Christ, was held to
   have authority to dispose of lands inhabited by the heathen;
   and by papal Bulls the discoveries of Portugal along the
   African coast had been secured. The Portuguese showed signs of
   urging claims to the New World, as being already conveyed to
   them by the papal grants previously issued in their favour. To
   remove all cause of dispute, the Spanish monarchs at once had
   recourse to Alexander VI., who issued two Bulls on May 4 and 5
   [1493] to determine the respective rights of Spain and
   Portugal. In the first, the Pope granted to the Spanish
   monarchs and their heirs all lands discovered or hereafter to
   be discovered in the western ocean. In the second, he defined
   his grant to mean all lands that might be discovered west and
   south of an imaginary line, drawn from the North to the South
   Pole, at the distance of a hundred leagues westward of the
   Azores and Cape de Verd Islands. In the light of our present
   knowledge we are amazed at this simple means of disposing of a
   vast extent of the earth's surface." Under the Pope's
   stupendous patent, Spain was able to claim every part of the
   American Continent except the Brazilian coast.

      _M. Creighton, History of the Papacy during the
      Reformation, book 5, chapter 6 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN
      _E. G. Bourne, The Demarcation Line of Pope Alexander VI.
      (Yale Review., May, 1892)_.

      _J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 6 (volume 1)._

      _J. Gordon, The Bulls distributing America
      (American Society of Ch. Dist., volume 4)_.

      See, also, below: A. D. 1494.

AMERICA: A. D. 1493-1496.
   The Second Voyage of Columbus.
   Discovery of Jamaica and the Caribbees.
   Subjugation of Hispaniola.

   "The departure of Columbus on his second voyage of discovery
   presented a brilliant contrast to his gloomy embarkation at
   Palos. On the 25th of September [1493], at the dawn of day the
   bay of Cadiz was whitened by his fleet: There were three large
   ships of heavy burden and fourteen caravels. ... Before
   sunrise the whole fleet was under way." Arrived at the
   Canaries on the 1st of October, Columbus purchased there
   calves, goats, sheep, hogs, and fowls, with which to stock the
   island of Hispaniola; also "seeds of oranges, lemons,
   bergamots, melons, and various orchard fruits, which were thus
   first introduced into the islands of the west from the
   Hesperides or Fortunate Islands of the Old World." It was not
   until the 13th of October that the fleet left the Canaries,
   and it arrived among the islands since called the Lesser
   Antilles or Caribbees, on the evening of November 2. Sailing
   through this archipelago, discovering the larger island of
   Porto Rico on the way, Columbus reached the eastern extremity
   of Hispaniola or Hayti on the 22d of November, and arrived on
   the 27th at La Navidad, where he had left a garrison ten
   months before. He found nothing but ruin, silence and the
   marks of death, and learned, after much inquiry, that his
   unfortunate men, losing all discipline after his departure,
   had provoked the natives by rapacity and licentiousness until
   the latter rose against them and destroyed them. Abandoning
   the scene of this disaster, Columbus found an excellent harbor
   ten leagues east of Monte Christi and there he began the
   founding of a city which he named Isabella. "Isabella at the
   present day is quite overgrown with forests, in the midst of
   which are still to be seen, partly standing, the pillars of
   the church, some remains of the king's storehouses, and part
   of the residence of Columbus, all built of hewn stone." While
   the foundations of the new city were being laid, Columbus sent
   back part of his ships to Spain, and undertook an exploration
   of the interior of the island--the mountains of Cibao--where
   abundance of gold was promised. Some gold washings were
   found--far too scanty to satisfy the expectations of the
   Spaniards; and, as want and sickness soon made their
   appearance at Isabella, discontent was rife and mutiny afoot
   before the year had ended. In April, 1494, Columbus set sail
   with three caravels to revisit the coast of Cuba, for a more
   extended exploration than he had attempted on the first
   discovery. "He supposed it to be a continent, and the extreme
   end of Asia, and if so, by following its shores in the
   proposed direction he must eventually arrive at Cathay and
   those other rich and commercial, though semi-barbarous
   countries, described by Mandeville and Marco Polo." Reports of
   gold led him southward from Cuba until he discovered the
   island which he called Santiago, but which has kept its native
   name, Jamaica, signifying the Island of Springs. Disappointed
   in the search for gold, he soon returned from Jamaica to Cuba
   and sailed along its southern coast to very near the western
   extremity, confirming himself and his followers in the belief
   that they skirted the shores of Asia and might follow them to
   the Red Sea, if their ships and stores were equal to so long a
   voyage. "Two or three days' further sail would have carried
   Columbus round the extremity of Cuba; would have dispelled his
   illusion, and might have given an entirely different course to
   his subsequent discoveries. In his present conviction he lived
   and died; believing to his last hour that Cuba was the
   extremity of the Asiatic continent."
{51}
   Returning eastward, he visited Jamaica again and purposed some
   further exploration of the Caribbee Islands, when his toils
   and anxieties overcame him. "He fell into a deep lethargy,
   resembling death itself. His crew, alarmed at this profound
   torpor, feared that death was really at hand. They abandoned,
   therefore, all further prosecution of the voyage; and
   spreading their sails to the east wind so prevalent in those
   seas, bore Columbus back, in a state of complete
   insensibility, to the harbor of Isabella,"--Sept. 4.
   Recovering consciousness, the admiral was rejoiced to find his
   brother Bartholomew, from whom he had been separated for
   years, and who had been sent out to him from Spain, in command
   of three ships. Otherwise there was little to give pleasure to
   Columbus when he returned to Isabella. His followers were
   again disorganized, again at war with the natives, whom they
   plundered and licentiously abused, and a mischief-making
   priest had gone back to Spain, along with certain intriguing
   officers, to make complaints and set enmities astir at the
   court. Involved in war, Columbus prosecuted it relentlessly,
   reduced the island to submission and the natives to servitude
   and misery by heavy exactions. In March 1496 he returned to
   Spain, to defend himself against the machinations of his
   enemies, transferring the government of Hispaniola to his
   brother Bartholomew.

      _W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus, books 6-8
      (volumes 1-2)._

      ALSO IN
      _H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      _J. Winsor, Christopher Columbus, chapter 12-14._

AMERICA: A. D. 1494.
   The Treaty of Tordesillas.
   Amended Partition of the New World between Spain and Portugal.

   "When speaking or writing of the conquest of America, it is
   generally believed that the only title upon which were based
   the conquests of Spain and Portugal was the famous Papal Bull
   of partition of the Ocean, of 1493. Few modern authors take
   into consideration that this Bull was amended, upon the
   petition of the King of Portugal, by the [Treaty of
   Tordesillas], signed by both powers in 1494, augmenting the
   portion assigned to the Portuguese in the partition made
   between them of the Continent of America. The arc of meridian
   fixed by this treaty as a dividing line, which gave rise,
   owing to the ignorance of the age, to so many diplomatic
   congresses and interminable controversies, may now be traced
   by any student of elementary mathematics. This line ... runs
   along the meridian of 47° 32' 56" west of Greenwich. ... The
   name Brazil, or 'tierra del Brazil,' at that time [the middle
   of the 16th century] referred only to the part of the
   continent producing the dye wood so-called. Nearly two
   centuries later the Portuguese advanced toward the South, and
   the name Brazil then covered the new possessions they were
   acquiring."

      _L. L. Dominguez, Introduction to "The Conquest of the
      River Plate" (Hakluyt Society Publications. No. 81)._

AMERICA: A. D. 1497.
   Discovery of the North American Continent by John Cabot.

   "The achievement of Columbus, revealing the wonderful truth of
   which the germ may have existed in the imagination of every
   thoughtful mariner, won [in England] the admiration which
   belonged to genius that seemed more divine than human; and
   'there was great talk of it in all the court of Henry VII.' A
   feeling of disappointment remained, that a series of disasters
   had defeated the wish of the illustrious Genoese to make his
   voyage of essay under the flag of England. It was, therefore,
   not difficult for John Cabot, a denizen of Venice, residing at
   Bristol, to interest that politic king in plans for discovery.
   On the 5th of March, 1496, he obtained under the great seal a
   commission empowering himself and his three sons, or either of
   them, their heirs, or their deputies, to sail into the
   eastern, western, or northern sea with a fleet of five ships,
   at their own expense, in search of islands, provinces, or
   regions hitherto unseen by Christian people; to affix the
   banners of England on city, island, or continent; and, as
   vassals of the English crown, to possess and occupy the
   territories that might be found. It was further stipulated in
   this 'most ancient American State paper of England,' that the
   patentees should be strictly bound, on every return, to land
   at the port of Bristol, and to pay to the king one-fifth part
   of their gains; while the exclusive right of frequenting all
   the countries that might be found was reserved to them and to
   their assigns' without limit of time. Under this patent,
   which, at the first direction of English enterprise toward
   America, embodied the worst features of monopoly and
   commercial restriction, John Cabot, taking with him his son
   Sebastian, embarked in quest of new islands and a passage to
   Asia by the north-west. After sailing prosperously, as he
   reported, for 700 leagues, on the 24th day of June, early in
   the morning, almost fourteen months before Columbus on his
   third voyage came in sight of the main, and more than two
   years before Amerigo Vespucci sailed west of the Canaries, he
   discovered the western continent, probably in the latitude of
   about 56° degrees, among the dismal cliffs of Labrador. He ran
   along the coast for many leagues, it is said even for 300, and
   landed on what he considered to be the territory of the Grand
   Cham. But he encountered no human being, although there were
   marks that the region was inhabited. He planted on the land a
   large cross with the flag of England, and, from affection for
   the republic of Venice, he added the banner of St. Mark, which
   had never been borne so far before. On his homeward voyage he
   saw on his right hand two islands, which for want of
   provisions he could not stop to explore. After an absence of
   three months the great discoverer re-entered Bristol harbor,
   where due honors awaited him. The king gave him money, and
   encouraged him to continue his career, The people called him
   the great admiral; he dressed in silk; and the English, and
   even Venetians who chanced to be at Bristol, ran after him
   with such zeal that he could enlist for a new voyage as many
   as he pleased. ... On the third day of the month of February
   next after his return, 'John Kaboto, Venecian,' accordingly
   obtained a power to take up ships for another voyage, at the
   rates fixed for those employed in the service of the king, and
   once more to set sail with as many companions as would go with
   him of their own will. With this license every trace of John
   Cabot disappears. He may have died before the summer; but no
   one knows certainly the time or the place of his end, and it
   has not even been ascertained in what country this finder of a
   continent first saw the light."

      _G. Bancroft, History of the U. S. of Am._
      (Author's last Revision), part 1, chapter 1.

{52}

   In the Critical Essay appended to a chapter on the voyages of the
   Cabots, in the _Narrative and Critical History of America_,
   there is published, for the first time, an English translation
   of a dispatch from Raimondo de Soncino, envoy of the Duke of
   Milan to Henry VII., written Aug. 24, 1497, and giving an
   account of the voyage from which 'Master John Caboto,' 'a
   Venetian fellow,' had just returned. This paper was brought to
   light in 1865, from the State Archives of Milan. Referring to
   the dispatch, and to a letter, also quoted, from the 'Venetian
   Calendars,' written Aug. 23, 1497, by Lorenzo Pasqualigo, a
   merchant in London, to his brothers in Venice, Mr. Charles
   Deane says: "These letters are sufficient to show that North
   America was discovered by John Cabot, the name of Sebastian
   being nowhere mentioned in them, and that the discovery was
   made in 1497. The place which he first sighted is given on the
   map of 1544 [a map of Sebastian Cabot, discovered in Germany
   in 1843] as the north part of Cape Breton Island, on which is
   inscribed 'prima tierra vista,' which was reached, according
   to the Legend, on the 24th of June. Pasqualigo, the only one
   who mentions it, says he coasted 300 leagues. Mr. Brevoort,
   who accepts the statement, thinks he made the periplus of the
   Gulf of St. Lawrence, passing out at the Straits of Belle
   Isle, and thence home. ... The extensive sailing up and down
   the coast described by chroniclers from conversations with
   Sebastian Cabot many years afterwards, though apparently told
   as occurring on the voyage of discovery--as only one voyage is
   ever mentioned--must have taken place on a later voyage."

      _C. Deane, Narrative and Critical History of America, volume
      3, chapter 1, Crit. Essay._

      ALSO IN
      _R. Biddle, Memoir of Sebastian Cabot, chapter 1-8._

AMERICA: A. D. 1497-1498.
   The first Voyage of Americus Vespucius.
   Misunderstandings and disputes concerning it.
   Vindication of the Florentine navigator.
   His exploration of 4,000 miles of continental coast.

   "Our information concerning Americus Vespucius, from the early
   part of the year 1496 until after his return from the
   Portuguese to the Spanish service in the latter part of 1504,
   rests primarily upon his two famous letters; the one addressed
   to his old patron Lorenzo di Pier Francesco de' Medici (a
   cousin of Lorenzo the Magnificent) and written in March or
   April, 1503, giving an account of his third voyage; the other
   addressed to his old school-fellow Piero Soderini [then
   Gonfaloniere of Florence] and dated from Lisbon, September 4,
   1504, giving a brief account of four voyages which he had made
   under various commanders in the capacity of astronomer or
   pilot. These letters ... became speedily popular, and many
   editions were published, more especially in France, Germany,
   and Italy. ... The letter to Soderini gives an account of four
   voyages in which the writer took part, the first two in the
   service of Spain, the other two in the service of Portugal.
   The first expedition sailed from Cadiz May 10, 1497, and
   returned October 15, 1498, after having explored a coast so
   long as to seem unquestionably that of a continent. This
   voyage, as we shall see, was concerned with parts of America
   not visited again until 1513 and 1517. It discovered nothing
   that was calculated to invest it with much importance in
   Spain, though it by no means passed without notice there, as
   has often been wrongly asserted. Outside of Spain it came to
   attract more attention, but in an unfortunate way, for a
   slight but very serious error in proof-reading or editing, in
   the most important of the Latin versions, caused it after a
   while to be practically identified with the second voyage,
   made two years later. This confusion eventually led to most
   outrageous imputations upon the good name of Americus, which
   it has been left for the present century to remove. The second
   voyage of Vespucius was that in which he accompanied Alonso de
   Ojeda and Juan de la Costa, from May 20, 1499, to June, 1500.
   They explored the northern coast of South America from some
   point on what we would now call the north coast of Brazil, as
   far as the Pearl Coast visited by Columbus in the preceding
   year; and they went beyond, as far as the Gulf of Maracaibo.
   Here the squadron seems to have become divided, Ojeda going
   over to Hispaniola in September, while Vespucius remained
   cruising till February. ... It is certainly much to be
   regretted that in the narrative of his first expedition,
   Vespucius did not happen to mention the name of the chief
   commander. ... However ... he was writing not for us, but for
   his friend, and he told Soderini only what he thought would
   interest him. ... Of the letter to Soderini the version which
   has played the most important part in history is the Latin one
   first published at the press of the little college at
   Saint-Dié in Lorraine, April 25 (vij Kl' Maij), 1507. ... It
   was translated, not from an original text, but from an
   intermediate French version, which is lost. Of late years,
   however, we have detected, in an excessively rare Italian
   text, the original from which the famous Lorraine version was
   ultimately derived. ... If now we compare this primitive text
   with the Latin of the Lorraine version of 1507, we observe
   that, in the latter, one proper name--the Indian name of a
   place visited by Americus on his first voyage--has been
   altered. In the original it is 'Lariab;' in the Latin it has
   become 'Parias.' This looks like an instance of injudicious
   editing on the part of the Latin translator, although, of
   course, it may be a case of careless proof-reading. Lariab is
   a queer-looking word. It is no wonder that a scholar in his
   study among the mountains of Lorraine could make nothing of
   it. If he had happened to be acquainted with the language of
   the Huastecas, who dwelt at that time about the river
   Panuco--fierce and dreaded enemies of their southern
   neighbours the Aztecs--he would have known that names of
   places in that region were apt to end in ab. ... But as such
   facts were quite beyond our worthy translator's ken, we cannot
   much blame him if he felt that such a word as Lariab needed
   doctoring. Parias (Paria) was known to be the native name of a
   region on the western shores of the Atlantic, and so Lariab
   became Parias. As the distance from the one place to the other
   is more than two thousand miles, this little emendation
   shifted the scene of the first voyage beyond all recognition,
   and cast the whole subject into an outer darkness where there
   has been much groaning and gnashing of teeth. Another curious
   circumstance came in to confirm this error. On his first
   voyage, shortly before arriving at Lariab, Vespucius saw an
   Indian town built over the water, 'like Venice.' He counted 44
   large wooden houses, 'like barracks,' supported on huge tree-
   trunks and communicating with each other by bridges that could
   be drawn up in case of danger.
{53}
   This may well have been a village of communal houses of the
   Chontals on the coast of Tabasco; but such villages were
   afterwards seen on the Gulf of Maracaibo, and one of them was
   called Venezuela, or 'Little Venice,' a name since spread over
   a territory nearly twice as large as France. So the amphibious
   town described by Vespucius was incontinently moved to
   Maracaibo, as if there could be only one such place, as if
   that style of defensive building had not been common enough in
   many ages and in many parts of the earth, from ancient
   Switzerland to modern Siam. ... Thus in spite of the latitudes
   and longitudes distinctly stated by Vespucius in his letter,
   did Lariab and the little wooden Venice get shifted from the
   Gulf of Mexico to the northern coast of South America. Now
   there is no question that Vespucius in his second voyage, with
   Ojeda for captain, did sail along that coast, visiting the
   gulfs of Paria and Maracaibo. This was in the summer of 1499,
   one year after a part of the same coast had been visited by
   Columbus. Hence in a later period, long after the actors in
   these scenes had been gathered unto their fathers, and when
   people had begun to wonder how the New World could ever have
   come to be called America instead of Columbia, it was
   suggested that the first voyage described by Vespucius must be
   merely a clumsy and fictitious duplicate of the second, and
   that he invented it and thrust it back from 1499 to 1497, in
   order that he might be accredited with 'the discovery of the
   continent' one year in advance of his friend Columbus. It was
   assumed that he must have written his letter to Soderini with
   the base intention of supplanting his friend, and that the
   shabby device was successful. This explanation seemed so
   simple and intelligible that it became quite generally
   adopted, and it held its ground until the subject began to be
   critically studied, and Alexander von Humboldt showed, about
   sixty years ago, that the first naming of America occurred in
   no such way as had been supposed. As soon as we refrain from
   projecting our modern knowledge of geography into the past, as
   soon as we pause to consider how these great events appeared
   to the actors themselves, the absurdity of this accusation
   against Americus becomes evident. We arc told that he falsely
   pretended to have visited Paria and Maracaibo in 1497, in
   order to claim priority over Columbus in the discovery of 'the
   continent.' What continent? When Vespucius wrote that letter
   to Soderini, neither he nor anybody else suspected that what
   we now call America had been discovered. The only continent of
   which there could be any question, so far as supplanting
   Columbus was concerned, was Asia. But in 1504 Columbus was
   generally supposed to have discovered the continent of Asia,
   by his new route, in 1492. ... It was M. Varnhagen who first
   turned inquiry on this subject in the right direction. ...
   Having taken a correct start by simply following the words of
   Vespucius himself, from a primitive text, without reference to
   any preconceived theories or traditions, M. Varnhagen finds"
   that Americus in his first voyage made land on the northern
   coast of Honduras; "that he sailed around Yucatan, and found
   his aquatic village of communal houses, his little wooden
   Venice, on the shore of Tabasco. Thence, after a fight with
   the natives in which a few tawny prisoners were captured and
   carried on board the caravels, Vespucius seems to have taken a
   straight course to the Huasteca country by Tampico, without
   touching at points in the region subject or tributary to the
   Aztec confederacy. This Tampico country was what Vespucius
   understood to be called Lariab. He again gives the latitude
   definitely and correctly as 23° N., and he mentions a few
   interesting circumstances. He saw the natives roasting a
   dreadfully ugly animal," of which he gives what seems to be
   "an excellent description of the iguana, the flesh of which is
   to this day an important article of food in tropical America.
   ... After leaving this country of Lariab the ships kept still
   to the northwest for a short distance, and then followed the
   windings of the coast for 870 leagues. ... After traversing
   the 870 leagues of crooked coast, the ships found themselves
   'in the finest harbour in the world' [which M. Varnhagen
   supposed, at first, to have been in Chesapeake Bay, but
   afterwards reached conclusions pointing to the neighbourhood
   of Cape Cañaveral, on the Florida coast]. It was in June,
   1498, thirteen months since they had started from Spain. ...
   They spent seven-and-thirty days in this unrivalled harbour,
   preparing for the home voyage, and found the natives very
   hospitable. These red men courted the aid of the white
   strangers," in an attack which they wished to make upon a
   fierce race of cannibals, who inhabited certain islands some
   distance out to sea. The Spaniards agreed to the expedition,
   and sailed late in August, taking seven of the friendly
   Indians for guides. "After a week's voyage they fell in with
   the islands, some peopled, others uninhabited, evidently the
   Bermudas, 600 miles from Cape Hatteras as the crow flies. The
   Spaniards landed on an island called Iti, and had a brisk
   fight," resulting in the capture of more than 200 prisoners.
   Seven of these were given to the Indian guides, who paddled
   home with them. "'We also [wrote Vespucius] set sail for
   Spain, with 222 prisoners, slaves; and arrived in the port of
   Cadiz on the 15th day of October, 1498, where we were well
   received and sold our slaves.' ... The obscurity in which this
   voyage has so long been enveloped is due chiefly to the fact
   that it was not followed up till many years had elapsed, and
   the reason for this neglect impresses upon us forcibly the
   impossibility of understanding the history of the Discovery of
   America unless we bear in mind all the attendant
   circumstances. One might at first suppose that a voyage which
   revealed some 4,000 miles of the coast of North America would
   have attracted much attention in Spain and have become
   altogether too famous to be soon forgotten. Such an argument,
   however, loses sight of the fact that these early voyagers
   were not trying to 'discover America.' There was nothing to
   astonish them in the existence of 4,000 miles of coast line on
   this side of the Atlantic. To their minds it was simply the
   coast of Asia, about which they knew nothing except from Marco
   Polo, and the natural effect of such a voyage as this would be
   simply to throw discredit upon that traveller."

      _J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 7 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. E. Lester and A. Foster, Life and Voyages of Americus
      Vespucius, part 1, chapter 7_.

      _J. Winsor, Christopher Columbus, chapter 15._

{54}

AMERICA: A. D. 1498.
   Voyage and Discoveries of Sebastian Cabot.
   The ground of English claims in the New World.

   "The son of John Cabot, Sebastian, is not mentioned in this
   patent [issued by Henry VII., February 3, 1498], as he had been in
   that of 1496. Yet he alone profited by it. For the father is
   not again mentioned in connection with the voyage. ...
   Sebastian was now, if Humboldt's supposition is true that he
   was born in 1477, a young man of about 20 or 21 years of age.
   And as he had become proficient in astronomy and mathematics,
   and had gained naval experience in the voyage he had made in
   company with his father; and as he knew better than anyone
   else his father's views, and also the position of the newly
   discovered regions, he may now have well appeared to Henry as
   a fit person for the command of another expedition to the
   northwest. Two ships, manned with 300 mariners and volunteers,
   were ready for him early in the spring of 1498; and he sailed
   with them from Bristol, probably in the beginning of the month
   of May. We have no certain information regarding his route.
   But he appears to have directed his course again to the
   country which he had seen the year before on the voyage with
   his father, our present Labrador. He sailed along the coast of
   this country so far north that, even in the month of July, he
   encountered much ice. Observing at the same time, to his great
   displeasure, that the coast was trending to the east, he resolved
   to give up a further advance to the north, and returned in a
   southern direction. At Newfoundland, he probably came to
   anchor in some port, and refreshed his men, and refitted his
   vessels after their Arctic hardships. ... He probably was the
   first fisherman on the banks or shores of Newfoundland, which
   through him became famous in Europe. Sailing from Newfoundland
   southwest, he kept the coast in view as much as possible, on
   his right side, 'always with the intent to find a passage and
   open water to India.' ... After having rounded Cape Cod, he
   must have felt fresh hope. He saw a coast running to the west,
   and open water before him in that direction. It is therefore
   nearly certain that he entered somewhat that broad gulf, in
   the interior corner of which lies the harbor of New York. ...
   From a statement contained in the work of Peter Martyr it
   appears ... certain that Cabot landed on some places of the
   coast along which he sailed. This author, relating a
   conversation which he had with his friend Cabot, on the
   subject of his voyage of 1498, says that Cabot told him 'he
   had found on most of the places copper or brass among the
   aborigines.' ... From another authority we learn that he
   captured some of these aborigines and brought them to England,
   where they lived and were seen a few years after his return by
   the English chronicler, Robert Fabyan. It is not stated at
   what place he captured those Indians; but it was not customary
   with the navigators of that time to take on board the Indians
   until near the time of their leaving the country. Cabot's
   Indians, therefore, were probably captured on some shore south
   of New York harbor. ... The southern terminus of his voyage is
   pretty well ascertained. He himself informed his friend Peter
   Martyr, that he went as far south as about the latitude of the
   Strait of Gibraltar, that is to say, about 36° North latitude,
   which is near that of Cape Hatteras. ... On their return from
   their first voyage of 1497, the Cabots believed that they had
   discovered portions of Asia and so proclaimed it. But the more
   extensive discoveries of the second voyage corrected the views
   of Sebastian, and revealed to him nothing but a wild and
   barbarous coast, stretching through 30 degrees of latitude,
   from 67½° to 36°. The discovery of this impassable barrier
   across his passage to Cathay, as he often complained, was a
   sore displeasure to him. Instead of the rich possessions of
   China, which he hoped to reach, he was arrested by a New found
   land, savage and uncultivated. A spirited German author, Dr.
   G. M. Asher, in his life of Henry Hudson, published in London
   in 1860, observes: 'The displeasure of Cabot involves the
   scientific discovery of a new world. He was the first to
   recognize that a new and unknown continent was lying, as one
   vast barrier, between Western Europe and Eastern Asia.' ...
   When Cabot made proposals in the following year, 1499, for
   another expedition to the same regions, he was supported
   neither by the king nor the merchants. For several years the
   scheme for the discovery of a north-western route to Cathay
   was not much favored in England. Nevertheless, the voyage of
   this gifted and enterprising youth along the entire coast of
   the present United States, nay along the whole extent of that
   great continent, in which now the English race and language
   prevail and flourish, has always been considered as the true
   beginning, the foundation and cornerstone, of all the English
   claims and possessions in the northern half of America."

      _J. G. Kohl, History of the Discovery of Maine, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Biddle, Memoir of Sebastian Cabot, chapter 1-10._

      _J. F. Nicholls, Life of Sebastian Cabot, chapter 5._

AMERICA: A. D. 1498-1505.
   The Third and Fourth Voyages of Columbus.

   Discovery of Trinidad, the northern coast of S. America, the
   shores of Central America and Panama.

   When Columbus reached Spain in June, 1496, "Ferdinand and
   Isabella received him kindly, gave him new honors and promised
   him other outfits. Enthusiasm, however, had died out and
   delays took place. The reports of the returning ships did not
   correspond with the pictures of Marco Polo, and the new-found
   world was thought to be a very poor India after all. Most
   people were of this mind; though Columbus was not
   disheartened, and the public treasury was readily opened for a
   third voyage. Coronel sailed early in 1498 with two ships, and
   Columbus followed with six, embarking at San Lucas on the 30th
   of May. He now discovered Trinidad (July 31), which he named
   either from its three peaks, or from the Holy Trinity; struck
   the northern coast of South America, and skirted what was
   later known as the Pearl coast, going as far as the Island of
   Margarita. He wondered at the roaring fresh waters which the
   Oronoco pours into the Gulf of Pearls, as he called it, and he
   half believed that its exuberant tide came from the
   terrestrial paradise. He touched the southern coast of Hayti
   on the 30th of August. Here already his colonists had
   established a fortified post, and founded the town of Santo
   Domingo. His brother Bartholomew had ruled energetically
   during the Admiral's absence, but he had not prevented a
   revolt, which was headed by Roldan. Columbus on his arrival
   found the insurgents still defiant, but he was able after a
   while to reconcile them, and he even succeeded in attaching
   Roldan warmly to his interests.
{55}
   Columbus' absence from Spain, however, left his good name
   without sponsors; and to satisfy detractors, a new
   commissioner was sent over with enlarged powers, even with
   authority to supersede Columbus in general command, if
   necessary. This emissary was Francisco de Bobadilla, who
   arrived at Santo Domingo with two caravels on the 23d of
   August, 1500, finding Diego in command, his brother, the
   Admiral, being absent. An issue was at once made. Diego
   refused to accede to the commissioner's orders till Columbus
   returned to judge the case himself; so Bobadilla assumed
   charge of the crown property violently, took possession of the
   Admiral's house, and when Columbus returned, he with his
   brother was arrested and put in irons. In this condition the
   prisoners were placed on shipboard, and sailed for Spain. The
   captain of the ship offered to remove the manacles: but
   Columbus would not permit it, being determined to land in
   Spain bound as he was; and so he did. The effect of his
   degradation was to his advantage; sovereigns and people were
   shocked at the sight; and Ferdinand and Isabella hastened to
   make amends by receiving him with renewed favor. It was soon
   apparent that everything reasonable would be granted him by
   the monarchs, and that he could have all he might wish short
   of receiving a new lease of power in the islands, which the
   sovereigns were determined to see pacified at least before
   Columbus should again assume government of them. The Admiral
   had not forgotten his vow to wrest the Holy Sepulchre from the
   Infidel; but the monarchs did not accede to his wish to
   undertake it. Disappointed in this, he proposed a new voyage;
   and getting the royal countenance for this scheme, he was
   supplied with four vessels of from fifty to seventy tons each.
   ... He sailed from Cadiz, May 9, 1502, accompanied by his
   brother Bartholomew and his son Fernando. The vessels reached
   San Domingo June 29. Bobadilla, whose rule of a year and a
   half had been an unhappy one, had given place to Nicholas de
   Ovando; and the fleet which brought the new governor--with
   Maldonado, Las Casas and others--now lay in the harbor waiting
   to receive Bobadilla for the return voyage. Columbus had been
   instructed to avoid Hispaniola; but now that one of his
   vessels leaked, and he needed to make repairs, he sent a boat
   ashore, asking permission to enter the harbor. He was refused,
   though a storm was impending. He sheltered his vessels as best
   he could, and rode out the gale. The fleet which had on board
   Bobadilla and Roldan, with their ill-gotten gains, was
   wrecked, and these enemies of Columbus were drowned. The
   Admiral found a small harbor where he could make his repairs;
   and then, July 14, sailed westward to find, as he supposed,
   the richer portions of India. ... A landing was made on the
   coast of Honduras, August 14. Three days later the explorers
   landed again fifteen leagues farther east, and took possession
   of the country for Spain. Still east they went; and, in
   gratitude for safety after a long storm, they named a cape
   which they rounded, Gracias à Dios--a name still preserved at
   the point where the coast of Honduras begins to trend
   southward. Columbus was now lying ill on his bed, placed on
   deck, and was half the time in revery. Still the vessels
   coasted south," along and beyond the shores of Costa Rica;
   then turned with the bend of the coast to the northeast, until
   they reached Porto Bello, as we call it, where they found
   houses and orchards, and passed on "to the farthest spot of
   Bastidas' exploring, who had, in 1501, sailed westward along
   the northern coast of South America." There turning back,
   Columbus attempted to found a colony at Veragua, on the Costa
   Rica coast, where signs of gold were tempting. But the gold
   proved scanty, the natives hostile, and, the Admiral,
   withdrawing his colony, sailed away. "He abandoned one
   worm-eaten caravel at Porto Bello, and, reaching Jamaica,
   beached two others. A year of disappointment, grief, and want
   followed. Columbus clung to his wrecked vessels. His crew
   alternately mutinied at his side, and roved about the island.
   Ovando, at Hispaniola, heard of his straits, but only tardily
   and scantily relieved him. The discontented were finally
   humbled; and some ships, despatched by the Admiral's agent in
   Santo Domingo, at last reached him and brought him and his
   companions to that place, where Ovando received him with
   ostentatious kindness, lodging him in his house till Columbus
   departed for Spain, Sept. 12, 1504." Arriving in Spain in
   November, disheartened, broken with disease, neglected, it was
   not until the following May that he had strength enough to go
   to the court at Segovia, and then only to be coldly received
   by King Ferdinand--Isabella being dead. "While still hope was
   deferred, the infirmities of age and a life of hardships
   brought Columbus to his end; and on Ascension Day, the 20th of
   May, 1506, he died, with his son Diego and a few devoted
   friends by his bedside."

      _J. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapter 2 and 4._

      _W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus,
      book 10-18 (volume 2)._

AMERICA: A. D. 1499-1500.
   The Voyages and Discoveries of Ojeda and Pinzon.
   The Second Voyage of Amerigo Vespucci.

   One of the most daring and resolute of the adventurers who
   accompanied Columbus on his second voyage (in 1493) was Alonzo
   de Ojeda. Ojeda quarrelled with the Admiral and returned to
   Spain in 1498. Soon afterwards, "he was provided by the Bishop
   Fonseca, Columbus' enemy, with a fragment of the map which the
   Admiral had sent to Ferdinand and Isabella, showing the
   discoveries which he had made in his last voyage. With this
   assistance Ojeda set sail for South America, accompanied by
   the pilot, Juan de la Cosá, who had accompanied Columbus in
   his first great voyage in 1492, and of whom Columbus
   complained that, 'being a clever man, he went about saying
   that he knew more than he did,' and also by Amerigo Vespucci.
   They set sail on the 20th of May, 1499, with four vessels, and
   after a passage of 27 days came in sight of the continent, 200
   leagues east of the Oronoco. At the end of June, they landed
   on the shores of Surinam, in six degrees of north latitude,
   and proceeding west saw the mouths of the Essequibo and
   Oronoco. Passing the Boca del Drago of Trinidad, they coasted
   westward till they reached the Capo de la Vela in Granada. It
   was in this voyage that was discovered the Gulf to which Ojeda
   gave the name of Venezuela, or Little Venice, on account of
   the cabins built on piles over the water, a mode of life which
   brought to his mind the water-city of the Adriatic.
{56}
   From the American coast Ojeda went to the Caribbee Islands,
   and on the 5th of September reached Yaguimo, in Hispaniola,
   where he raised a revolt against the authority of Columbus.
   His plans, however, were frustrated by Roldan and Escobar, the
   delegates of Columbus, and he was compelled to withdraw from
   the island. On the 5th of February, 1500, he returned,
   carrying with him to Cadiz an extraordinary number of slaves,
   from which he realized an enormous sum of money. At the
   beginning of December, 1499, the same year in which Ojeda set
   sail on his last voyage, another companion of Columbus, in his
   first voyage, Vicente Yañez Pinzon, sailed from Palos, was the
   first to cross the line on the American side of the Atlantic.
   and on the 20th of January, 1500, discovered Cape St.
   Augustine, to which he gave the name of Cabo Santa Maria de la
   Consolacion, whence returning northward he followed the
   westerly trending coast, and so discovered the mouth of the
   Amazon, which he named Paricura. Within a month after his
   departure from Palos, he was followed from the same port and
   on the same route by Diego de Lepe, who was the first to
   discover, at the mouth of the Oronoco, by means of a closed
   vessel, which only opened when it reached the bottom of the
   water, that, at a depth of eight fathoms and a half, the two
   lowest fathoms were salt water, but all above was fresh. Lepe
   also made the observation that beyond Cape St. Augustine,
   which he doubled, as well as Pinzon, the coast of Brazil
   trended south-west."

      _R. H. Major, Life of Prince Henry of Portugal, chapter 19._

   ALSO IN:
   _W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus, volume 3, chapter 1-3._

AMERICA: A. D. 1500.
   Voyages of the Cortereals to the far North, and of Bastidas to
   the Isthmus of Darien.

   "The Portuguese did not overlook the north while making their
   important discoveries to the south. Two vessels, probably in
   the spring of 1500, were sent out under Gaspar Cortereal. No
   journal or chart of the voyage is now in existence, hence
   little is known of its object or results. Still more dim is a
   previous voyage ascribed by Cordeiro to João Vaz Cortereal,
   father of Gaspar. ... Touching at the Azores, Gaspar
   Cortereal, possibly following Cabot's charts, struck the coast
   of Newfoundland north of Cape Race, and sailing north
   discovered a land which he called Terra Verde, perhaps
   Greenland, but was stopped by ice at a river which he named
   Rio Nevado, whose location is unknown. Cortereal returned to
   Lisbon before the end of 1500. ... In October of this same
   year Rodrigo de Bastidas sailed from Cadiz with two vessels.
   Touching the shores of South America near Isla Verde, which
   lies between Guadalupe and the main land, he followed the
   coast westward to El Retrete, or perhaps Nombre de Dios, on
   the Isthmus of Darien, in about 9° 30' North latitude.
   Returning he was wrecked on Española toward the end of 1501,
   and reached Cadiz in September, 1502. This being the first
   authentic voyage by Europeans to the territory herein defined
   as the Pacific States, such incidents as are known will be
   given hereafter."

      _H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1,
      page 113._

   "We have Las Casas's authority for saying that Bastidas was a
   humane man toward the Indians. Indeed, he afterwards lost his
   life by this humanity; for, when governor of Santa Martha, not
   consenting to harass the Indians, he so alienated his men that
   a conspiracy was formed against him, and he was murdered in
   his bed. The renowned Vasco Nuñez [de Balboa] was in this
   expedition, and the knowledge he gained there had the greatest
   influence on the fortunes of his varied and eventful life."

      _Sir A. Helps, Spanish Conquest in America,
      book 5, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. G. Kohl, History of the Discovery of Maine, chapter 5_.

      _R. Biddle, Memoir of Sebastian Cabot, book 2, chapters 3-5_.

      See, also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

AMERICA: A. D. 1500-1514.
   Voyage of Cabral.
   The Third Voyage of Americus Vespucius.
   Exploration of the Brazilian coast for the King of Portugal.
   Curious evolution of the continental name "America."

   "Affairs now became curiously complicated. King Emanuel of
   Portugal intrusted to Pedro Alvarez de Cabral the command of a
   fleet for Hindustan, to follow up the work of Gama and
   establish a Portuguese centre of trade on the Malabar coast.
   This fleet of 13 vessels, carrying about 1,200 men, sailed
   from Lisbon March 9, 1500. After passing the Cape Verde
   Islands, March 22, for some reason not clearly known, whether
   driven by stormy weather or seeking to avoid the calms that
   were apt to be troublesome on the Guinea coast, Cabral took a
   somewhat more westerly course than he realized, and on April
   22, after a weary progress averaging less than 60 miles per
   day, he found himself on the coast of Brazil not far beyond
   the limit reached by Lepe. ... Approaching it in such a way
   Cabral felt sure that this coast must fall to the east of the
   papal meridian. Accordingly on May day, at Porto Seguro in
   latitude 16° 30' South, he took formal possession of the country
   for Portugal, and sent Gaspar de Lemos in one of his ships
   back to Lisbon with the news. On May 22 Cabral weighed anchor
   and stood for the Cape of Good Hope. ... Cabral called the
   land he had found Vera Cruz, a name which presently became
   Santa Cruz; but when Lemos arrived in Lisbon with the news he
   had with him some gorgeous paroquets, and among the earliest
   names on old maps of the Brazilian coast we find 'Land of
   Paroquets' and 'Land of the Holy Cross.' The land lay
   obviously so far to the east that Spain could not deny that at
   last there was something for Portugal out in the 'ocean sea.'
   Much interest was felt at Lisbon. King Emanuel began to
   prepare an expedition for exploring this new coast, and wished
   to secure the services of some eminent pilot and cosmographer
   familiar with the western waters. Overtures were made to
   Americus, a fact which proves that he had already won a high
   reputation. The overtures were accepted, for what reason we do
   not know, and soon after his return from the voyage with
   Ojeda, probably in the autumn of 1500, Americus passed from
   the service of Spain into that of Portugal. ... On May 14,
   1501, Vespucius, who was evidently principal pilot and guiding
   spirit in this voyage under unknown skies, set sail from
   Lisbon with three caravels. It is not quite clear who was
   chief captain, but M. Varnhagen has found reasons for
   believing that it was a certain Don Nuno Manuel. The first
   halt was made on the African coast at Cape Verde, the first
   week in June. ... After 67 days of 'the vilest weather ever
   seen by man' they reached the coast of Brazil in latitude
   about 5° South, on the evening of the 16th of August, the
   festival-day of San Roque, whose name was accordingly given to
   the cape before which they dropped anchor.
{57}
   From this point they slowly followed the coast to the
   southward, stopping now and then to examine the country. ...
   It was not until All Saints day, the first of November, that
   they reached the bay in latitude 13° South, which is still known
   by the name which they gave it, Bahia de Todos Santos. On New
   Year's day, 1502, they arrived at the noble bay where 54 years
   later the chief city of Brazil was founded. They would seem to
   have mistaken it for the mouth of another huge river, like
   some that had already been seen in this strange world; for
   they called it Rio de Janeiro (River of January). Thence by
   February 15 they had passed Cape Santa Maria, when they left
   the coast and took a southeasterly course out into the ocean.
   Americus gives no satisfactory reason for this change of
   direction. ... Perhaps he may have looked into the mouth of
   the river La Plata, which is a bay more than a hundred miles
   wide; and the sudden westward trend of the shore may have led
   him to suppose that he had reached the end of the continent.
   At any rate, he was now in longitude more than twenty degrees
   west of the meridian of Cape San Roque, and therefore
   unquestionably out of Portuguese waters. Clearly there was no
   use in going on and discovering lands which could belong only
   to Spain. This may account, I think, for the change of
   direction." The voyage southeastwardly was pursued until the
   little fleet had reached the icy and rocky coast of the island
   of South Georgia, in latitude 54° South. It was then decided to
   turn homeward. "Vespucius ... headed straight North North East
   through the huge ocean, for Sierra Leone, and the distance of
   more than 4,000 miles was made--with wonderful accuracy,
   though Vespucius says nothing about that--in 33 days. ...
   Thence, after some further delay, to Lisbon, where they
   arrived on the 7th of September, 1502. ... Among all the
   voyages made during that eventful period there was none that
   as a feat of navigation surpassed this third of Vespucius, and
   there was none, except the first of Columbus, that outranked
   it in historical importance. For it was not only a voyage into
   the remotest stretches of the Sea of Darkness, but it was
   preeminently an incursion into the antipodal world of the
   Southern hemisphere. ... A coast of continental extent,
   beginning so near the meridian of the Cape Verde islands and
   running southwesterly to latitude 35° South and perhaps beyond,
   did not fit into anybody's scheme of things. ... It was land
   unknown to the ancients, and Vespucius was right in saying
   that he had beheld there things by the thousand which Pliny
   had never mentioned. It was not strange that he should call it
   a 'New World,' and in meeting with this phrase, on this first
   occasion in which it appears in any document with reference to
   any part of what we now call America, the reader must be
   careful not to clothe it with the meaning which it wears in
   our modern eyes. In using the expression 'New World' Vespucius
   was not thinking of the Florida coast which he had visited on
   a former voyage, nor of the 'islands of India' discovered by
   Columbus, nor even of the Pearl Coast which he had followed
   after the Admiral in exploring. The expression occurs in his
   letter to Lorenzo de' Medici, written from Lisbon in March or
   April, 1503, relating solely to this third voyage. The letter
   begins as follows: 'I have formerly written to you at
   sufficient length about my return from those new countries
   which in the ships and at the expense and command of the most
   gracious King of Portugal we have sought and found. It is
   proper to call them a new world.' Observe that it is only the
   new countries visited on this third voyage, the countries from
   Cape San Roque southward, that Vespucius thinks it proper to
   call a new world, and here is his reason for so calling them:
   'Since among our ancestors there was no knowledge of them, and
   to all who hear of the affair it is most novel. For it
   transcends the ideas of the ancients, since most of them say
   that beyond the equator to the south there is no continent,
   but only the sea which they called the Atlantic, and if any of
   them asserted the existence of a continent there, they found
   many reasons for refusing to consider it a habitable country.
   But this last voyage of mine has proved that this opinion of
   theirs was erroneous and in every way contrary to the facts."
   ... This expression 'Novus Mundus,' thus occurring in a
   private letter, had a remarkable career. Early in June, 1503,
   about the time when Americus was starting on his fourth
   voyage, Lorenzo died. By the beginning of 1504, a Latin
   version of the letter [translated by Giovanni Giocondo] was
   printed and published, with the title 'Mundus Novus.' ... The
   little four-leaved tract, 'Mundus Novus,' turned out to be the
   great literary success of the day. M. Harisse has described at
   least eleven Latin editions probably published in the course
   of 1504, and by 1506 not less than eight editions of German
   versions had been issued. Intense curiosity was aroused by
   this announcement of the existence of a populous land beyond
   the equator and unknown (could such a thing be possible) to
   the ancients,--who did know something, at least, about the
   eastern parts of the Asiatic continent which Columbus was
   supposed to have reached. The "Novus Mundus," so named, began
   soon to be represented on maps and globes, generally as a
   great island or quasi-continent lying on and below the
   equator. "Europe, Asia and Africa were the three parts of the
   earth [previously known], and so this opposite region,
   hitherto unknown, but mentioned by Mela and indicated by
   Ptolemy, was the Fourth Part. We can now begin to understand
   the intense and wildly absorbing interest with which people
   read the brief story of the third voyage of Vespucius, and we
   can see that in the nature of that interest there was nothing
   calculated to bring it into comparison with the work of
   Columbus. The two navigators were not regarded as rivals in
   doing the same thing, but as men who had done two very
   different things; and to give credit to one was by no means
   equivalent to withholding credit from the other." In 1507,
   Martin Waldseemüller, professor of geography at Saint-Dié,
   published a small treatise entitled "Cosmographic
   Introductio," with that second of the two known letters of
   Vespucius--the one addressed to Soderini, of which an account
   is given above (A. D. 1497-1498)--appended to it. "In this
   rare book occurs the first suggestion of the name America.
{58}
   After having treated of the division of the earth's inhabited
   surface into three parts--Europe, Asia, and
   Africa--Waldseemüller speaks of the discovery of a Fourth
   Part," and says: "'Wherefore I do not see what is rightly to
   hinder us from calling it Amerige or America, i. e., the land
   of Americus, after its discoverer Americus, a man of sagacious
   mind, since both Europe and Asia have got their names from
   women.' ... Such were the winged words but for which, as M.
   Harisse reminds us, the western hemisphere might have come to
   be known as Atlantis, or Hesperides, or Santa Cruz, or New
   India, or perhaps Columbia. ... In about a quarter of a
   century the first stage in the development of the naming of
   America had been completed. That stage consisted of five
   distinct steps: 1. Americus called the regions visited by him
   beyond the equator 'a new world' because they were unknown to
   the ancients; 2. Giocondo made this striking phrase 'Mundus
   Novus' into a title for his translation of the letter. ... 3.
   the name Mundus Novus got placed upon several maps as an
   equivalent for Terra Sanctæ Crucis, or what we call Brazil; 4.
   the suggestion was made that Mundus Novus was the Fourth Part
   of the earth, and might properly be named America after its
   discoverer; 5. the name America thus got placed upon several
   maps [the first, so far as known, being a map ascribed to
   Leonardo da Vinci and published about 1514, and the second a
   globe made in 1515 by Johann Schöner, at Nuremberg] as an
   equivalent for what we call Brazil, and sometimes came to
   stand alone as an equivalent for what we call South America,
   but still signified only a part of the dry land beyond the
   Atlantic to which Columbus had led the way. ... This wider
   meaning [of South America] became all the more firmly
   established as its narrower meaning was usurped by the name
   Brazil. Three centuries before the time of Columbus the red
   dye-wood called brazil-wood was an article of commerce, under
   that same name, in Italy and Spain. It was one of the valuable
   things brought from the East, and when the Portuguese found
   the same dye-wood abundant in those tropical forests that had
   seemed so beautiful to Vespucius, the name Brazil soon became
   fastened upon the country and helped to set free the name
   America from its local associations." When, in time, and by
   slow degrees, the great fact was learned, that all the lands
   found beyond the Atlantic by Columbus and his successors,
   formed part of one continental system, and were all to be
   embraced in the conception of a New World, the name which had
   become synonymous with New World was then naturally extended
   to the whole. The evolutionary process of the naming of the
   western hemisphere as a whole was thus made complete in 1541,
   by Mercator, who spread the name America in large letters upon
   a globe which he constructed that year, so that part of it
   appeared upon the northern and part upon the southern
   continent.

      _J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 7 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. B. Scaife, America: Its Geographical History,
      section 4._

      _R. H. Major, Life of Prince Henry of Portugal,
      chapter 19._

      _J. Winsor, Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 2, ch, 2, notes._

      _H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 1, pages
      99-112, and 123-125._

AMERICA: A. D. 1501-1504.
   Portuguese, Norman and Breton fishermen on the Newfoundland
   Banks.

      See NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1501-1578.

AMERICA: A. D. 1502..
   The Second Voyage of Ojeda.

   The first voyage of Alonzo de Ojeda, from which he returned to
   Spain in June 1500, was profitable to nothing but his
   reputation as a bold and enterprising explorer. By way of
   reward, he was given "a grant of land in Hispaniola, and
   likewise the government of Coquibacoa, which place he had
   discovered [and which he had called Venezuela]. He was
   authorized to fit out a number of ships at his own expense and
   to prosecute discoveries on the coast of Terra Firma. ... With
   four vessels, Ojeda set sail for the Canaries, in 1502, and
   thence proceeded to the Gulf of Paria, from which locality he
   found his way to Coquibacoa. Not liking this poor country, he
   sailed on to the Bay of Honda, where he determined to found
   his settlement, which was, however, destined to be of short
   duration. Provisions very soon became scarce; and one of his
   partners, who had been sent to procure supplies from Jamaica,
   failed to return until Ojeda's followers were almost in a
   state of mutiny. The result was that the whole colony set sail
   for Hispaniola, taking the governor with them in chains. All
   that Ojeda gained by his expedition was that he at length came
   off winner in a lawsuit, the costs of which, however, left him
   a ruined man."

      _R G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America,
      book 1, chapter 1._

AMERICA: A. D. 1503-1504.
   The Fourth Voyage of Americus Vespucius.
   First Settlement in Brazil.

   In June, 1503, "Amerigo sailed again from Lisbon, with six
   ships. The object of this voyage was to discover a certain
   island called Melcha, which was supposed to lie west of
   Calicut, and to be as famous a mart in the commerce of the
   Indian world as Cadiz was in Europe. They made the Cape de
   Verds, and then, contrary to the judgment of Vespucci and of
   all the fleet, the Commander persisted in standing for Serra
   Leoa." The Commander's ship was lost, and Vespucci, with one
   vessel, only, reached the coast of the New World, finding a
   port which is thought to have been Bahia. Here "they waited
   above two months in vain expectation of being joined by the
   rest of the squadron. Having lost all hope of this they
   coasted on for 260 leagues to the Southward, and there took
   port again in 18° S. 35° West of the meridian of Lisbon. Here
   they remained five months, upon good terms with the natives,
   with whom some of the party penetrated forty leagues into the
   interior; and here they erected a fort, in which they left 24
   men who had been saved from the Commander's ship. They gave
   them 12 guns, besides other arms, and provisions for six
   months; then loaded with brazil [wood], sailed homeward and
   returned in safety. ... The honour, therefore, of having
   formed the first settlement in this country is due to Amerigo
   Vespucci. It does not appear that any further attention was as
   this time paid to it. ... But the cargo of brazil which
   Vespucci had brought home tempted private adventurers, who
   were content with peaceful gains, to trade thither for that
   valuable wood; and this trade became so well known, that in
   consequence the coast and the whole country obtained the name
   of Brazil, notwithstanding the holier appellation [Santa Cruz]
   which Cabral had given it."

      _R. Southey, History of Brazil, volume 1, chapter 1._

{59}

AMERICA: A. D. 1509-1511.
   The Expeditions of Ojeda and Nicuesa to the Isthmus.
   The Settlement at Darien.

   "For several years after his ruinous, though successful
   lawsuit, we lose all traces of Alonzo de Ojeda, excepting that
   we are told he made another voyage to Coquibacoa [Venezuela],
   in 1505. No record remains of this expedition, which seems to
   have been equally unprofitable with the preceding, for we find
   him, in 1508, in the island of Hispaniola as poor in purse,
   though as proud in spirit, as ever. ... About this time the
   cupidity of King Ferdinand was greatly excited by the accounts
   by Columbus of the gold mines of Veragua, in which the admiral
   fancied he had discovered the Aurea Chersonesus of the
   ancients, whence King Solomon procured the gold used in
   building the temple of Jerusalem. Subsequent voyagers had
   corroborated the opinion of Columbus as to the general riches
   of the coast of Terra Firma; King Ferdinand resolved,
   therefore, to found regular colonies along that coast, and to
   place the whole under some capable commander." Ojeda was
   recommended for this post, but found a competitor in one of
   the gentlemen of the Spanish court, Diego de Nicuesa. "King
   Ferdinand avoided the dilemma by favoring both; not indeed by
   furnishing them with ships and money, but by granting patents
   and dignities, which cost nothing, and might bring rich
   returns. He divided that part of the continent which lies
   along the Isthmus of Darien into two provinces, the boundary
   line running through the Gulf of Uraba. The eastern part,
   extending to Cape de la Vela, was called New Andalusia, and
   the government of it given to Ojeda. The other to the west
   [called Castilla del Oro], including Veragua, and reaching, to
   Cape Gracias à Dios, was assigned to Nicuesa. The island of
   Jamaica was given to the two governors in common, as a place
   whence to draw supplies of provisions." Slender means for the
   equipment of Ojeda's expedition were supplied by the veteran
   pilot, Juan de la Cosa, who accompanied him as his lieutenant.
   Nicuesa was more amply provided. The rival armaments arrived
   at San Domingo about the same time (in 1509), and much
   quarreling between the two commanders ensued. Ojeda found a
   notary in San Domingo, Martin Fernandez de Enciso, who had
   money which he consented to invest in the enterprise, and who
   promised to follow him with an additional ship-load of
   recruits and supplies. Under this arrangement Ojeda made ready
   to sail in advance of his competitor, embarking November 10, 1509.
   Among those who sailed with him was Francisco Pizarro, the
   future conqueror of Peru. Ojeda, by his energy, gained time
   enough to nearly ruin his expedition before Nicuesa reached
   the scene; for, having landed at Carthagena, he made war upon
   the natives, pursued them recklessly into the interior of the
   country, with 70 men, and was overwhelmed by the desperate
   savages, escaping with only one companion from their poisoned
   arrows. His faithful friend, the pilot, Juan de la Cosa, was
   among the slain, and Ojeda himself, hiding in the forest, was
   nearly dead of hunger and exposure when found and rescued by a
   searching party from his ships. At this juncture the fleet of
   Nicuesa made its appearance. Jealousies were forgotten in a
   common rage against the natives and the two expeditions were
   joined in an attack on the Indian villages which spared
   nothing. Nicuesa then proceeded to Veragua, while Ojeda
   founded a town, which he called San Sebastian, at the east end
   of the Gulf of Uraba. Incessantly harassed by the natives,
   terrified by the effects of the poison which these used in
   their warfare, and threatened with starvation by the rapid
   exhaustion of its supplies, the settlement lost courage and
   hope. Enciso and his promised ship were waited for in vain. At
   length there came a vessel which certain piratical adventurers
   at Hispaniola had stolen, and which brought some welcome
   provisions, eagerly bought at an exorbitant price. Ojeda, half
   recovered from a poisoned wound, which he had treated
   heroically with red-hot plates of iron, engaged the pirates to
   convey him to Hispaniola, for the procuring of supplies. The
   voyage was a disastrous one, resulting in shipwreck on the
   coast of Cuba and a month of desperate wandering in the
   morasses of the island. Ojeda survived all these perils and
   sufferings, made his way to Jamaica, and from Jamaica to San
   Domingo, found that his partner Enciso had sailed for the
   colony long before, with abundant supplies, but could learn
   nothing more. Nor could he obtain for himself any means of
   returning to San Sebastian, or of dispatching relief to the
   place. Sick, penniless and disheartened, he went into a
   convent and died. Meantime the despairing colonists at San
   Sebastian waited until death had made them few enough to be
   all taken on board of the two little brigantines which were
   left to them; then they sailed away, Pizarro in command. One
   of the brigantines soon went down in a squall; the other made
   its way to the harbor of Carthagena, where it found the tardy
   Enciso, searching for his colony. Enciso, under his
   commission, now took command, and insisted upon going to San
   Sebastian. There the old experiences were soon renewed, and
   even Enciso was ready to abandon the deadly place. The latter
   had brought with him a needy cavalier, Vasco Nuñez de
   Balboa--so needy that he smuggled himself on board Enciso's
   ship in a cask to escape his creditors. Vasco Nuñez, who had
   coasted this region with Bastidas, in 1500, now advised a
   removal of the colony to Darien, on the opposite coast of the
   Gulf of Uraba. His advice, which was followed, proved good,
   and the hopes of the settlers were raised; but Enciso's modes
   of government proved irksome to them. Then Balboa called
   attention to the fact that, when they crossed the Gulf of
   Uraba, they passed out of the territory covered by the patent
   to Ojeda, under which Enciso was commissioned, and into that
   granted to Nicuesa. On this suggestion Enciso was promptly
   deposed and two alcaldes were elected, Balboa being one. While
   events in one corner of Nicuesa's domain were thus
   establishing a colony for that ambitious governor, he himself,
   at the other extremity of it, was faring badly. He had
   suffered hardships, separation from most of his command and
   long abandonment on a dc solate coast; had rejoined his
   followers after great suffering, only to suffer yet more in
   their company, until less than one hundred remained of the 700
   who sailed with him a few months before. The settlement at
   Veragua had been deserted, and another, named Nombre de Dios
   undertaken, with no improvement of circumstances. In this
   situation he was rejoiced, at last, by the arrival of one of
   his lieutenants, Rodrigo de Colmenares, who came with
   supplies. Colmenares brought tidings, moreover, of the
   prosperous colony at Darien, which he had discovered on his
   way, with an invitation to Nicuesa to come and assume the
   government of it. He accepted the invitation with delight;
   but, alas! the community at Darien had repented of it before
   he reached them, and they refused to receive him when he
   arrived. Permitted finally to land, he was seized by a
   treacherous party among the colonists--to whom Balboa is said
   to have opposed all the resistance in his power--was put on
   board of an old and crazy brigantine, with seventeen of his
   friends, and compelled to take an oath that he would sail
   straight to Spain. "The frail bark set sail on the first of
   March, 1511, and steered across the Caribbean Sea for the
   island of Hispaniola, but was never seen or heard of more."

      _W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus and his
      Companions, volume 3._

      ALSO IN
      _H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapter 6._

{60}

AMERICA: A. D. 1511.
   The Spanish conquest and occupation of Cuba.

      See CUBA: A. D. 1511.

AMERICA: A. D. 1512.
   The Voyage of Ponce de Leon in quest of the Fountain of Youth,
   and his Discovery of Florida.

   "Whatever may have been the Southernmost point reached by
   Cabot in coasting America on his return, it is certain that he
   did not land in Florida, and that the honour of first
   exploring that country is due to Juan Ponce de Leon. This
   cavalier, who was governor of Puerto Rico, induced by the
   vague traditions circulated by the natives of the West Indies,
   that there was a country in the north possessing a fountain
   whose waters restored the aged to youth, made it an object of
   his ambition to be the first to discover this marvellous
   region. With this view, he resigned the governorship, and set
   sail with three caravels on the 3d of March 1512. Steering N.
   ¼ N., he came upon a country covered with flowers and verdure;
   and as the day of his discovery happened to be Palm Sunday,
   called by the Spaniards' Pasqua Florida,' he gave it the name
   of Florida from this circumstance. He landed on the 2d of
   April, and took possession of the country in the name of the
   king of Castile. The warlike people of the coast of Cautio (a
   name given by the Indians to all the country lying between
   Cape Cañaveral and the southern point of Florida) soon,
   however, compelled him to retreat, and he pursued his
   exploration of the coast as far as 30° 8' North latitude, and
   on the 8th of May doubled Cape Cañaveral. Then retracing his
   course to Puerto Rico, in the hope of finding the island of
   Bimini, which he believed to be the Land of Youth, and
   described by the Indians as opposite to Florida, he discovered
   the Bahamas, and some other islands, previously unknown. Bad
   weather compelling him to put into the isle of Guanima to
   repair damages, he despatched one of his caravels, under the
   orders of Jaun Perez de Ortubia and of the pilot Anton de
   Alaminos, to gain information respecting the desired land,
   which he had as yet been totally unable to discover. He
   returned to Puerto Rico on the 21st of September; a few days
   afterwards, Ortubia arrived also with news of Bimini. He
   reported that he had explored the island,--which he described
   as large, well wooded, and watered by numerous streams,--but
   he had failed in discovering the fountain. Oviedo places
   Bimini at 40 leagues west of the island of Bahama. Thus all
   the advantages which Ponce de Leon promised himself from this
   voyage turned to the profit of geography: the title of
   'Adelantado of Bimini and Florida,' which was conferred upon
   him, was purely honorary; but the route taken by him in order
   to return to Puerto Rico, showed the advantage of making the
   homeward voyage to Spain by the Bahama Channel."

      _W. B. Rye, Introduction to "Discovery and Conquest of
      Terra Florida, by a gentleman of Elvas" (Hakluyt Society,
      1851)._

      ALSO IN _G. R. Fairbanks, History of Florida, chapter 1_

AMERICA: A. D. 1513-1517.
   The discovery of the Pacific by Vasco Nuñez de Balboa.
   Pedrarias Davila on the Isthmus.

   With Enciso deposed from authority and Nicuesa sent adrift,
   Vasco Nuñez de Balboa seems to have easily held the lead in
   affairs at Darien, though not without much opposition; for
   faction and turbulence were rife. Enciso was permitted to
   carry his grievances and complaints to Spain, but Balboa's
   colleague, Zamudio, went with him, and another comrade
   proceeded to Hispaniola, both of them well-furnished with
   gold. For the quest of gold had succeeded at last. The Darien
   adventurers had found considerable quantities in the
   possession of the surrounding natives, and were gathering it
   with greedy hands. Balboa had the prudence to establish
   friendly relations with one of the most important of the
   neighboring caciques, whose comely daughter he
   wedded--according to the easy customs of the country--and
   whose ally he became in wars with the other caciques. By gift
   and tribute, therefore as well as by plunder, he harvested
   more gold than any before him had found since the ransacking
   of the New World began. But what they obtained seemed little
   compared with the treasures reported to them as existing
   beyond the near mountains and toward the south. One Indian
   youth, son of a friendly cacique, particularly excited their
   imaginations by the tale which he told of another great sea,
   not far to the west, on the southward-stretching shores of
   which were countries that teemed with every kind of wealth. He
   told them, however, that they would need a thousand men to
   fight their way to this Sea. Balboa gave such credence to the
   story that he sent envoys to Spain to solicit forces from the
   king for an adequate expedition across the mountains. They
   sailed in October, 1512, but did not arrive in Spain until the
   following May. They found Balboa in much disfavor at the
   court. Enciso and the friends of the unfortunate Nicuesa had
   unitedly ruined him by their complaints, and the king had
   caused criminal proceedings against him to be commenced.
   Meantime, some inkling of these hostilities had reached
   Balboa, himself, conveyed by a vessel which bore to him, at
   the same time, a commission as captain-general from the
   authorities in Hispaniola. He now resolved to become the
   discoverer of the ocean which his Indian friends described,
   and of the rich lands bordering it, before his enemies could
   interfere with him. "Accordingly, early in September, 1513, he
   set out on his renowned expedition for finding 'the other
   sea,' accompanied by 190 men well armed, and by dogs, which
   were of more avail than men, and by Indian slaves to carry the
   burdens. He went by sea to the territory of his father-in-law,
   King Careta, by whom he was well received, and accompanied by
   whose Indians he moved on into Poncha's territory." Quieting
   the fears of this cacique, he passed his country without
   fighting. The next chief encountered, named Quarequa,
   attempted resistance, but was routed, with a great slaughter
   of his people, and Balboa pushed on. "On the 25th of
   September, 1513, he came near to the top of a mountain from
   whence the South Sea was visible.
{61}
   The distance from Poncha's chief town to this point was forty
   leagues, reckoned then six days' journey; but Vasco Nuñez and
   his men took twenty-five days to accomplish it, as they
   suffered much from the roughness of the ways and from the want
   of provisions. A little before Vasco Nuñez reached the height,
   Quarequa's Indians informed him of his near approach to the
   sea. It was a sight in beholding which, for the first time,
   any man would wish to be alone. Vasco Nuñez bade his men sit
   down while he ascended, and then, in solitude, looked down
   upon the vast Pacific--the first man of the Old World, so far
   as we know, who had done so. Falling on his knees, he gave
   thanks to God for the favour shown to him in his being
   permitted to discover the Sea of the South. Then with his hand
   be beckoned to his men to come up. When they had come, both he
   and they knelt down and poured forth their thanks to God. He
   then addressed them. ... Having ... addressed his men, Vasco
   Nuñez proceeded to take formal possession, on behalf of the
   kings of Castile, of the sea and of all that was in it; and in
   order to make memorials of the event, he cut down trees,
   formed crosses, and heaped up stones. He also inscribed the
   names of the monarchs of Castile upon great trees in the
   vicinity." Afterwards, when he had descended the western slope
   and found the shore, "he entered the sea up to his thighs,
   having his sword on, and with his shield in his hand; then he
   called the by-standers to witness how he touched with his
   person and took possession of this sea for the kings of
   Castile, and declared that he would defend the possession of
   it against all comers. After this, Vasco Nuñez made friends in
   the usual manner, first conquering and then negotiating with"
   the several chiefs or caciques whose territories came in his
   way. He explored the Gulf of San Miguel, finding much wealth
   of pearls in the region, and returned to Darien by a route
   which crossed the isthmus considerably farther to the north,
   reaching his colony on the 29th of January, 1514, having been
   absent nearly five months. "His men at Darien received him
   with exultation, and he lost no time in sending his news,
   'such signal and new news,' ... to the King of Spain,
   accompanying it with rich presents. His letter, which gave a
   detailed account of his journey, and which, for its length,
   was compared by Peter Martyr to the celebrated letter that
   came to the senate from Tiberius, contained in every page
   thanks to God that he had escaped from such great dangers and
   labours. Both the letter and the presents were intrusted to a
   man named Arbolanche, who departed from Darien about the
   beginning of March, 1514. ... Vasco Nuñez's messenger,
   Arbolanche, reached the court of Spain too late for his
   master's interests." The latter had already been superseded in
   the Governorship, and his successor was on the way to take his
   authority from him. The new governor was one Pedrarias De
   Avila, or Davila, as the name is sometimes written;--an
   envious and malignant old man, under whose rule on the isthmus
   the destructive energy of Spanish conquest rose to its meanest
   and most heartless and brainless development. Conspicuously
   exposed as he was to the jealousy and hatred of Pedrarias,
   Vasco Nuñez was probably doomed to ruin, in some form, from
   the first. At one time, in 1516, there seemed to be a promise
   for him of alliance with his all-powerful enemy, by a marriage
   with one of the governor's daughters, and he received the
   command of an expedition which again crossed the isthmus,
   carrying ships, and began the exploration of the Pacific. But
   circumstances soon arose which gave Pedrarias all opportunity
   to accuse the explorer of treasonable designs and to
   accomplish his arrest--Francisco Pizarro being the officer
   fitly charged with the execution of the governor's warrant.
   Brought in chains to Acla, Vasco Nuñez was summarily tried,
   found guilty and led forth to swift death, laying his head
   upon the block (A. D. 1517). "Thus perished Vasco Nuñez de
   Balboa, in the forty-second year of his age, the man who,
   since the time of Columbus, had shown the most statesmanlike
   and warriorlike powers in that part of the world, but whose
   career only too much resembles that of Ojeda, Nicuesa, and the
   other unfortunate commanders who devastated those beautiful
   regions of the earth."

      _Sir A. Helps, Spanish Conquest in America,
      book 6 (volume 1)_.

   "If I have applied strong terms of denunciation to Pedrarias
   Dávila, it is because he unquestionably deserves it. He is by
   far the worst man who came officially to the New World during
   its early government. In this all authorities agree. And all
   agree that Vasco Nuñez was not deserving of death."

      _H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapter 8-12 (foot-note, page 458)._

      ALSO IN
      W. Irving, _Life and Voyages of Columbus and His
      Companions, volume 3._

AMERICA: A. D. 1515.
   Discovery of La Plata by Juan de Solis.

         See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

AMERICA: A. D. 1517-1518.
   The Spaniards find Mexico.

   "An hidalgo of Cuba, named Hernandez de Cordova, sailed with
   three vessels on an expedition to one of the neighbouring
   Bahama Islands, in quest of Indian slaves (February 8, 1517). He
   encountered a succession of heavy gales which drove him far
   out of his course, and at the end of three weeks he found
   himself on a strange and unknown coast. On landing and asking
   the name of the country, he was answered by the natives
   'Tectelan,' meaning 'I do not understand you,' but which the
   Spaniards, misinterpreting into the name of the place, easily
   corrupted into Yucatan. Some writers give a different
   etymology. ... Bernal Diaz says the word came from the
   vegetable 'yuca' and 'tale,' the name for a hillock in which
   it is planted. ... M. Waldeck finds a much more plausible
   derivation in the Indian word 'Ouyouckatan,' 'listen to what
   they say.' ... Cordova had landed on the north-eastern end of
   the peninsula, at Cape Catoche. He was astonished at the size
   and solid materials of the buildings constructed of stone and
   lime, so different from the frail tenements of reeds and
   rushes which formed the habitations of the islanders. He was
   struck, also, with the higher cultivation of the soil, and
   with the delicate texture of the cotton garments and gold
   ornaments of the natives. Everything indicated a civilization
   far superior to anything he had before witnessed in the New
   World. He saw the evidence of a different race, moreover, in
   the warlike spirit of the people. ... Wherever they landed
   they were met with the most deadly hostility.
{62}
   Cordova himself, in one of his skirmishes with the Indians,
   received more than a dozen wounds, and one only of his party
   escaped unhurt. At length, when he had coasted the peninsula
   as far as Campeachy, he returned to Cuba, which he reached
   after an absence of several months. ... The reports he had
   brought back of the country, and, still more, the specimens of
   curiously wrought gold, convinced Velasquez [governor of Cuba]
   of the importance of this discovery, and he prepared with all
   despatch to avail himself of it. He accordingly fitted out a
   little squadron of four vessels for the newly discovered
   lands, and placed it under the command of his nephew, Juan de
   Grijalva, a man on whose probity, prudence, and attachment to
   himself he knew he could rely. The fleet left the port of St.
   Jago de Cuba, May 1, 1518. ... Grijalva soon passed over to
   the continent and coasted the peninsula, touching at the same
   places as his predecessor. Everywhere he was struck, like him,
   with the evidences of a higher civilization, especially in the
   architecture; as he well might be, since this was the region
   of those extraordinary remains which have become recently the
   subject of so much speculation. He was astonished, also, at
   the sight of large stone crosses, evidently objects of
   worship, which he met with in various places. Reminded by
   these circumstances of his own country, he gave the peninsula
   the name New Spain, a name since appropriated to a much wider
   extent of territory. Wherever Grijalva landed, he experienced
   the same unfriendly reception as Cordova, though he suffered
   less, being better prepared to meet it." He succeeded,
   however, at last, in opening a friendly conference and traffic
   with one of the chiefs, on the Rio de Tabasco, and "had the
   satisfaction of receiving, for a few worthless toys and
   trinkets, a rich treasure of jewels, gold ornaments and
   vessels, of the most fantastic forms and workmanship. Grijalva
   now thought that in this successful traffic--successful beyond
   his most sanguine expectations--he had accomplished the chief
   object of his mission." He therefore dispatched Alvarado, one
   of his captains, to Velasquez, with the treasure acquired, and
   continued his voyage along the coast, as far as the province
   of Panuco, returning to Cuba at the end of about six months
   from his departure. "On reaching the Island, he was surprised
   to learn that another and more formidable armament had been
   fitted out to follow up his own discoveries, and to find
   orders at the same time from the governor, couched in no very
   courteous language, to repair at once to St. Jago. He was
   received by that personage, not merely with coldness, but with
   reproaches, for having neglected so fair an opportunity of
   establishing a colony in the country he had visited."

      _W. H. Prescott, Conquest of Mexico, book 2, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN: C.
      _St. J. Fancourt, History of Yucatan, chapter 1-2._

      _Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Memoirs, V. 1, chapter 2-19._

AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
   The Spanish Conquest of Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1519-1524.

AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1524.
   The Voyage of Magellan and Sebastian del Cano.
   The New World passed and the Earth circumnavigated.
   The Congress at Badajos.

   Fernando Magellan, or Magalhaes, was "a disaffected Portuguese
   gentleman who had served his country for five years in the Indies
   under Albuquerque, and understood well the secrets of the
   Eastern trade. In 1517, conjointly with his geographical and
   astronomical friend, Ruy Falerio, another unrequited
   Portuguese, he offered his services to the Spanish court. At
   the same time these two friends proposed, not only to prove
   that the Moluccas were within the Spanish lines of
   demarkation, but to discover a passage thither different from
   that used by the Portuguese. Their schemes were listened to,
   adopted and carried out. The Straits of Magellan were
   discovered, the broad South Sea was crossed, the Ladrones and
   the Phillipines were inspected, the Moluccas were passed
   through, the Cape of Good Hope was doubled on the homeward
   voyage, and the globe was circumnavigated, all in less than
   three years, from 1519 to 1522. Magellan lost his life, and
   only one of his five ships returned [under Sebastian del Cano]
   to tell the marvelous story. The magnitude of the enterprise
   was equalled only by the magnitude of the results. The globe
   for the first time began to assume its true character and size
   in the minds of men, and the minds of men began soon to grasp
   and utilize the results of this circumnavigation for the
   enlargement of trade and commerce, and for the benefit of
   geography, astronomy, mathematics, and the other sciences.
   This wonderful story, is it not told in a thousand books? ...
   The Portuguese in India and the Spiceries, as well as at home,
   now seeing the inevitable conflict approaching, were
   thoroughly aroused to the importance of maintaining their
   rights. They openly asserted them, and pronounced this trade
   with the Moluccas by the Spanish an encroachment on their
   prior discoveries and possession, as well as a violation of
   the Papal Compact of 1494, and prepared themselves
   energetically for defense and offense. On the other hand, the
   Spaniards as openly declared that Magellan's fleet carried the
   first Christians to the Moluccas and by friendly intercourse
   with the kings of those islands, reduced them to Christian
   subjection and brought back letters and tribute to Cæsar.
   Hence these kings and their people came under the protection
   of Charles V. Besides this, the Spaniards claimed that the
   Moluccas were within the Spanish half, and were therefore
   doubly theirs. ... Matters thus waxing hot, King John of
   Portugal begged Charles V. to delay dispatching his new fleet
   until the disputed points could be discussed and settled.
   Charles, who boasted that he had rather be right than rich,
   consented, and the ships were staid. These two Christian
   princes, who owned all the newly discovered and to be
   discovered parts of the whole world between them by deed of
   gift of the Pope, agreed to meet in Congress at Badajos by
   their representatives, to discuss and settle all matters in
   dispute about the division of their patrimony, and to define
   and stake out their lands and waters, both parties agreeing to
   abide by the decision of the Congress. Accordingly, in the
   early spring of 1524, up went to this little border town
   four-and-twenty wise men, or thereabouts, chosen by each
   prince. They comprised the first judges, lawyers,
   mathematicians, astronomers, cosmographers, navigators and
   pilots of the land, among whose names were many honored now as
   then--such as Fernando Columbus, Sebastian Cabot, Estevan
   Gomez, Diego Ribero, etc. ... The debates and proceedings of
   this Congress, as reported by Peter Martyr, Oviedo, and
   Gomara, are very amusing, but no regular joint decision could
   be reached, the Portuguese declining to subscribe to the
   verdict of the Spaniards, inasmuch as it deprived them of the
   Moluccas. So each party published and proclaimed its own
   decision after the Congress broke up in confusion on the last
   day of May, 1524. It was, however, tacitly understood that the
   Moluccas fell to Spain, while Brazil, to the extent of two
   hundred leagues from Cape St. Augustine, fell to the
   Portuguese. ... However, much good resulted from this first
   geographical Congress. The extent and breadth of the Pacific
   were appreciated, and the influence of the Congress was soon
   after seen in the greatly improved maps, globes, and charts."

      _H. Stevens, History and Geographical Notes,
      1453-1530._

{63}

   "For three months and twenty days he [Magellan] sailed on the
   Pacific and never saw inhabited land. He was compelled by
   famine to strip off the pieces of skin and leather wherewith
   his rigging was here and there bound, to soak them in the sea
   and then soften them with warm water, so as to make a wretched
   food; to eat the sweepings of the ship and other loathsome
   matter'; to drink water gone putrid by keeping; and yet he
   resolutely held on his course, though his men were dying
   daily. ... In the whole history of human undertakings there is
   nothing that exceeds, if indeed there is anything that equals,
   this voyage of Magellan's. That of Columbus dwindles away in
   comparison. It is a display of superhuman courage, superhuman
   perseverance."

      _J. W. Draper, History of the Intellectual Development of
      Europe, chapter 19._

   "The voyage [of Magellan] ... was doubtless the greatest feat
   of navigation that has ever been performed, and nothing can be
   imagined that would surpass it except a journey to some other
   planet. It has not the unique historic position of the first
   voyage of Columbus, which brought together two streams of
   human life that had been disjoined since the Glacial Period.
   But as an achievement in ocean navigation that voyage of
   Columbus sinks into insignificance by the side of it, and when
   the earth was a second time encompassed by the greatest
   English sailor of his age, the advance in knowledge, as well
   as the different route chosen, had much reduced the difficulty
   of the performance. When we consider the frailness of the
   ships, the immeasurable extent of the unknown, the mutinies
   that were prevented or quelled, and the hardships that were
   endured, we can have no hesitation in speaking of Magellan as
   the prince of navigators."

      _J. Fiske, The Discovery of America, chapter 7 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN
      _Lord Stanley of Alderley, The First Voyage Round the
      World (Hakluyt Society, 1874)_.

      _R. Kerr, Collection of Voyages, volume 10._

AMERICA: A. D. 1519-1525.
   The Voyages of Garay and Ayllon.
   Discovery of the mouth of the Mississippi.
   Exploration of the Carolina Coast.

   In 1519, Francisco de Garay, governor of Jamaica, who had been
   one of the companions of Columbus on his second voyage, having
   heard of the richness and beauty of Yucatan, "at his own
   charge sent out four ships well equipped, and with good
   pilots, under the command of Alvarez Alonso de Pineda. His
   professed object was to search for some strait, west of
   Florida, which was not yet certainly known to form a part of
   the continent. The strait having been sought for in vain, his
   ships turned toward the west, attentively examining the ports,
   rivers, inhabitants, and everything else that seemed worthy of
   remark; and especially noticing the vast volume of water
   brought down by one very large stream. At last they came upon
   the track of Cortes near Vera Cruz. ... The carefully drawn
   map of the pilots showed distinctly the Mississippi, which, in
   this earliest authentic trace of its outlet, bears the name of
   the Espiritu Santo. ... But Garay thought not of the
   Mississippi and its valley: he coveted access to the wealth of
   Mexico; and, in 1523, lost fortune and life ingloriously in a
   dispute with Cortes for the government of the country on the
   river Panuco. A voyage for slaves brought the Spaniards in
   1520 still farther to the north. A company of seven, of whom
   the most distinguished was Lucas Vasquez de Ayllon, fitted out
   two slave ships from St. Domingo, in quest of laborers for
   their plantations and mines. From the Bahama Islands they
   passed to the coast of South Carolina, which was called
   Chicora. The Combahee river received the name of Jordan; the
   name of St. Helena, whose day is the 18th of August, was given
   to a cape, but now belongs to the sound." Luring a large
   number of the confiding natives on board their ships the
   adventurers treacherously set sail with them; but one of the
   vessels foundered at sea, and most of the captives on the
   other sickened and died. Vasquez de Ayllon was rewarded for
   his treacherous exploit by being authorized and appointed to
   make the conquest of Chicora. "For this bolder enterprise the
   undertaker wasted his fortune in preparations; in 1525 his
   largest ship was stranded in the river Jordan; many of his men
   were killed by the natives; and he himself escaped only to
   suffer from the consciousness of having done nothing worthy of
   honor. Yet it may be that ships, sailing under his authority,
   made the discovery of the Chesapeake and named it the bay of
   St. Mary; and perhaps even entered the bay of Delaware, which,
   in Spanish geography, was called St. Christopher's."

      _G. Bancroft, History of the U. 8., part 1, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN
      _H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
      volume 4, chapter 11, and volume 5, chapters 6-7._

      _W. G. Simms, History of S. Carolina, book 1, chapter 1._

AMERICA: A. D. 1523-1524.
   The Voyages of Verrazano.
   First undertakings of France in the New World.

   "It is constantly admitted in our history that our kings paid
   no attention to America before the year 1523. Then Francis I.,
   wishing to excite the emulation of his subjects in regard to
   navigation and commerce, as he had already so successfully in
   regard to the sciences and fine arts, ordered John Verazani,
   who was in his service, to go and explore the New Lands, which
   began to be much talked of in France. ... Verazani was
   accordingly sent, in 1523, with four ships to discover North
   America; but our historians have not spoken of his first
   expedition, and we should be in ignorance of it now, had not
   Ramusio preserved in his great collection a letter of Verazani
   himself, addressed to Francis I. and dated Dieppe, July 8,
   1524. In it he supposes the king already informed of the
   success and details of the voyage, so that he contents himself
   with stating that he sailed from Dieppe in four vessels, which
   he had safely brought back to that port. In January, 1524, he
   sailed with two ships, the Dauphine and the Normande, to
   cruise against the Spaniards. Towards the close of the same
   year, or early in the next, he again fitted out the Dauphine,
   on which, embarking with 50 men and provisions for eight
   months, he first sailed to the island of Madeira."

      _Father Charlevoix, History of New France
      (translated by J. G. Shea), book 1._

{64}

   "On the 17th of January, 1524, he [Verrazano] parted from the
   'Islas desiertas,' a well-known little group of islands near
   Madeira, and sailed at first westward, running in 25 days 500
   leagues, with a light and pleasant easterly breeze, along the
   northern border of the trade winds, in about 30° North. His track
   was consequently nearly like that of Columbus on his first
   voyage. On the 14th of February he met 'with as violent a
   hurricane as any ship ever encountered.' But he weathered it,
   and pursued his voyage to the west, 'with a little deviation
   to the north;' when, after having sailed 24 days and 400
   leagues, he descried a new country which, as he supposed, had
   never before been seen either by modern or ancient navigators.
   The country was very low. From the above description it is
   evident that Verrazano came in sight of the east coast of the
   United States about the 10th of March, 1524. He places his
   land-fall in 34° North, which is the latitude of Cape Fear." He
   first sailed southward, for about 50 leagues, he states,
   looking for a harbor and finding none. He then turned
   northward. "I infer that Verrazano saw little of the coast of
   South Carolina and nothing of that of Georgia, and that in
   these regions he can, at most, be called the discoverer only
   of the coast of North Carolina. ... He rounded Cape Hatteras,
   and at a distance of about 50 leagues came to another shore,
   where he anchored and spent several days. ... This was the
   second principal landing-place of Verrazano. If we reckon 50
   leagues from Cape Hatteras, it would fall somewhere upon the
   east coast of Delaware, in latitude 38° North, where, by some
   authors, it is thought to have been. But if, as appears most
   likely, Verrazano reckoned his distance here, as he did in
   other cases, from his last anchoring, and not from Cape
   Hatteras, we must look for his second landing somewhere south
   of the entrance to Chesapeake Bay, and near the entrance to
   Albemarle Sound. And this better agrees with the 'sail of 100
   leagues' which Verrazano says he made from his second to his
   third landing-place, in New York Bay. ... He found at this
   third landing station an excellent berth, where he came to
   anchor, well-protected from the winds, ... and from which he
   ascended the river in his boat into the interior. He found the
   shores very thickly settled, and as he passed up half a league
   further, he discovered a most beautiful lake ... of three
   leagues in circumference. Here, more than 30 canoes came to
   him with a multitude of people, who seemed very friendly. ...
   This description contains several accounts which make it still
   more clear that the Bay of New York was the scene of these
   occurrences."--Verrazano's anchorage having been at Gravesend
   Bay, the river which he entered being the Narrows, and the
   lake he found being the Inner Harbor. From New York Bay
   Verrazano sailed eastward, along the southern shore of Long
   Island, and following the New England coast, touching at or
   describing points which are identified with Narragansett Bay
   and Newport, Block Island or Martha's Vineyard, and
   Portsmouth. His coasting voyage was pursued as far as 50° North,
   from which point he sailed homeward. "He entered the port of
   Dieppe early in July, 1524. His whole exploring expedition,
   from Madeira and back, had accordingly lasted but five and a
   half months."

      _J. G. Kohl, History of the Discovery of Maine
      (Maine Historical Society Collection, 2d Series, volume 1),
      chapter 8._

      ALSO IN

      _G. Dexter, Cortereal, Verrazano, &c. (Narrative and
      Critical History of America, volume 4, chapter 1)._

      _Relation of Verrazano (New York Historical Society
      Collection, volume 1, and N. S., volume 1)_.

      _J. C. Brevoort, Verrazano the Navigator._

AMERICA: A. D. 1524-1528.
   The Explorations of Pizarro and Discovery of Peru.

   "The South Sea having been discovered, and the inhabitants of
   Tierra Firme having been conquered and pacified, the Governor
   Pedrarias de Avila founded and settled the cities of Panama
   and of Nata, and the town of Nombre de Dios. At this time the
   Captain Francisco Pizarro, son of the Captain Gonzalo Pizarro,
   a knight of the city of Truxillo, was living in the city of
   Panama; possessing his house, his farm and his Indians, as one
   of the principal people of the land, which indeed he always
   was, having distinguished himself in the conquest and
   settling, and in the service of his Majesty. Being at rest and
   in repose, but full of zeal to continue his labours and to
   perform other more distinguished services for the royal crown,
   he sought permission from Pedrarias to discover that coast of
   the South Sea to the eastward. He spent a large part of his
   fortune on a good ship which he built, and on necessary
   supplies for the voyage, and he set out from the city of
   Panama on the 14th day of the month of November, in the year
   1524. He had 112 Spaniards in his company, besides some Indian
   servants. He commenced a voyage in which they suffered many
   hardships, the season being winter and unpropitious." From
   this unsuccessful voyage, during which many of his men died of
   hunger and disease, and in the course of which he found no
   country that tempted his cupidity or his ambition, Pizarro
   returned after some months to "the land of Panama, landing at
   an Indian village near the island of Pearls, called Chuchama.
   Thence he sent the ship to Panama, for she had become
   unseaworthy by reason of the teredo; and all that had befallen
   was reported to Pedrarias, while the Captain remained behind
   to refresh himself and his companions. When the ship arrived
   at Panama it was found that, a few days before, the Captain
   Diego de Almagro had sailed in search of the Captain Pizarro,
   his companion, with another ship and 70 men." Almagro and his
   party followed the coast until they came to a great river,
   which they called San Juan [a few miles north of the port of
   Buenaventura, in New Granada]. ... They there found signs of
   gold, but there being no traces of the Captain Pizarro, the
   Captain Almagro returned to Chuchama, where he found his
   comrade. They agreed that the Captain Almagro should go to
   Panama, repair the ships, collect more men to continue the
   enterprise, and defray the expenses, which amounted to more
   than 10,000 castellanos. At Panama much obstruction was caused
   by Pedrarias and others, who said that the voyage should not
   be persisted in, and that his Majesty would not be served by
   it. The Captain Almagro, with the authority given him by his
   comrade, was very constant in prosecuting the work he had
   commenced, and ... Pedrarias was forced to allow him to engage men.
{65}
   He set out from Panama with 110 men; and went to
   the place where Pizarro waited with another 50 of the first
   110 who sailed with him, and of the 70 who accompanied Almagro
   when he went in search. The other 130 were dead. The two
   captains, in their two ships, sailed with 160 men, and coasted
   along the land. When they thought they saw signs of
   habitations, they went on shore in three canoes they had with
   them, rowed by 60 men, and so they sought for provisions. They
   continued to sail in this way for three years, suffering great
   hardships from hunger and cold. The greater part of the crews
   died of hunger, insomuch that there were not 50 surviving, and
   during all those three years they discovered no good land. All
   was swamp and inundated country, without inhabitants. The good
   country they discovered was as far as the river San Juan,
   where the Captain Pizarro remained with the few survivors,
   sending a captain with the smaller ship to discover some good
   land further along the coast. He sent the other ship, with the
   Captain Diego de Almagro to Panama to get more men. At the
   end of 70 days, the exploring ship came back with good
   reports, and with specimens of gold, silver and cloths, found
   in a country further south. "As soon as the Captain Almagro
   arrived from Panama with a ship laden with men and horses, the
   two ships, with their commanders and all their people, set out
   from the river San Juan, to go to that newly-discovered land.
   But the navigation was difficult; they were detained so long
   that the provisions were exhausted, and the people were
   obliged to go on shore in search of supplies. The ships
   reached the bay of San Mateo, and some villages to which the
   Spaniards gave the name of Santiago. Next they came to the
   villages of Tacamez [Atacames, on the coast of modern
   Ecuador], on the sea coast further on. These villages were
   seen by the Christians to be large and well peopled: and when
   90 Spaniards had advanced a league beyond the villages of
   Tacamez, more than 10,000 Indian warriors encountered them;
   but seeing that the Christians intended no evil, and did not
   wish to take their goods, but rather to treat them peacefully,
   with much love, the Indians desisted from war. In this land there
   were abundant supplies, and the people led well-ordered lives,
   the villages having their streets and squares. One village had
   more than 3,000 houses, and others were smaller. It seemed to
   the captains and to the other Spaniards that nothing could be
   done in that land by reason of the smallness of their numbers,
   which rendered them unable to cope with the Indians. So they
   agreed to load the ships with the supplies to be found in the
   villages, and to return to an island called Gallo, where they
   would be safe until the ships arrived at Panama with the news
   of what had been discovered, and to apply to the Governor for
   more men, in order that the Captains might be able to continue
   their undertaking, and conquer the land. Captain Almagro went
   in the ships. Many persons had written to the Governor
   entreating him to order the crews to return to Panama, saying
   that it was impossible to endure more hardships than they had
   suffered during the last three years. The Governor ordered
   that all those who wished to go to Panama might do so, while
   those who desired to continue the discoveries were at liberty
   to remain. Sixteen men stayed with Pizarro, and all the rest
   went back in the ships to Panama. The Captain Pizarro was on
   that island for five months, when one of the ships returned,
   in which he continued the discoveries for a hundred leagues
   further down the coast. They found many villages and great
   riches; and they brought away more specimens of gold, silver,
   and cloths than had been found before, which were presented by
   the natives. The Captain returned because the time granted by
   the governor had expired, and the last day of the period had
   been reached when he entered the port of Panama. The two
   Captains were so ruined that they could no longer prosecute
   their undertaking. ... The Captain Francisco Pizarro was only
   able to borrow a little more than 1,000 castellanos among his
   friends, with which sum he went to Castile, and gave an
   account to his Majesty of the great and signal services he had
   performed."

      _F. de Xeres (Sec. of Pizarro), Account of the Province
      of Cuzco; translated and edited by C. R. Markham 
	  (Hakluyt Society, 1872)._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. H. Prescott, History of the Conquest of Peru,
      book 2, chapters 2-4 (volume 1)._

AMERICA: A. D. 1525.
   The Voyage of Gomez.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): THE NAMES.

AMERICA: A. D. 1526-1531.
   Voyage of Sebastian Cabot and attempted colonization of La Plata.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

AMERICA: A. D. 1528-1542.
   The Florida Expeditions of Narvaez and Hernando de Soto.
   Discovery of the Mississippi.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

AMERICA: A. D. 1531-1533.
   Pizarro's Conquest of Peru.

      See PERU: A. D. 1528-1531, and 1531-1533.

AMERICA: A. D. 1533.
   Spanish Conquest of the Kingdom of Quito.

      See ECUADOR:

AMERICA: A. D. 1534-1535.
   Exploration of the St. Lawrence to Montreal by Jacques Cartier.

   "At last, ten years after [the voyages of Verrazano], Philip
   Chabot, Admiral of France, induced the king [Francis I.] to
   resume the project of founding a French colony in the New
   World whence the Spaniards daily drew such great wealth; and
   he presented to him a Captain of St. Malo, by name Jacques
   Cartier, whose merit he knew, and whom that prince accepted.
   Cartier having received his instructions, left St. Malo the 2d
   of April, 1534, with two ships of 60 tons and 122 men. He
   steered west, inclining slightly north, and had such fair
   winds that, on the 10th of May, he made Cape Bonavista, in
   Newfoundland, at 46° north. Cartier found the land there still
   covered with snow, and the shore fringed with ice, so that he
   could not or dared not stop; He ran down six degrees
   south-southeast, and entered a port to which he gave the name
   of St. Catharine. Thence he turned back north. ... After
   making almost the circuit of Newfoundland, though without
   being able to satisfy himself that it was an island, he took a
   southerly course, crossed the gulf, approached the continent,
   and entered a very deep bay, where he suffered greatly from
   heat, whence he called it Chaleurs Bay. He was charmed with
   the beauty of the country, and well pleased with the Indians
   that he met and with whom he exchanged some goods for furs.
   ... On leaving this bay, Cartier visited a good part of the
   coasts around the gulf, and took possession of the country in
   the name of the most Christian king, as Verazani had done in
   all the places where he landed.
{66}
   He set sail again on the 15th of August to return to France,
   and reached St. Malo safely on the 5th of September. ... On
   the report which he made of his voyage, the court concluded
   that it would be useful to France to have a settlement in that
   part of America; but no one took this affair more to heart
   than the Vice-Admiral Charles de Mony, Sieur de la Mailleraye.
   This noble obtained a new commission for Cartier, more ample
   than the first, and gave him three ships well equipped. This
   fleet was ready about the middle of May, and Cartier ...
   embarked on Wednesday the 19th." His three vessels were
   separated by violent storms, but found one another, near the
   close of July, in the gulf which was their appointed place of
   rendezvous. "On the 1st of August bad weather drove him to
   take refuge in the port of St. Nicholas, at the mouth of the
   river on the north. Here Cartier planted a cross, with the
   arms of France, and remained until the 7th. This port is
   almost the only spot in Canada that has kept the name given by
   Cartier. ... On the 10th the three vessels re-entered the
   gulf, and in honor of the saint whose feast is celebrated on
   that day, Cartier gave the gulf the name of St. Lawrence; or
   rather he gave it to a bay lying between Anticosti Island and
   the north shore, whence it extended to the whole gulf of which
   this bay is part; and because the river, before that called
   River of Canada, empties into the same gulf, it insensibly
   acquired the name of St. Lawrence, which it still bears. ...
   The three vessels ... ascended the river, and on the 1st of
   September they entered the river Saguenay. Cartier merely
   reconnoitered the mouth of this river, and ... hastened to
   seek a port where his vessels might winter in safety. Eight
   leagues above Isle aux Coudres he found another much larger
   and handsomer island, all covered with trees and vines. He
   called it Bacchus Island, but the name has been changed to
   Isle d'Orleans. The author of the relation to this voyage,
   printed under the name of Cartier, pretends that only here the
   country begins to be called Canada. But he is surely mistaken;
   for it is certain that from the earliest times the Indians
   gave this name to the whole country along the river on both
   sides, from its mouth to the Saguenay. From Bacchus Island,
   Cartier proceeded to a little river which is ten leagues off,
   and comes from the north; he called it Rivière de Ste Croix,
   because he entered it on the 14th of September (Feast of the
   Exaltation of the Holy Cross); but it is now commonly called
   Rivière de Jacques Cartier. The day after his arrival he
   received a visit from an Indian chief named Donnacona, whom
   the author of the relation of that voyage styles Lord of
   Canada. Cartier treated with this chief by means of two
   Indians whom he had taken to France the year before, and who
   knew a little French. They informed Donnacona that the
   strangers wished to go to Hochelaga, which seemed to trouble
   him. Hochelaga was a pretty large town, situated on an island
   now known under the name of Island of Montreal. Cartier had
   heard much of it, and was loth to return to France without
   seeing it. The reason why this voyage troubled Donnacona was
   that the people of Hochelaga were of a different nation from
   his, and that he wished to profit exclusively by the
   advantages which he hoped to derive from the stay of the
   French in his country." Proceeding with one vessel to Lake St.
   Pierre, and thence in two boats, Cartier reached Hochelaga
   Oct. 2. "The shape of the town was round, and three rows of
   palisades inclosed in it about 50 tunnel shaped cabins, each
   over 50 paces long and 14 or 15 wide. It was entered by a
   single gate, above which, as well as along the first palisade,
   ran a kind of gallery, reached by ladders, and well provided
   with pieces of rock and pebbles for the defence of the place.
   The inhabitants of the town spoke the Huron language. They
   received the French very well. ... Cartier visited the
   mountain at the foot of which the town lay, and gave it the
   name of Mont Royal, which has become that of the whole Island
   [Montreal]. From it he discovered a great extent of country,
   the sight of which charmed him. ... He left Hochelaga on the
   5th of October, and on the 11th arrived at Sainte Croix."
   Wintering at this place, where his crews suffered terribly
   from the cold and from scurvy, he returned to France the
   following spring. "Some authors ... pretend that Cartier,
   disgusted with Canada, dissuaded the king, his master, from
   further thoughts of it; and Champlain seems to have been of
   that opinion. But this does not agree with what Cartier
   himself says in his memoirs. ... Cartier in vain extolled the
   country which he had discovered. His small returns, and the
   wretched condition to which his men had been reduced by cold
   and scurvy, persuaded most that it would never be of any use
   to France. Great stress was laid on the fact that he nowhere
   saw any appearance of mines; and then, even more than now, a
   strange land which produced neither gold nor silver was
   reckoned as nothing."

      _Father Charlevoix, History of New France
      (translated by J. G. Shea), book 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _R. Kerr, General Collection of Voyages,
      part 2, book 2, chapter 12 (volume 6)_.

      _F. X. Garneau, History of Canada, volume 1, chapter 2._

AMERICA: A. D. 1535-1540.
   Introduction of Printing in Mexico.

      See PRINTING, &c.: A. D. 1535-1709.

AMERICA: A. D. 1535-1550.
   Spanish Conquests in Chile.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

AMERICA: A. D. 1536-1538.
   Spanish Conquests of New Granada.

      See COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

AMERICA: A. D. 1541-1603.
   Jacques Cartier's last Voyage.
   Abortive attempts at French Colonization in Canada.

   "Jean François de la Roque, lord of Roberval, a gentleman of
   Picardy, was the most earnest and energetic of those who
   desired to colonize the lands discovered by Jacques Cartier.
   ... The title and authority of lieutenant-general was
   conferred upon him; his rule to extend over Canada. Hochelaga,
   Saguenay, Newfoundland, Belle Isle, Carpon, Labrador, La Grand
   Baye, and Baccalaos, with the delegated rights and powers of
   the Crown. This patent was dated the 15th of January, 1540.
   Jacques Cartier was named second in command. ... Jacques
   Cartier sailed on the 23d of May, 1541, having provisioned his
   fleet for two years." He remained on the St. Lawrence until
   the following June, seeking vainly for the fabled wealth of
   the land of Saguenay, finding the Indians strongly inclined to
   a treacherous hostility, and suffering severe hardships during
   the winter. Entirely discouraged and disgusted, he abandoned
   his undertaking early in the summer of 1542, and sailed for home.
{67}
   In the road of St. John's, Newfoundland, Cartier met his tardy
   chief, Roberval, just coming to join him; but no persuasion
   could induce the disappointed explorer to turn back. "To avoid
   the chance of an open rupture with Roberval, the lieutenant
   silently weighed anchor during the night, and made all sail
   for France. This inglorious withdrawal from the enterprise
   paralyzed Roberval's power, and deferred the permanent
   settlement of Canada for generations then unborn. Jacques
   Cartier died soon after his return to Europe." Roberval
   proceeded to Canada, built a fort at Ste Croix, four leagues
   west of Orleans, sent back two of his three ships to France,
   and remained through the winter with his colony, having a
   troubled time. There is no certain account of the ending of
   the enterprise, but it ended in failure. For half a century
   afterwards there was little attempt made by the French to
   colonize any part of New France, though the French fisheries
   on the Newfoundland Bank and in the Gulf of St. Lawrence were
   steadily growing in activity and importance. "When, after
   fifty years of civil strife, the strong and wise sway of Henry
   IV. restored rest to troubled France, the spirit of discovery
   again arose. The Marquis de In Roche, a Breton gentleman,
   obtained from the king, in 1598, a patent granting the same
   powers that Roberval had possessed." But La Roche's
   undertaking proved more disastrous than Roberval's had been.
   Yet, there had been enough of successful fur-trading opened to
   stimulate enterprise, despite these misfortunes. "Private
   adventurers, unprotected by any special privilege, began to
   barter for the rich peltries of the Canadian hunters. A
   wealthy merchant of St. Malo, named Pontgravé, was the boldest
   and most successful of these traders; he made several voyages
   to Tadoussac, at the mouth of the Saguenay, bringing back each
   time a rich cargo of rare and valuable furs." In 1600,
   Pontgravé effected a partnership with one Chauvin, a naval
   captain, who obtained a patent from the king giving him a
   monopoly of the trade; but Chauvin died in 1602 without having
   succeeded in establishing even a trading post at Tadoussac. De
   Chatte, or De Chastes, governor of Dieppe, succeeded to the
   privileges of Chauvin, and founded a company of merchants at
   Rouen [1603] to undertake the development of the resources of
   Canada. It was under the auspices of this company that Samuel
   Champlain, the founder of New France, came upon the scene.

      _E. Warburton, The Conquest of Canada, volume 1, chapter 2-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. Parkman, Pioneers of France in the New World:
      Champlain, chapter 1-2._

AMERICA: A. D. 1562-1567.
   The slave trading Voyages of John Hawkins.
   Beginnings of English Enterprise in the New World.

   "The history of English America begins with the three
   slave-trading voyages of John Hawkins, made in the years 1562,
   1564, and 1567. Nothing that Englishmen had done in connection
   with America, previously to those voyages, had any result
   worth recording. England had known the New World nearly
   seventy years, for John Cabot reached it shortly after its
   discovery by Columbus; and, as the tidings of the discovery
   spread, many English adventurers had crossed the Atlantic to
   the American coast. But as years passed, and the excitement of
   novelty subsided, the English voyages to America had become
   fewer and fewer, and at length ceased altogether. It is easy
   to account for this. There was no opening for conquest or
   plunder, for the Tudors were at peace with the Spanish
   sovereigns: and there could be no territorial occupation, for
   the Papal title of Spain and Portugal to the whole of the new
   continent could not be disputed by Catholic England. No trade
   worth having existed with the natives: and Spain and Portugal
   kept the trade with their own settlers in their own hands. ...
   As the plantations in America grew and multiplied, the demand
   for negroes rapidly increased. The Spaniards had no African
   settlements, but the Portuguese had many, and, with the aid of
   French and English adventurers, they procured from these
   settlements slaves enough to supply both themselves and the
   Spaniards. But the Brazilian plantations grew so fast, about
   the middle of the century, that they absorbed the entire
   supply, and the Spanish colonists knew not where to look for
   negroes. This penury of slaves in the Spanish Indies became
   known to the English and French captains who frequented the
   Guinea coast; and John Hawkins, who had been engaged from
   boyhood in the trade with Spain and the Canaries, resolved in
   1562 to take a cargo of negro slaves to Hispaniola. The little
   squadron with which he executed this project was the first
   English squadron which navigated the West Indian seas. This
   voyage opened those seas to the English. England had not yet
   broken with Spain, and the law excluding English vessels from
   trading with the Spanish colonists was not strictly enforced.
   The trade was profitable, and Hawkins found no difficulty in
   disposing of his cargo to great advantage. A meagre note ...
   from the pen of Hakluyt contains all that is known of the
   first American voyage of Hawkins. In its details it must have
   closely resembled the second voyage. In the first voyage,
   however, Hawkins had no occasion to carry his wares further
   than three ports on the northern side of Hispaniola. These
   ports, far away from San Domingo, the capital, were already
   well known to the French smugglers. He did not venture into
   the Caribbean Sea; and having loaded his ships with their
   return cargo, he made the best of his way back. In his second
   voyage ... he entered the Caribbean Sea, still keeping,
   however, at a safe distance from San Domingo, and sold his
   slaves on the mainland. This voyage was on a much larger
   scale. ... Having sold his slaves in the continental ports
   [South American], and loaded his vessels with hides and other
   goods bought with the produce, Hawkins determined to strike
   out a new path and sail home with the Gulf-stream, which would
   carry him northwards past the shores of Florida. Sparke's
   narrative ... proves that at every point in these expeditions
   the Englishman was following in the track of the French. He
   had French pilots and seamen on board, and there is little
   doubt that one at least of these had already been with
   Laudonnière in Florida. The French seamen guided him to
   Laudonnière's settlement, where his arrival was most opportune.
   They then pointed him the way by the coast of North America,
   then universally know in the mass as New France, to
   Newfoundland, and thence, with the prevailing westerly winds,
   to Europe.
{68}
   This was the pioneer voyage made by Englishmen along coasts
   afterwards famous in history through English colonization. ...
   The extremely interesting narrative ... given ... from the pen
   of John Sparke, one of Hawkins' gentlemen companions ...
   contains the first information concerning America and its
   natives which was published in England by an English
   eye-witness." Hawkins planned a third voyage in 1566, but the
   remonstrances of the Spanish king caused him to be stopped by
   the English court. He sent out his ships, however, and they
   came home in due time richly freighted,--from what source is
   not known. "In another year's time the aspect of things had
   changed." England was venturing into war with Spain, "and
   Hawkins was now able to execute his plans without restraint,
   He founded a permanent fortified factory on the Guinea coast,
   where negroes might be collected all the year round. Thence he
   sailed for the West Indies a third time. Young Francis Drake
   sailed with him in command of the 'Judith,' a small vessel of
   fifty tons." The voyage had a prosperous beginning and a
   disastrous ending. After disposing of most of their slaves,
   they were driven by storms to take refuge in the Mexican port
   of Vera Cruz, and there they were attacked by a Spanish fleet.
   Drake in the "Judith" and Hawkins in another small vessel
   escaped. But the latter was overcrowded with men and obliged
   to put half of them ashore on the Mexican coast. The majority
   of those left on board, as well as a majority of Drake's crew,
   died on the voyage home, and it was a miserable remnant that
   landed in England, in January, 1569.

      _E. J. Payne, Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen to
      America, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _The Hawkins Voyages; edited by C. R. Markham
      (Hakluyt Society, No. 57)_.

      _R. Southey, Lives of the British Admirals, volume 3._

AMERICA: A. D. 1572-1580.
   The Piratical Adventures of Drake and his Encompassing of the
   World.

   "Francis Drake, the first of the English Buccaneers, was one
   of the twelve children of Edward Drake of Tavistock, in
   Devonshire, a staunch Protestant, who had fled his native
   place to avoid persecution, and had then become a ship's
   chaplain. Drake, like Columbus, had been a seaman by
   profession from boyhood; and ... had served as a young man, in
   command of the Judith, under Hawkins, ... Hawkins had confined
   himself to smuggling: Drake advanced from this to piracy. This
   practice was authorized by law in the middle ages for the
   purpose of recovering debts or damages from the subjects of
   another nation. The English, especially those of the west
   country, were the most formidable pirates in the world; and
   the whole nation was by this time roused against Spain, in
   consequence of the ruthless war waged against Protestantism in
   the Netherlands by Philip II. Drake had accounts of his own to
   settle with the Spaniards. Though Elizabeth had not declared
   for the revolted States, and pursued a shifting policy, her
   interests and theirs were identical; and it was with a view of
   cutting off those supplies of gold and silver from America
   which enabled Philip to bribe politicians and pay soldiers, in
   pursuit of his policy of aggression, that the famous voyage
   was authorized by English statesmen. Drake had recently made
   more than one successful voyage of plunder to the American
   coast." In July, 1572, he surprised the Spanish town of Nombre
   de Dios, which was the shipping port on the northern side of
   the Isthmus for the treasures of Peru. His men made their way
   into the royal treasure-house, where they laid hands on a heap
   of bar-silver, 70 feet long, 10 wide, and 10 high; but Drake
   himself had received a wound which compelled the pirates to
   retreat with no very large part of the splendid booty. In the
   winter of 1573, with the help of the runaway slaves on the
   Isthmus, known as Cimarrones, he crossed the Isthmus, looked
   on the Pacific ocean, approached within sight of the city of
   Panama, and waylaid a transportation party conveying gold to
   Nombre de Dios; but was disappointed of his prey by the
   excited conduct of some of his men. When he saw, on this
   occasion, the great ocean beyond the Isthmus, "Drake then and
   there resolved to be the pioneer of England in the Pacific;
   and on this resolution he solemnly besought the blessing of
   God. Nearly four years elapsed before it was executed; for it
   was not until November, 1577, that Drake embarked on his
   famous voyage, in the course of which he proposed to plunder
   Peru itself. The Peruvian ports were unfortified. The
   Spaniards knew them to be by nature absolutely secured from
   attack on the north; and they never dreamed that the English
   pirates would be daring enough to pass the terrible straits of
   Magellan and attack them from the south. Such was the plan of
   Drake; and it was executed with complete success." He sailed
   from Plymouth, Dec. 13, 1577, with a fleet of four vessels,
   and a pinnace, but lost one of the ships after he had entered
   the Pacific, in a storm which drove him southward, and which
   made him the discoverer of Cape Horn. Another of his ships,
   separated from the squadron, returned home, and a third, while
   attempting to do the same, was lost in the river Plate. Drake,
   in his own vessel, the Golden Hind, proceeded to the Peruvian
   coasts, where he cruised until be had taken and plundered a
   score of Spanish ships. "Laden with a rich booty of Peruvian
   treasure he deemed it unsafe to return by the way that he
   came. He therefore resolved to strike across the Pacific, and
   for this purpose made the latitude in which this voyage was
   usually performed by the Spanish government vessels which
   sailed annually from Acapulco to the Philippines. Drake thus
   reached the coast of California, where the Indians, delighted
   beyond measure by presents of clothing and trinkets, invited
   him to remain and rule over them. Drake took possession of the
   country in the name of the Queen, and refitted his vessel in
   preparation for the unknown perils of the Pacific. The place
   where He landed must have been either the great bay of San
   Francisco [per contra., see CALIFORNIA: A. D. 1846-1847] or
   the small bay of Bodega, which lies a few leagues further
   north. The great seaman had already coasted five degrees more
   to the northward before finding a suitable harbour. He
   believed himself to be the first European who had coasted
   these shores; but it is now well known that Spanish explorers
   had preceded him. Drake's circumnavigation of the globe was
   thus no deliberate feat of seamanship, but the necessary
   result of circumstances. The voyage made in more than one way
   a great epoch in English nautical history." Drake reached
   Plymouth on his return Sept. 26, 1580.

      _E. J. Payne, Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen, pages
      141-143._

      ALSO IN
      _F. Fletcher, The World Encompassed by Sir F. Drake
      (Hakluyt Society, 1854)_.

      _J. Barrow, Life of Drake._

      _R. Southey, Lives of British Admirals, volume 3._

{69}

AMERICA: A. D. 1580.
   The final founding of the City of Buenos Ayres.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC; A. D: 1580-1777.

AMERICA: A. D. 1583.
   The Expedition of Sir Humphrey Gilbert.
   Formal possession taken of Newfoundland.

   In 1578, Sir Humphrey Gilbert, an English gentleman, of
   Devonshire, whose younger half-brother was the more famous Sir
   Walter Raleigh, obtained from Queen Elizabeth a charter
   empowering him, for the next six years, to discover "such
   remote heathen and barbarous lands, not actually possessed by
   any Christian prince or people," as he might be shrewd or
   fortunate enough to find, and to occupy the same as their
   proprietor. Gilbert's first expedition was attempted the next
   year, with Sir Walter Raleigh associated in it; but
   misfortunes drove back the adventurers to port, and Spanish
   intrigue prevented their sailing again. "In June, 1583,
   Gilbert sailed from Cawsund Bay with five vessels, with the
   general intention of discovering and colonizing the northern
   parts of America. It was the first colonizing expedition which
   left the shores of Great Britain; and the narrative of the
   expedition by Hayes, who commanded one of Gilbert's vessels,
   forms the first page in the history of English colonization.
   Gilbert did no more than go through the empty form of taking
   possession of the island of Newfoundland, to which the English
   name formerly applied to the continent in general ... was now
   restricted. ... Gilbert dallied here too long. When he set
   sail to cross the Gulf of St. Lawrence and take possession of
   Cape Breton and Nova Scotia the season was too far advanced;
   one of his largest ships went down with all on board,
   including the Hungarian scholar Parmenius, who had come out as
   the historian of the expedition; the stores were exhausted and
   the crews dispirited; and Gilbert resolved on sailing home,
   intending to return and prosecute his discoveries the next
   spring. On the home voyage the little vessel in which he was
   sailing foundered; and the pioneer of English colonization
   found a watery grave. ... Gilbert was a man of courage, piety,
   and learning. He was, however, an indifferent seaman, and
   quite incompetent for the task of colonization to which he had
   set his hand. The misfortunes of his expedition induced Amadas
   and Barlow, who followed in his steps, to abandon the
   northward voyage and sail to the shores intended to be
   occupied by the easier but more circuitous route of the
   Canaries and the West Indies."

      _E. J. Payne, Voyages of the Elizabethan Seamen,
      pages 173-174._

   "On Monday, the 9th of September, in the afternoon, the
   frigate [the' Squirrel'] was near cast away, oppressed by
   waves, yet at that time recovered; and giving forth signs of
   joy, the general, sitting abaft with a book in his hand, cried
   out to us in the 'Hind' (so oft as we did approach within
   hearing), 'We are as near to heaven by sea as by land,'
   reiterating the same speech, well beseeming a soldier resolute
   in Jesus Christ, as I can testify he was. On the same Monday
   night, about twelve o'clock, or not long after, the frigate
   being ahead of us in the 'Golden Hind,' suddenly her lights
   were out, whereof as it were in a moment we lost the sight,
   and withal our watch cried the General was cast away, which
   was too true; for in that moment the frigate was devoured and
   swallowed up by the sea. Yet still we looked out all that
   night and ever after, until we arrived upon the coast of
   England. ... In great torment of weather and peril of drowning
   it pleased God to send safe home the 'Golden Hind,' which
   arrived in Falmouth on the 22d of September, being Sunday."

      _E. Hayes, A Report of the Voyage by Sir Humphrey Gilbert
      (reprinted in Payne's Voyages)._

      ALSO IN
      _E. Edwards, Life of Raleigh, volume 1, chapter 5._

      _R. Hakluyt, Principal Navigations; edited by E. Goldsmid,
      volume 12._

AMERICA: A. D. 1584-1586.
   Raleigh's First Colonizing attempts and failures.

   "The task in which Gilbert had failed was to be undertaken by
   one better qualified to carry it out. If any Englishman in
   that age seemed to be marked out as the founder of a colonial
   empire, it was Raleigh. Like Gilbert, he had studied books;
   like Drake he could rule men. ... The associations of his
   youth, and the training of his early manhood, fitted him to
   sympathize with the aims of his half-brother Gilbert, and
   there is little reason to doubt that Raleigh had a share in
   his undertaking and his failure. In 1584 he obtained a patent
   precisely similar to Gilbert's. His first step showed the
   thoughtful and well-planned system on which he began his task.
   Two ships were sent out, not with any idea of settlement, but
   to examine and report upon the country. Their commanders were
   Arthur Barlow and Philip Amidas. To the former we owe the
   extant record of the voyage: the name of the latter would
   suggest that he was a foreigner. Whether by chance or design,
   they took a more southerly course than any of their
   predecessors. On the 2d of July the presence of shallow water,
   and a smell of sweet flowers, warned them that land was near.
   The promise thus given was amply fulfilled upon their
   approach. The sight before them was far different from that
   which had met the eyes of Hore and Gilbert. Instead of the
   bleak coast of Newfoundland, Barlow and Amidas looked upon a
   scene which might recall the softness of the Mediterranean.
   ... Coasting along for about 120 miles, the voyagers reached
   an inlet and with some difficulty entered. They then solemnly
   took possession of the land in the Queen's name, and then
   delivered it over to Raleigh according to his patent. They
   soon discovered that the land upon which they had touched was
   an island about 20 miles long, and not above six broad, named,
   as they afterwards learnt, Roanoke. Beyond, separating them
   from the mainland, lay an enclosed sea, studded with more than
   a hundred fertile and well-wooded islets." The Indians proved
   friendly, and were described by Barlow as being "most gentle,
   loving and faithful, void of all guile and treason, and such
   as live after the manner of the golden age." "The report which
   the voyagers took home spoke as favourably of the land itself
   as of its inhabitants. ... With them they brought two of the
   savages, named Wanchese and Manteo. A probable tradition tells
   us that the queen herself named the country Virginia, and that
   Raleigh's knighthood was the reward and acknowledgment of his
   success.
{70}
   On the strength of this report Raleigh at once made
   preparations for a settlement. A fleet of seven ships was
   provided for the conveyance of 108 settlers. The fleet was
   under the command of Sir Richard Grenvillle, who was to
   establish the settlement and leave it under the charge of
   Ralph Lane. ... On the 9th of April [1585] the emigrants set
   sail." For some reason not well explained, the fleet made a
   circuit to the West Indies, and loitered for five weeks at the
   island of St. John's and at Hispaniola, reaching Virginia in
   the last days of June. Quarrels between the two commanders,
   Grenville and Lane, had already begun, and both seemed equally
   ready to provoke the enmity of the natives. In August, after
   exploring some sixty miles of the coast, Grenville returned to
   England, promising to come back the next spring with new
   colonists and stores. The settlement, thus left to the care of
   Lane, was established "at the north-east corner of the island
   of Roanoke, whence the settlers could command the strait.
   There, even now, choked by vines and underwood, and here and
   there broken by the crumbling remains of an earthen bastion,
   may be traced the outlines of the ditch which enclosed the
   camp, some forty yards square, the home of the first English
   settlers in the New World. Of the doings of the settlers
   during the winter nothing is recorded, but by the next spring
   their prospects looked gloomy. The Indians were no longer
   friends. ... The settlers, unable to make fishing weirs, and
   without seed corn, were entirely dependent on the Indians for
   their daily food. Under these circumstances, one would have
   supposed that Lane would have best employed himself in
   guarding the settlement and improving its condition. He,
   however, thought otherwise, and applied himself to the task of
   exploring the neighbouring territory." But a wide combination
   of hostile Indian tribes had been formed against the English,
   and their situation became from day to day more imperilled. At
   the beginning of June, 1586, Lane fought a bold battle with
   the savages and routed them; but no sign of Grenville appeared
   and the prospect looked hopeless. Just at this juncture, a
   great English fleet, sailing homewards from a piratical
   expedition to the Spanish Main, under the famous Captain
   Drake, came to anchor at Roanoke and offered succor to the
   disheartened colonists. With one voice they petitioned to be
   taken to England, and Drake received the whole party on board
   his ships. "The help of which the colonists had despaired was
   in reality close at hand. Scarcely had Drake's fleet left the
   coast when a ship well furnished by Raleigh with needful
   supplies, reached Virginia, and after searching for the
   departed settlers returned to England. About a fortnight later
   Grenville himself arrived with three ships. He spent some time in
   the country exploring, searching for the settlers, and at last,
   unwilling to lose possession of the country, landed fifteen
   men at Roanoke well supplied for two years, and then set sail
   for England, plundering the Azores, and doing much damage to
   the Spaniards."

      _J. A. Doyle, The English in America: Virginia, &c.,
      chapter 4_.

   "It seems to be generally admitted that, when Lane and his
   company went back to England, they carried with them tobacco
   as one of the products of the country, which they presented to
   Raleigh, as the planter of the colony, and by him it was
   brought into use in England, and gradually in other European
   countries. The authorities are not entirely agreed upon this
   point. Josselyn says: 'Tobacco first brought into England by
   Sir John Hawkins, but first brought into use by Sir Walter
   Rawleigh many years after.' Again he says: 'Now (say some)
   Tobacco was first brought into England by Mr. Ralph Lane, out
   of Virginia. Others will have Tobacco to be first brought into
   England from Peru, by Sir Francis Drake's Mariners.' Camden
   fixes its introduction into England by Ralph Lane and the men
   brought back with him in the ships of Drake. He says: 'And
   these men which were brought back were the first that I know
   of, which brought into England that Indian plant which they
   call Tobacco and Nicotia, and use it against crudities, being
   taught it by the Indians.' Certainly from that time it began
   to be in great request, and to be sold at a high rate. ...
   Among the 108 men left in the colony with Ralph Lane in 1585
   was Mr. Thomas Hariot, a man of a strongly mathematical and
   scientific turn, whose services in this connection were
   greatly valued. He remained there an entire year, and went
   back to England in 1586. He wrote out a full account of his
   observations in the New World."

      _L. N. Tarbox, Sir Walter Raleigh and his Colony (Prince
      Society 1884)._

      ALSO IN
      _T. Hariot, Brief and true Report (Reprinted in
      above-named Prince Society Publication)._

      _F. L. Hawks, History of North Carolina, volume 1 (containing
      reprints of Lane's Account, Hariot's Report, &c.)_

      _Original Documents edited by E. E. Hale
      (Archæologia Americana, volume 4)._

AMERICA: A. D. 1587-1590.
   The Lost Colony of Roanoke.
   End of the Virginia Undertakings of Sir Walter Raleigh.

   "Raleigh, undismayed by losses, determined to plant an
   agricultural state; to send emigrants with their wives and
   families, who should make their homes in the New World; and,
   that life and property might be secured, in January, 1587, he
   granted a charter for the settlement, and a municipal
   government for the city of 'Raleigh.' John White was appointed
   its governor; and to him, with eleven assistants, the
   administration of the colony was intrusted. Transport ships
   were prepared at the expense of the proprietary; 'Queen
   Elizabeth, the godmother of Virginia,' declined contributing
   'to its education.' Embarking in April, in July they arrived
   on the coast of North Carolina; they were saved from the
   dangers of Cape Fear; and, passing Cape Hatteras, they
   hastened to the isle of Roanoke, to search for the handful of
   men whom Grenville had left there as a garrison. They found
   the tenements deserted and overgrown with weeds; human bones
   lay scattered on the field where wild deer were reposing. The
   fort was in ruins. No vestige of surviving life appeared. The
   instructions of Raleigh had designated the place for the new
   settlement on the bay of Chesapeake. But Fernando, the naval
   officer, eager to renew a profitable traffic in the West
   Indies, refused his assistance in exploring the coast, and
   White was compelled to remain on Roanoke. ... It was there
   that in July the foundations of the city of Raleigh were laid.
   But the colony was doomed to disaster from the beginning,
   being quickly involved in warfare with the surrounding
   natives. "With the returning ship White embarked for England,
   under the excuse of interceding for re-enforcements and
   supplies.
{71}
   Yet, on the 18th of August, nine days previous to
   his departure, his daughter Eleanor Dare, the wife of one of
   the assistants, gave birth to a female child, the first
   offspring of English parents on the soil of the United States.
   The infant was named from the place of its birth. The colony,
   now composed of 89 men, 17 women, and two children, whose
   names are all preserved, might reasonably hope for the speedy
   return of the governor, as he left with them his daughter and
   his grandchild, Virginia Dare. The farther history of this
   plantation is involved in gloomy uncertainty. The inhabitants
   of 'the city of Raleigh,' the emigrants from England and the
   first-born of America, awaited death in the land of their
   adoption. For, when White reached England, he found its
   attention absorbed by the threats of an invasion from Spain.
   ... Yet Raleigh, whose patriotism did not diminish his
   generosity, found means, in April 1588, to despatch White with
   supplies in two vessels. But the company, desiring a gainful
   voyage rather than a safe one, ran in chase of prizes, till
   one of them fell in with men of war from Rochelle, and, after
   a bloody fight, was boarded and rifled. Both ships were
   compelled to return to England. The delay was fatal: the
   English kingdom and the Protestant reformation were in danger;
   nor could the poor colonists of Roanoke be again remembered
   till after the discomfiture of the Invincible Armada. Even
   then Sir Walter Raleigh, who had already incurred a fruitless
   expense of £40,000, found his impaired fortune insufficient
   for further attempts at colonizing Virginia. He therefore used
   the privilege of his patent to endow a company of merchants
   and adventurers with large concessions. Among the men who thus
   obtained an assignment of the proprietary's rights in Virginia
   is found the name of Richard Hakluyt; it connects the first
   efforts of England in North Carolina with the final
   colonization of Virginia. The colonists at Roanoke had
   emigrated with a charter; the instrument of March, 1589, was
   not an assignment of Raleigh's patent, but the extension of a
   grant, already held under its sanction by increasing the
   number to whom the rights of that charter belonged. More than
   another year elapsed before White could return to search for
   his colony and his daughter; and then the island of Roanoke
   was a desert. An inscription on the bark of a tree pointed to
   Croatan; but the season of the year and the dangers from
   storms were pleaded as an excuse for an immediate return. The
   conjecture has been hazarded that the deserted colony,
   neglected by their own countrymen, were hospitably adopted
   into the tribe [the Croatans] of Hatteras Indians. Raleigh
   long cherished the hope of discovering some vestiges of their
   existence, and sent at his own charge, and, it is said, at
   five several times, to search for his liege men. But
   imagination received no help in its attempts to trace the fate
   of the colony of Roanoke."

      _G. Bancroft, History of the United States,
      part 1, ch.5 (volume 1)_.

   "The Croatans of to-day claim descent from the lost colony.
   Their habits, disposition and mental characteristics show
   traces both of savage and civilized ancestors. Their language
   is the English of 300 years ago, and their names are in many
   cases the same as those borne by the original colonists. No
   other theory of their origin has been advanced."

      _S. B. Weeks, The Lost Colony of Roanoke (American
      History Association Papers, volume 5, part 4)_.

   "This last expedition [of White, searching for his lost
   colony] was not despatched by Raleigh, but by his successors
   in the American patent. And our history is now to take leave
   of that illustrious man, with whose schemes and enterprises it
   ceases to have any further connexion. The ardour of his mind
   was not exhausted, but diverted by a multiplicity of new and
   not less arduous undertakings. ... Desirous, at the same time,
   that a project which he had carried so far should not be
   entirely abandoned, and hoping that the spirit of commerce
   would preserve an intercourse with Virginia that might
   terminate in a colonial establishment, he consented to assign
   his patent to Sir Thomas Smith, and a company of merchants in
   London, who undertook to establish and maintain a traffic
   between England and Virginia. ... It appeared very soon that
   Raleigh had transferred his patent to bands very different
   from his own. ... Satisfied with a paltry traffic carried on
   by a few small vessels, they made no attempt to take
   possession of the country: and at the period of Elizabeth's
   death, not a single Englishman was settled in America."

      _J. Grahame, History of the Rise and Progress of the
      United States of North America till 1688, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN
      _W. Stith, History of Va., book 1._

      _F. L. Hawks, History of N. C., volume 1, Nos. 7-8._

AMERICA: A. D. 1602-1605.
   The Voyages of Gosnold, Pring, and Weymouth.
   The First Englishmen In New England.

   Bartholomew Gosnold was a West-of-England mariner who had
   served in the expeditions of Sir Walter Raleigh to the
   Virginia coast. Under his command, in the spring of 1602,
   "with the consent of Sir Walter Raleigh, and at the cost,
   among others, of Henry Wriothesley, Earl of Southampton, the
   accomplished patron of Shakespeare, a small vessel, called the
   Concord, was equipped for exploration in 'the north part of
   Virginia,' with a view to the establishment of a colony. At
   this time, in the last year of the Tudor dynasty, and nineteen
   years after the fatal termination of Gilbert's enterprise,
   there was no European Inhabitant of North America, except
   those of Spanish birth in Florida, and some twenty or thirty
   French, the miserable relics of two frustrated attempts to
   settle what they called New France. Gosnold sailed from
   Falmouth with a company of thirty-two persons, of whom eight
   were seamen, and twenty were to become planters. Taking a
   straight course across the Atlantic, instead of the indirect
   course by the Canaries and the West Indies which had been
   hitherto pursued in voyages to Virginia, at the end of seven
   weeks he saw land in Massachusetts Bay, probably near what is
   now Salem Harbor. Here a boat came off, of Basque build,
   manned by eight natives, of whom two or three were dressed in
   European clothes, indicating the presence of earlier foreign
   voyagers in these waters. Next he stood to the southward, and
   his crew took great quantities of codfish by a head land,
   called by him for that reason Cape Cod, the name which it
   retains. Gosnold, Brereton, and three others, went on shore,
   the first Englishmen who are known to have set foot upon the
   soil of Massachusetts. ... Sounding his way cautiously along,
   first in a southerly, and then in a westerly direction, and
   probably passing to the south of Nantucket, Gosnold next
   landed on a small island, now called No Man's Land.
{72}
   To this he gave the name of Martha's Vineyard, since
   transferred to the larger island further north. ... South of
   Buzzard's Bay, and separated on the south by the Vineyard
   Sound from Martha's Vineyard, is scattered the group denoted
   on modern maps as the Elizabeth Islands. The southwesternmost
   of these, now known by the Indian name of Cuttyhunk, was
   denominated by Gosnold Elizabeth Island. ... Here Gosnold
   found a pond two miles in circumference, separated from the
   sea on one side by a beach thirty yards wide, and enclosing 'a
   rocky islet, containing near an acre of ground, full of wood and
   rubbish.' This islet was fixed upon for a settlement. In three
   weeks, while a part of the company were absent on a trading
   expedition to the mainland, the rest dug and stoned a cellar,
   prepared timber and built a house, which they fortified with
   palisades, and thatched with sedge. Proceeding to make an
   inventory of their provisions, they found that, after
   supplying the vessel, which was to take twelve men on the
   return voyage, there would be a sufficiency for only six weeks
   for the twenty men who would remain. A dispute arose upon the
   question whether the party to be left behind would receive a
   share in the proceeds of the cargo of cedar, sassafras, furs,
   and other commodities which had been collected. A small party,
   going out in quest of shell-fish, was attacked by some
   Indians. With men having already, it is likely, little stomach
   for such cheerless work, these circumstances easily led to the
   decision to abandon for the present the scheme of a
   settlement, and in the following month the adventurers sailed
   for England, and, after a voyage of five weeks, arrived at
   Exmouth. ... The expedition of Gosnold was pregnant with
   consequences, though their development was slow. The accounts
   of the hitherto unknown country, which were circulated by his
   company on their return, excited an earnest interest." The
   next year (April, 1603), Martin Pring or Prynne was sent out,
   by several merchants of Bristol, with two small vessels.
   seeking cargoes of sassafras, which had acquired a high value
   on account of supposed medicinal virtues. Pring coasted from
   Maine to Martha's Vineyard, secured his desired cargoes, and
   gave a good account of the country. Two years later (March,
   1605), Lord Soathampton and Lord Wardour sent a vessel
   commanded by George Weymouth to reconnoitre the same coast
   with an eye to settlements. Weymouth ascended either the
   Kennebec or the Penobscot river some 50 or 60 miles and
   kidnapped five natives. "Except for this, and for some
   addition to the knowledge of the local geography, the voyage
   was fruitless."

      _J. G. Palfrey, History of New England,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN
      _Massachusetts History Society Collection,
      3d Series, volume 8 (1843)._

      _J. McKeen, On the Voyage of George Weymouth
      (Maine History Society Collection, volume 5)._

AMERICA: A. D. 1603-1608.
   The First French Settlements in Acadia.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1603-1605, and 1606-1608.

AMERICA: A. D. 1607.
   The founding of the English Colony of Virginia, and the
   failure in Maine.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1606-1607, and after;
      and MAINE: A. D. 1607-1608.

AMERICA: A. D. 1607-1608.
   The First Voyages of Henry Hudson.

   "The first recorded voyage made by Henry Hudson was undertaken
   ... for the Muscovy or Russia Company [of England]. Departing
   from Gravesend the first of May, 1607, with the intention of
   sailing straight across the north pole, by the north of what
   is now called Greenland, Hudson found that this land stretched
   further to the eastward than he had anticipated, and that a
   wall of ice, along which he coasted, extended from Greenland
   to Spitzbergen. Forced to relinquish the hope of finding a
   passage in the latter vicinity, he once more attempted the
   entrance of Davis' Straits by the north of Greenland. This
   design was also frustrated and he apparently renewed the
   attempt in a lower latitude and nearer Greenland on his
   homeward voyage. In this cruise Hudson attained a higher
   degree of latitude than any previous navigator. ... He reached
   England on his return on the 15th September of that year
   [1607]. ... On the 22d of April, 1608, Henry Hudson commenced
   his second recorded voyage for the Muscovy or Russia Company,
   with the design of 'finding a passage to the East Indies· by
   the north-east. ... On the 3d of June, 1608, Hudson had
   reached the most northern point of Norway, and on the 11th was
   in latitude 75° 24', between Spitzbergen and Nova Zembla."
   Failing to pass to the north-east beyond Nova Zembla, he
   returned to England in August.

      _J. M. Read, Jr., Historical Inquiry Concerning Henry
      Hudson, pages 133-138._

      ALSO IN
      _G. M. Asher, Henry Hudson, the Navigator
      (Hakluyt Society, 1860)._

AMERICA: A. D. 1608-1616.
   Champlain's Explorations in the Valley of the St. Lawrence and
   the Great Lakes.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1608-1611, and 1611-1616.

AMERICA: A. D. 1609.
   Hudson's Voyage of Discovery for the Dutch.

   "The failure of two expeditions daunted the enterprise of
   Hudson's employers [the Muscovy Company, in England]; they
   could not daunt the courage of the great navigator, who was
   destined to become the rival of Smith and of Champlain. He
   longed to tempt once more the dangers of the northern sea;
   and, repairing to Holland, he offered, in the service of the
   Dutch East India Company, to explore the icy wastes in search
   of the coveted passage. The voyage of Smith to Virginia
   stimulated desire; the Zealanders, fearing the loss of
   treasure, objected; but, by the influence of Balthazar
   Moucheron, the directors for Amsterdam resolved on equipping a
   small vessel of discovery; and, on the 4th day of April, 1609,
   the 'Crescent' [or 'Half-Moon' as the name of the little ship
   is more commonly translated], commanded by Hudson, and manned
   by a mixed crew of Englishmen and Hollanders, his son being of
   the number, set sail for the north-western passage. Masses of
   ice impeded the navigation towards Nova Zembla; Hudson, who
   had examined the maps of John Smith of Virginia, turned to the
   west; and passing beyond Greenland and Newfoundland, and
   running down the coast of Acadia, he anchored, probably, in
   the mouth of the Penobscot. Then, following the track of
   Gosnold, he came upon the promontory of Cape Cod, and,
   believing himself its first discoverer, gave it the name of
   New Holland. Long afterwards, it was claimed as the
   north-eastern boundary of New Netherlands. From the sands of
   Cape Cod, he steered a southerly course till he was opposite
   the entrance into the bay of Virginia, where Hudson remembered
   that his countrymen were planted.
{73}
   Then, turning again to the north, he discovered the Delaware
   Bay, examined its currents and its soundings, and, without
   going on shore, took note of the aspect of the country. On the
   3d day of September, almost at the time when Champlain was
   invading New York from the north, less than five months after
   the truce with Spain, which gave the Netherlands a diplomatic
   existence as a state, the 'Crescent' anchored within Sandy
   Hook, and from the neighboring shores, that were crowned with
   'goodly oakes,' attracted frequent visits from the natives.
   After a week's delay, Hudson sailed through the Narrows, and
   at the mouth of the river anchored in a harbor which was
   pronounced to be very good for all winds. ... Ten days were
   employed in exploring the river; the first of Europeans,
   Hudson went sounding his way above the Highlands, till at last
   the 'Crescent' had sailed some miles beyond the city of
   Hudson, and a boat had advanced a little beyond Albany.
   Frequent intercourse was held with the astonished natives [and
   two battles fought with them]. ... Having completed his
   discovery, Hudson descended the stream to which time has given
   his name, and on the 4th day of October, about the season of
   the return of John Smith to England, he set sail for Europe.
   ... A happy return voyage brought the 'Crescent' into
   Dartmouth. Hudson forwarded to his Dutch employers a brilliant
   account of his discoveries; but he never revisited the lands
   which he eulogized: and the Dutch East-India Company refused
   to search further for the north-western passage."

      _G. Bancroft, History of the U. S., chapter 15 (or part
      2, chapter 12 of "Author's Last Revision")_.

      ALSO IN
      _H. R. CLEVELAND, Life of Henry Hudson (Library of American
      Biographies, volume 10), chapters 3-4_.

      _R. Juet, Journal of Hudson's Voyage (New York History
      Society Collection., Second Series, volume 1)._

      _J. V. N. Yates and J. W. Moulton, History of the State of
      New York, part 1._

AMERICA: A. D. 1610-1614.
   The Dutch occupation of New Netherland, and Block's coasting
   exploration.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1610-1614.

AMERICA: A. D. 1614-1615.
   The Voyages of Capt. John Smith to North Virginia.
   The Naming of the country New England.

   "From the time of Capt. Smith's departure from Virginia [see
   VIRGINIA: A. D. 1607-1610], till the year 1614, there is a
   chasm in his biography. . . . In 1614, probably by his advice
   and at his suggestion, an expedition was fitted out by some
   London merchants, in the expense of which he also shared, for
   the purposes of trade and discovery in New England, or, as it
   was then called, North Virginia. ... In March, 1614, he set
   sail from London with two ships, one commanded by himself, and
   the other by Captain Thomas Hunt. They arrived, April 30th, at
   the island of Manhegin, on the coast of Maine, where they
   built seven boats. The purposes for which they were sent were
   to capture whales and to search for mines of gold or copper,
   which were said to be there, and, if these failed, to make up
   a cargo of fish and furs. Of mines, they found no indications,
   and they found whale-fishing a 'costly conclusion;' for,
   although they saw many, and chased them too, they succeeded in
   taking none. They thus lost the best part of the fishing
   season; but, after giving up their gigantic game, they
   diligently employed the months of July and August in taking
   and curing codfish, an humble, but more certain prey. While
   the crew were thus employed, Captain Smith, with eight men in
   a small boat, surveyed and examined the whole coast, from
   Penobscot to Cape Cod, trafficking with the Indians for furs,
   and twice fighting with them, and taking such observations of
   the prominent points as enabled him to construct a map of the
   country. He then sailed for England, where he arrived in
   August, within six months after his departure. He left Captain
   Hunt behind him, with orders to dispose of his cargo of fish
   in Spain. Unfortunately, Hunt was a sordid and unprincipled
   miscreant, who resolved to make his countrymen odious to the
   Indians, and thus prevent the establishment of a permanent
   colony, which would diminish the large gains he and a few
   others derived by monopolizing a lucrative traffic. For this
   purpose, having decoyed 24 of the natives on board his ship,
   he carried them off and sold them as slaves in the port of
   Malaga. . . . Captain Smith, upon his return, presented his
   map of the country between Penobscot and Cape Cod to Prince
   Charles (afterwards Charles I.), with a request that he would
   substitute others, instead of the 'barbarous names' which had
   been given to particular places. Smith himself gave to the
   country the name of New England, as he expressly states, and
   not Prince Charles, as is commonly supposed. ... The first
   port into which Captain Smith put on his return to England was
   Plymouth. There he related his adventures to some of his
   friends, 'who,' he says, 'as I supposed, were interested in
   the dead patent of this unregarded country.' The Plymouth
   Company of adventurers to North Virginia, by flattering hopes
   and large promises, induced him to engage his services to
   them." Accordingly in March, 1615, he sailed from Plymouth,
   with two vessels under his command, bearing 16 settlers,
   besides their crew. A storm dismasted Smith's ship and drove
   her back to Plymouth. "His consort, commanded by Thomas
   Dermer, meanwhile proceeded on her voyage, and returned with a
   profitable cargo in August; but the object, which was to
   effect a permanent settlement, was frustrated. Captain Smith's
   vessel was probably found to be so much shattered as to render
   it inexpedient to repair her; for we find that he set sail a
   second time from Plymouth, on the 24th of June, in a small
   bark of 60 tons, manned by 30 men, and carrying with him the
   same 16 settlers he had taken before. But an evil destiny
   seemed to hang over this enterprise, and to make the voyage a
   succession of disasters and disappointments." It ended in
   Smith's capture by a piratical French fleet and his detention
   for some months, until he made a daring escape in a small
   boat. "While he had been detained on board the French pirate,
   in order, as he says, 'to keep my perplexed thoughts from too
   much meditation of my miserable estate,' he employed himself
   in writing a narrative of his two voyages to New England, and
   an account of the country. This was published in a quarto form
   in June, 1616. ... Captain Smith's work on New England was the
   first to recommend that country as a place of settlement."

      _G. S. Hillard, Life of Captain John Smith (ch. 14-15)._

      ALSO IN
      _Captain John Smith, Description of New England._

{74}

AMERICA: A. D. 1619.
   Introduction of negro slavery into Virginia.

      See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1619.

AMERICA: A. D. 1620.
   The Planting of the Pilgrim Colony at Plymouth, and the
   Chartering of the Council for New England.

      See MASSACHUSETTS (PLYMOUTH COLONY): A. D. 1620;
      and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1620-1623.

AMERICA: A. D. 1620.
   Formation of the Government of Rio de La Plata.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

AMERICA: A. D. 1621.
   Conflicting claims of England and France on the North-eastern coast.
   Naming and granting of Nova Scotia.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1621-1631.

AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
   The Carolina grant to Sir Robert Heath.

   "Sir Robert Heath, attorney-general to Charles I., obtained a
   grant of the lands between the 38th [36th?] degree of north
   latitude to the river St. Matheo. His charter bears date of
   October 5, 1629. ... The tenure is declared to be as ample as
   any bishop of Durham [Palatine], in the kingdom of England,
   ever held and enjoyed, or ought or could of right have held
   and enjoyed. Sir Robert, his heirs and assigns, are
   constituted the true and absolute lords and proprietors, and
   the country is erected into a province by the name of Carolina
   [or Carolana] and the islands are to be called the Carolina
   islands. Sir Robert conveyed his right some time after to the
   earl of Arundel. This nobleman, it is said, planted several
   parts of his acquisition, but his attempt to colonize was
   checked by the war with Scotland, and afterwards the civil
   war. Lord Maltravers, who soon after, on his father's death,
   became earl of Arundel and Sussex ... made no attempt to avail
   himself of the grant. ... Sir Robert Heath's grant of land, to
   the southward of Virginia, perhaps the most extensive
   possession ever owned by an individual, remained for a long
   time almost absolutely waste and uncultivated. This vast
   extent of territory occupied all the country between the 30th
   and 36th degrees of northern latitude, which embraces the
   present states of North and South Carolina, Georgia,
   [Alabama], Tennessee, Mississippi, and, with very little
   exceptions, the whole state of Louisiana, and the territory of
   East and West Florida, a considerable part of the state of
   Missouri, the Mexican provinces of Texas, Chiuhaha, &c. The
   grantee had taken possession of the country, soon after he had
   obtained his title, which he afterwards had conveyed to the
   earl of Arundel. Henry lord Maltravers appears to have
   obtained some aid from the province of Virginia in 1639, at
   the desire of Charles I., for the settlement of Carolana, and
   the country had since become the property of a Dr. Cox; yet,
   at this time, there were two points only in which incipient
   English settlements could be discerned; the one on the
   northern shore of Albemarle Sound and the streams that flow
   into it. The population of it was very thin, and the greatest
   portion of it was on the north-east bank of Chowan river. The
   settlers had come from that part of Virginia now known as the
   County of Nansemond. ... They had been joined by a number of
   Quakers and other sectaries, whom the spirit of intolerance
   had driven from New England, and some emigrants from Bermudas.
   ... The other settlement of the English was at the mouth of
   Cape Fear river; ... those who composed it had come thither
   from New England in 1659. Their attention was confined to
   rearing cattle. It cannot now be ascertained whether the
   assignees of Carolana ever surrendered the charter under which
   it was held, nor whether it was considered as having become
   vacated or obsolete by non-user, or by any other means."

      _F. X. Martin, History of North Carolina,
      volume 1, chapter 5 and 7._

AMERICA: A. D. 1629.
   The Royal Charter to the Governor and Company of Massachusetts Bay.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1623-1629, THE DORCHESTER COMPANY.

AMERICA: A. D. 1629-1631.
   The Dutch occupation of the Delaware.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1629-1631.

AMERICA: A. D. 1629-1632.
   English Conquest and brief occupation of New France.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1628-1632.

AMERICA: A. D. 1632.
   The Charter to Lord Baltimore and the founding of Maryland.

      See MARYLAND: A. D. 1632, and A. D. 1633-1637.

AMERICA: A. D. 1638.
   The planting of a Swedish Colony on the Delaware.

         See DELAWARE: A. D. 1638-1640.

AMERICA: A. D. 1639-1700.
   The Buccaneers and their piratical warfare with Spain.

   "The 17th century gave birth to a class of rovers wholly
   distinct from any of their predecessors in the annals of the
   world, differing as widely in their plans, organization and
   exploits as in the principles that governed their actions. ...
   After the native inhabitants of Haiti had been exterminated,
   and the Spaniards had sailed farther west, a few adventurous
   men from Normandy settled on the shores of the island, for the
   purpose of hunting the wild bulls and hogs which roamed at
   will through the forests. The small island of Tortugas was
   their market; thither they repaired with their salted and
   smoked meat, their hides, &c., and disposed of them in
   exchange for powder, lead, and other necessaries. The places
   where these semi-wild hunters prepared the slaughtered
   carcases were called 'boucans,' and they themselves became
   known as Buccaneers. Probably the world has never before or
   since witnessed such an extraordinary association as theirs.
   Unburdened by women-folk or children, these men lived in
   couples, reciprocally rendering each other services, and
   having entire community of property--a condition termed by
   them matelotage, from the word 'matelot,' by which they
   addressed one another. ... A man on joining the fraternity
   completely merged his identity. Each member received a
   nickname, and no attempt was ever made to inquire into his
   antecedents. When one of their number married, he ceased to be
   a buccaneer, having forfeited his membership by so civilized a
   proceeding. He might continue to dwell on the coast, and to
   hunt cattle, but he was no longer a 'matelot'--as a Benedick
   he had degenerated to a 'colonist.' ... Uncouth and lawless
   though the buccaneers were, the sinister signification now
   attaching to their name would never have been merited had it
   not been for the unreasoning jealousy of the Spaniards. The
   hunters were actually a source of profit to that nation, yet
   from an insane antipathy to strangers the dominant race
   resolved on exterminating the settlers. Attacked whilst
   dispersed in pursuance of their avocations, the latter fell
   easy victims; many of them were wantonly massacred, others
   dragged into slavery. ... Breathing hatred and vengeance, 'the
   brethren of the coast' united their scattered forces, and a
   war of horrible reprisals commenced.
{75}
   Fresh troops arrived from Spain, whilst the ranks of the
   buccaneers were filled by adventurers of all nations, allured
   by love of plunder, and fired with indignation at the
   cruelties of the aggressors. ... The Spaniards, utterly
   failing to oust their opponents, hit upon a new expedient, so
   short-sighted that it reflects but little credit on their
   statesmanship. This was the extermination of the horned
   cattle, by which the buccaneers derived their means of
   subsistence; a general slaughter took place, and the breed was
   almost extirpated. ... The puffed up arrogance of the Spaniard
   was curbed by no prudential consideration; calling upon every
   saint in his calendar, and raining curses on the heretical
   buccaneers, he deprived them of their legitimate occupation,
   and created wilfully a set of desperate enemies, who harassed
   the colonial trade of an empire already betraying signs of
   feebleness with the pertinacity of wolves, and who only
   desisted when her commerce had been reduced to insignificance.
   ... Devoured by an undying hatred of their assailants, the
   buccaneers developed into a new association--the freebooters."

      _C. H. Eden, The West Indies, chapter 3._

   "The monarchs both of England and France, but especially the
   former, connived at and even encouraged the freebooters [a
   name which the pronunciation of French sailors transformed
   into 'flibustiers,' while that corruption became Anglicized in
   its turn and produced the word filibusters], whose services
   could be obtained in time of war, and whose actions could be
   disavowed in time of peace. Thus buccaneer, filibuster, and
   sea-rover, were for the most part at leisure to hunt wild
   cattle, and to pillage and massacre the Spaniards wherever
   they found an opportunity. When not on some marauding
   expedition, they followed the chase." The piratical buccaneers
   were first organized under a leader in 1639, the islet of
   Tortuga being their favorite rendezvous. "So rapid was the
   growth of their settlements that in 1641 we find governors
   appointed, and at San Christobal a governor-general named De
   Poincy, in charge of the French filibusters in the Indies.
   During that year Tortuga was garrisoned by French troops, and
   the English were driven out, both from that islet and from
   Santo Domingo, securing harborage elsewhere in the islands.
   Nevertheless corsairs of both nations often made common cause.
   ... In [1654] Tortuga was again recaptured by the Spaniards,
   but in 1660 fell once more into the hands of the French; and
   in their conquest of Jamaica in 1655 the British troops were
   reenforced by a large party of buccaneers." The first of the
   more famous buccaneers, and apparently the most ferocious
   among them all, was a Frenchman called François L'Olonnois,
   who harried the coast of Central America between 1660-1665
   with six ships and 700 men. At the same time another buccaneer
   named Mansvelt, was rising in fame, and with him, as second in
   command, a Welshman, Henry Morgan, who became the most
   notorious of all. In 1668, Morgan attacked and captured the
   strong town of Portobello, on the Isthmus, committing
   indescribable atrocities. In 1671 he crossed the Isthmus,
   defeated the Spaniards in battle and gained possession of the
   great and wealthy city of Panama--the largest and richest in
   the New World, containing at the time 30,000 inhabitants. The
   city was pillaged, fired and totally destroyed. The exploits
   of this ruffian and the stolen riches which he carried home to
   England soon afterward, gained the honors of knighthood for
   him, from the worthy hands of Charles II. In 1680, the
   buccaneers under one Coxon again crossed the Isthmus, seized
   Panama, which had been considerably rebuilt, and captured
   there a Spanish fleet of four ships, in which they launched
   themselves upon the Pacific. From that time their plundering
   operations were chiefly directed against the Pacific coast.
   Towards the close of the 17th century, the war between England
   and France, and the Bourbon alliance of Spain with France,
   brought about the discouragement, the decline and finally the
   extinction of the buccaneer organization.

      _H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States: Central
      America, volume 2, chapter 26-30._

      ALSO IN
      _W. Thornbury, The Buccaneers._

      _A. O. Exquemelin, History of the Buccaneers._

      _J. Burney, History of the Buccaneers of Am._

      See, also, JAMAICA: A. D. 1655-1796.

AMERICA: A. D. 1655.
   Submission of the Swedes on the Delaware to the Dutch.

      See DELAWARE: A. D. 1640-1656.

AMERICA: A. D. 1663.
   The grant of the Carolinas to Monk, Clarendon, Shaftesbury,
   and others.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1663-1670.

AMERICA: A. D. 1664.
   English conquest of New Netherland.

      See NEW YORK: A. D.1664.

AMERICA: A. D. 1673.
   The Dutch reconquest of New Netherland.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1673.

AMERICA: A. D. 1673-1682.
   Discovery and exploration of the Mississippi, by Marquette and
   La Salle.
   Louisiana named and possessed by the French.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1634-1673, and 1669-1687.

AMERICA: A. D. 1674.
   Final surrender of New Netherland to the English.

      See NETHERLANDS (HOLLAND): A. D. 1674.

AMERICA: A. D. 1681.
   The proprietary grant to William Penn.

      See PENNSYLVANIA: A. D,1681.

AMERICA: A. D. 1689-1697.
   The first lnter-Colonial War: King Williams's War (The war of
   the League of Augsburg).

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690; 1692-1697;
      also, NEWFOUNDLAND: A. D. 1694-1697.

AMERICA: A. D. 1690.
   The first Colonial Congress.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1690;
      also, CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690.

AMERICA: A. D. 1698-1712.
   The French colonization of Louisiana.
   Broad claims of France to the whole Valley of the Mississippi.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1698-1712.

AMERICA: A. D. 1700-1735.
   The Spread of French occupation in the Mississippi Valley and
   on the Lakes.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1700-1735.

AMERICA: A. D. 1702.
   Union of the two Jerseys as a royal province.

      See NEW JERSEY: A. D. 1688-1738.

AMERICA: A. D. 1702-1713.
   The Second Inter-Colonial War: Queen Anne's War (The War of
   the Spanish Succession).
   Final acquisition of Nova Scotia by the English.

      See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1702-1710;
      CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.

AMERICA: A. D. 1713.
   Division of territory between England and France by the Treaty
   of Utrecht.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE) A. D. 1711-1713.

{76}

AMERICA: A. D. 1729.
   End of the proprietary government in North Carolina.

      See NORTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1688-1729.

AMERICA: A. D. 1732.
   The colonization of Georgia by General Oglethrope.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1732-1739.

AMERICA: A. D. 1744-1748.
   The Third Inter-Colonial War: King George's War (The War of
   the Austrian Succession).

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

AMERICA: A. D. 1748-1760.
   Unsettled boundary disputes of England and France.

   The fourth and last inter-colonial war, called the French and
   Indian War (The Seven Years War of Europe).

   English Conquest of Canada.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1750-1753; 1760;
      NOVA SCOTIA: A. D.1749-1755; 1755;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754; 1754; 1755;
      CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

AMERICA: A. D. 1749.
   Introduction of negro slavery into Georgia.

      See GEORGIA: A. D. 1735-1749.

AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753:
   Dissensions among the English Colonies on the eve of the great
   French War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1750-1753.

AMERICA: A. D. 1754.
   The Colonial Congress at Albany.
   Franklin's Plan of Union.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

AMERICA: A. D. 1763.
   The Peace of Paris.

   Canada, Cape Breton, Newfoundland, and Louisiana east of the
   Mississippi (except New Orleans) ceded by France to Great
   Britain.

   West of the Mississippi and New Orleans to Spain.--Florida by
   Spain to Great Britain.

      See SEVEN YEARS WAR.

AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1764.
   Pontiac's War.

      See PONTIAC'S WAR.

AMERICA: A. D. 1763-1766.
   Growing discontent of the English Colonies.
   The question of taxation.
   The Stamp Act and its repeal.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1760-1775, to 1766.

AMERICA: A. D. 1766-1769.
   Spanish occupation of New Orleans and Western Louisiana, and
   the revolt against it.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1766-1768, and 1769.

AMERICA: A. D. 1775-1783.
   Independence of the English colonies achieved.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1775 (APRIL) to 1783 (SEPTEMBER).

AMERICA: A. D. 1776.
   Erection of the Spanish Vice-royalty of Buenos Ayres.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.

AMERICA: A. D. 1810-1816.
   Revolt, independence and Confederation of the Argentine
   Provinces.

      See ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.

AMERICA: A. D. 1818.
   Chilean independence achieved.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1810-1818.

AMERICA: A. D. 1820-1821.
   Independence Acquired by Mexico and the Central American
   States.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1820-1826,
      and CENTRAL AMERICA: A. D. 1821-1871.

AMERICA: A. D. 1824.
   Peruvian independence won at Ayacucho.

      See PERU: A. D. 1820-1826.

----------AMERICA: End----------

AMERICAN ABORIGINES.
   Linguistic Classification.

   In the Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology (for
   1885-86, published in 1891), Major J. W. Powell, the Director
   of the Bureau, has given a classification of the languages of
   the North American aborigines based upon the most recent
   investigations. The following is a list of families of speech,
   or linguistic stocks, which are defined and named:

   "Adaizan [identified since the publication of this list as
     being but part of the Caddoan stock].
   Algonquian.
   Athapascan.
   Attacapan.
   Beothukan.
   Caddoan.
   Chimakuan.
   Chimarikan.
   Chimmesyan.
   Chinookan.
   Chitimachan.
   Chumashan.
   Coahuiltecan.
   Copehan.
   Costanoan.
   Eskimauan.
   Esselenian.
   Iroquoian.
   Kalapooian.
   Karankawan.
   Keresan.
   Kiowan.
   Kituanahan.
   Koluschan.
   Kulanapan.
   Kusan.
   Lutuamian.
   Mariposan.
   Moquelumnan.
   Muskhogean.
   Natchesan.
   Palaihnihan.
   Piman.
   Pujunan.
   Quoratean.
   Salinan.
   Salishan.
   Sastean.
   Shahaptian.
   Shoshonean.
   Siouan.
   Skittagetan.
   Takilman.
   Tañoan.
   Timuquanan.
   Tonikan.
   Tonkawan.
   Uchean.
   Waiilatpuan.
   Wakashan.
   Washoan.
   Weitspekan.
   Wishoskan.
   Yokonan.
   Yanan.
   Yukian.
   Yuman.
   Zufiian."

  These families are severally defined in the summary of
  information given below, and the relations to them of all
  tribes having any historical importance are shown by
  cross-references and otherwise; but many other groupings and
  associations, and many tribal names not scientifically
  recognized, are likewise exhibited here, for the reason that
  they have a significance in history and are the subjects of
  frequent allusion in literature.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Abipones.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Abnakis, or Abenaques, or Taranteens.

   "The Abnakis were called Taranteens by the English, and
   Owenagungas by the New Yorkers. ... We must admit that a large
   portion of the North American Indians were called Abnakis, if
   not by themselves, at least by others. This word Abnaki is
   found spelt Abenaques, Abenaki, Wapanachki, and Wabenakies by
   different writers of various nations, each adopting the manner
   of spelling according to the rules of pronunciation of their
   respective native languages. ... The word generally received
   is spelled thus, Abnaki, but it should be 'Wanbanaghi,' from
   the Indian word 'wanbanban,' designating the people of the
   Aurora Borealis, or in general, of the place where the sky
   commences to appear white at the breaking of the day. ... It
   has been difficult for different writers to determine the
   number of nations or tribes comprehended under this word
   Abnaki. It being a general word, by itself designates the
   people of the east or northeast. ... We find that the word
   Abnaki was applied in general, more or less, to all the
   Indians of the East, by persons who were not much acquainted
   with the aborigines of the country. On the contrary, the early
   writers and others well acquainted with the natives of New
   France and Acadia, and the Indians themselves, by Abnakis
   always pointed out a particular nation existing north-west and
   south of the Kennebec river, and they never designated any
   other people of the Atlantic shore, from Cape Hatteras to
   Newfoundland. ... The Abnakis had five great villages, two
   amongst the French colonies, which must be the village of St.
   Joseph or Sillery, and that of St. Francis de Sales, both in
   Canada, three on the head waters, or along three rivers,
   between Acadia and New England. These three rivers are the
   Kennebec, the Androscoggin, and the Saco. ... The nation of
   the Abnakis bear evident marks of having been an original
   people in their name, manners, and language. They show a kind
   of civilization which must be the effect of antiquity, and of
   a past flourishing age."

      _E. Vetromile, The Abnaki Indians
      (Maine Historical Society Collection, volume 6)_.

      See, also, below:
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

{77}

   For some account of the wars of the Abnakis, with the New
   England colonies,

      See
      CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1689-1690, and 1692-1697;
      NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1675 (JULY-SEPT.); 1702-1710, 1711-1713;
      and NOVA SCOTIA: A. D. 1713-1730.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Absarokas, Upsarokas, or Crows.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Acawoios.

      See below: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Acolhuas.

      See MEXICO, A. D. 1325-1502.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Adais.

      [Footnote: See Note, Appendix E.]

   These Indians were a "tribe who, according to Dr. Sibley,
   lived about the year 1800 near the old Spanish fort or mission
   of Adaize, 'about 40 miles from Natchitoches, below the
   Yattassees, on a lake called Lac Macdon, which communicates
   with the division of Red River that passes by Bayou Pierre'
   [Lewis and Clarke]. A vocabulary of about 250 words is all
   that remains to us of their language, which according to the
   collector, Dr. Sibley, 'differs from all others, and is so
   difficult to speak or understand that no nation can speak ten
   words of it. ... A recent comparison of this vocabulary by Mr.
   Gatschet, with several Caddoan dialects, has led to the
   discovery that a considerable percentage of the Adái words
   have a more or less remote affinity with Caddoan, and he
   regards it as a Caddoan dialect."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, pages 45-46._

      See preceding page.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Adirondacks.

   "This is a term bestowed by the Iroquois, in derision, on the
   tribes who appear, at an early day, to have descended the
   Utawas river, and occupied the left banks of the St. Lawrence,
   above the present site of Quebec, about the close of the 15th
   century. It is said to signify men who eat trees, in allusion
   to their using the bark of certain trees for food, when
   reduced to straits, in their war excursions. The French, who
   entered the St. Lawrence from the gulf, called the same people
   Algonquins--a generic appellation, which has been long
   employed and come into universal use, among historians and
   philologists. According to early accounts, the Adirondacks had
   preceded the Iroquois in arts and attainments."

      _H. R. Schoolcraft, Notes on the Iroquois, chapter 5._

      See, also, below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Æsopus Indians.

      See below: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Agniers.
   Among several names which the Mohawks (see below: IROQUOIS)
   bore in early colonial history was that of the Agniers.

      _F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, volume 1, page 9,
      foot-note._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Albaias.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Aleuts.

      See below: ESKIMAUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Algonquian (Algonkin) Family.

   "About the period 1500-1600, those related tribes whom we now
   know by the name of Algonkins were at the height of their
   prosperity. They occupied the Atlantic coast from the Savannah
   river on the south to the strait of Belle Isle on the north.
   ... The dialects of all these were related, and evidently at
   some distant day had been derived from the same primitive
   tongue. Which of them had preserved the ancient forms most
   closely, it may be premature to decide positively, but the
   tendency of modern studies has been to assign that place to
   the Cree--the northernmost of all. We cannot erect a
   genealogical tree of these dialects. ... We may, however,
   group them in such a manner as roughly to indicate their
   relationship. This I do"--in the following list:

   "Cree.
   Old Algonkin.
   Montagnais.
   Chipeway, Ottawa, Pottawattomie, Miami, Peoria, Pea,
   Piankishaw, Kaskaskia, Menominee, Sac, Fox, Kikapoo.
   Sheshatapoosh, Secoffee, Micmac, Melisceet, Etchemin, Abnaki.
   Mohegan, Massachusetts, Shawnee, Minsi, Unami, Unalachtigo
   [the last three named forming, together, the nation of the
   Lenape or Delawares], Nanticoke, Powhatan, Pampticoke.
   Blackfoot, Gros Ventre, Sheyenne.
   ... All the Algonkin nations who dwelt north of the Potomac,
   on the east shore of Chesapeake Bay, and in the basins of the
   Delaware and Hudson rivers, claimed near kinship and an
   identical origin, and were at times united into a loose,
   defensive confederacy. By the western and southern tribes they
   were collectively known as Wapanachkik--' those of the eastern
   region'--which in the form Abnaki is now confined to the
   remnant of a tribe in Maine. ... The members of the
   confederacy were the Mohegans (Mahicanni) of the Hudson, who
   occupied the valley of that river to the falls above the site
   of Albany, the various New Jersey tribes, the Delawares proper
   on the Delaware river and its branches, including the Minsi or
   Monseys, among the mountains, the Nanticokes, between
   Chesapeake Bay and the Atlantic, and the small tribe called
   Canai, Kanawhas or Ganawese, whose towns were on tributaries
   of the Potomac and Patuxent. ... Linguistically, the Mohegans
   were more closely allied to the tribes of New England than to
   those of the Delaware Valley. Evidently, most of the tribes of
   Massachusetts and Connecticut were comparatively recent
   offshoots of the parent stem on the Hudson, supposing the
   course of migration had been eastward. ... The Nanticokes
   occupied the territory between Chesapeake Bay and the ocean,
   except its southern extremity, which appears to have been
   under the control of the Powhatan tribe of Virginia."

      _D. G. Brinton, The Lenape and their Legends.
      chapters 1-2._

   "Mohegans, Munsees, Manhattans, Metöacs, and other affiliated
   tribes and bands of Algonquin lineage, inhabited the banks of
   the Hudson and the islands, bay and seaboard of New York,
   including Long Island, during the early periods of the rise of
   the Iroquois Confederacy. ... The Mohegans finally retired
   over the Highlands east of them into the valley of the
   Housatonic. The Munsees and Nanticokes retired to the Delaware
   river and reunited with their kindred, the Lenapees, or modern
   Delawares. The Manhattans, and numerous other bands and
   sub-tribes melted away under the influence of liquor and died
   in their tracks."

      _H. R. Schoolcraft, Notes on the Iroquois, chapter 5._

{78}

   "On the basis of a difference in dialect, that portion of the
   Algonquin Indians which dwelt in New England has been classed
   in two divisions, one consisting of those who inhabited what
   is now the State of Maine, nearly up to its western border,
   the other consisting of the rest of the native population. The
   Maine Indians may have been some 15,000 in number, or somewhat
   less than a third of the native population of New England.
   That portion of them who dwelt furthest towards the east were
   known by the name of Etetchemins. The Abenaquis, including the
   Tarratines, hunted on both sides of the Penobscot, and
   westward as far as the Saco, if not quite to the Piscataqua.
   The tribes found in the rest of New England were designated by
   a greater variety of names. The home of the Penacook or
   Pawtucket Indians was in the southeast corner of what is now
   New Hampshire and the contiguous region of Massachusetts. Next
   dwelt the Massachusetts tribe, along the bay of that name.
   Then were found successively the Pokanokets, or Wampanoags, in
   the southeasterly region of Massachusetts, and by Buzzard's
   and Narragansett Bays; the Narragansetts, with a tributary
   race called Nyantics in what is now the western part of the
   State of Rhode Island; the Pequots, between the Narragansetts
   and the river formerly called the Pequot River, now the
   Thames; and the Mohegans, spreading themselves beyond the
   River Connecticut. In the central region of Massachusetts were
   the Nipmucks, or Nipnets; and along Cape Cod were the Nausets,
   who appeared to have owed some fealty to the Pokanokets. The
   New England Indians exhibited an inferior type of humanity.
   ... Though fleet and agile when excited to some occasional
   effort, they were found to be incapable of continuous labor.
   Heavy and phlegmatic, they scarcely wept or smiled."

      _J. G. Palfrey, Compendious History of New England,
      book 1, chapter 3 (volume 1)_.

   "The valley of the 'Cahohatatea,' or Mauritius River [i. e.,
   the Hudson River, as now named] at the time Hudson first
   ascended its waters, was inhabited, chiefly, by two aboriginal
   races of Algonquin lineage, afterwards known among the English
   colonists by the generic names of Mohegans and Mincees. The
   Dutch generally called the Mohegans, Mahicans; and the
   Mincees, Sanhikans. These two tribes were subdivided into
   numerous minor bands, each of which had a distinctive name.
   The tribes on the east side of the river were generally
   Mohegans; those on the west side, Mincees. They were
   hereditary enemies. ... Long Island, or 'Sewan-hacky,' was
   occupied by the savage tribe of Metowacks, which was
   subdivided into various clans. ... Staten Island, on the
   opposite side of the bay, was inhabited by the Monatons. ...
   Inland, to the west, lived the Raritans and the Hackinsacks;
   while the regions in the vicinity of the well-known
   'Highlands,' south of Sandy Hook, were inhabited by a band or
   sub-tribe called the Nevesincks or Navisinks. ... To the south
   and west, covering the centre of New Jersey, were the
   Aquamachukes and the Stankekans; while the valley of the
   Delaware, northward from the Schuylkill, was inhabited by
   various tribes of the Lenape race. ... The island of the
   Manhattans" was occupied by the tribe which received that name
   (see MANHATTAN). On the shores of the river, above, dwelt the
   Tappans, the Weckquaesgeeks, the Sint Sings, "whose chief
   village was named Ossin-Sing, or 'the Place of Stones,'" the
   Pachami, the Waorinacks, the Wappingers, and the
   Waronawankongs. "Further north, and occupying the present
   counties of Ulster and Greene, were the Minqua clans of
   Minnesincks, Nanticokes, Mincees, and Delawares. These clans
   had pressed onward from the upper valley of the Delaware. ...
   They were generally known among the Dutch as the Æsopus
   Indians."

      _J. R Brodhead, History of the State of New York, volume 1,
      chapter 3_

   "The area formerly occupied by the Algonquian family was more
   extensive than that of any other linguistic stock in North
   America, their territory reaching from Labrador to the Rocky
   Mountains, and from Churchill River of Hudson Bay as far south
   at least as Pamlico Sound of North Carolina. In the eastern
   part of this territory was an area occupied by Iroquoian
   tribes, surrounded on almost all sides by their Algonquian
   neighbors. On the south the Algonquian tribes were bordered by
   those of Iroquoian and Siouan (Catawba) stock, on the
   southwest and west by the Muskhogean and Siouan tribes, and on
   the northwest by the Kitunahan and the great Athapascan
   families, while along the coast of Labrador and the eastern
   shore of Hudson Bay they came in contact with the Eskimo, who
   were gradually retreating before them to the north. In
   Newfoundland they encountered the Beothukan family, consisting
   of but a single tribe. A portion of the Shawnee at some early
   period had separated from the main body of the tribe in
   central Tennessee and pushed their way down to the Savannah
   River in South Carolina, where, known as Savannahs, they
   carried on destructive wars with the surrounding tribes until
   about the beginning of the 18th century they were finally
   driven out and joined the Delaware in the north. Soon
   afterwards the rest of the tribe was expelled by the Cherokee
   and Chicasa, who thenceforward claimed all the country
   stretching north to the Ohio River. The Cheyenne and Arapaho,
   two allied tribes of this stock, had become separated from
   their kindred on the north and had forced their way through
   hostile tribes across the Missouri to the Black Hills country
   of South Dakota, and more recently into Wyoming and Colorado,
   thus forming the advance guard of the Algonquian stock in that
   direction, having the Siouan tribes behind them and those of
   the Shoshonean family in front. [The following are the]
   principal tribes: Abnaki, Algonquin, Arapaho, Cheyenne, Conoy,
   Cree, Delaware, Fox, Illinois, Kickapoo, Mahican, Massachuset,
   Menominee, Miami, Micmac, Mohegan, Montagnais, Montauk,
   Munsee, Nanticoke, Narraganset, Nauset, Nipmuc, Ojibwa,
   Ottawa, Pamlico, Pennacook, Pequot, Piankishaw, Pottawotomi,
   Powhatan, Sac, Shawnee, Siksika, Wampanoag, Wappinger. The
   present number of the Algonquian stock is about 95,600, of
   whom about 60,000 are in Canada and the remainder in the
   United States."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, pages 47-48._

      ALSO IN
      _J. W. De Forest, History of the Indians of Connecticut._

      _A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia
      Americana, volume 2), intro., section 2._

      _S. G. Drake, Aboriginal Races of N. Am., book 2-3._

      See, also, below:
      DELAWARES; HORIKANS; SHAWANESE; SUSQUEHANNAS; OJIBWAS;
      ILLINOIS.

   For the Indian wars of New England,

      See NEW ENGLAND:
      A. D. 1637 (THE PEQUOT WAR);
      A. D. 1674-1675 to 1676-1678 (KING PHILIP'S WAR).

      See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.

{79}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Alibamus, or Alabamas.

      See below: MUSKHOOEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Alleghans, or Allegewi, or Talligewi.

   "The oldest tribe of the United States, of which there is a
   distinct tradition, were the Alleghans. The term is
   perpetuated in the principal chain of mountains traversing the
   country. This tribe, at an antique period, had the seat of
   their power in the Ohio Valley and its confluent streams,
   which were the sites of their numerous towns and villages.
   They appear originally to have borne the name of Alli, or
   Alleg, and hence the names of Talligewi and Allegewi. (Trans.
   Am. Phi. Society, volume 1.) By adding to the radical of this
   word the particle 'hany' or 'ghany,' meaning river, they
   described the principal scene of their residence--namely, the
   Alleghany, or River of the Alleghans, now called Ohio. The
   word Ohio is of Iroquois origin, and of a far later period;
   having been bestowed by them after their conquest of the
   country, in alliance with the Lenapees, or ancient Delawares.
   (Phi. Trans.) The term was applied to the entire river, from
   its confluence with the Mississippi, to its origin in the
   broad spurs of the Alleghanies, in New York and Pennsylvania.
   ... There are evidences of antique labors in the alluvial
   plains and valleys of the Scioto, Miami, and Muskingum, the
   Wabash, Kaskaskia, Cahokia, and Illinois, denoting that the
   ancient Alleghans, and their allies and confederates,
   cultivated the soil, and were semi-agriculturists. These
   evidences have been traced, at late periods, to the fertile
   table-lands of Indiana and Michigan. The tribes lived in fixed
   towns, cultivating extensive fields of the zea-maize; and
   also, as denoted by recent discoveries, ... of some species of
   beans, vines, and esculents. They were, in truth, the mound
   builders."

      _H. R. Schoolcraft, Information respecting the Indian
      Tribes, part 5, page 133._

   This conclusion, to which Mr. Schoolcraft had arrived, that
   the ancient Alleghans or Tallegwi were the mound builders of
   the Ohio Valley is being sustained by later investigators, and
   seems to have become an accepted opinion among those of
   highest authority. The Alleghans, moreover, are being
   identified with the Cherokees of later times, in whom their
   race, once supposed to be extinct, has apparently survived;
   while the fact, long suspected, that the Cherokee language is
   of the Iroquois family is being proved by the latest studies.
   According to Indian tradition, the Alleghans were driven from
   their ancient seats, long ago, by a combination against them
   of the Lenape (Delawares) and the Mengwe (Iroquois). The route
   of their migrations is being traced by the character of the
   mounds which they built, and of the remains gathered from the
   mounds. "The general movement [of retreat before the Iroquois
   and Lenape] ... must have been southward, ... and the exit of
   the Ohio mound-builders was, in all probability, up the
   Kanawah Valley on the same line that the Cherokees appear to
   have followed in reaching their historical locality. ... If
   the hypothesis here advanced be correct, it is apparent that
   the Cherokees entered the immediate valley of the Mississippi
   from the northwest, striking it in the region of Iowa."

      _C. Thomas, The Problem of the Ohio Mounds (Bureau of
      Ethnology, 1889)._

      ALSO IN The same,
      _Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the U. S.
      (Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84)._

      _J. Heckewelder, Account of the Indian Nations, chapter 1._

      See, below:
      CHEROKEES, and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY;
      also AMERICA, PREHISTORIC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Amahuacas.

      See below: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Andastés.

      See below: SUSQUEHANNAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Andesians.

   "The term Andesians or Antesians, is used with geographical
   rather than ethnological limits, and embraces a number of
   tribes. First of these are the Cofan in Equador, east of
   Chimborazo. They fought valiantly against the Spaniards, and
   in times past killed many of the missionaries sent among them.
   Now they are greatly reduced and have become more gentle. The
   Huamaboya are their near neighbors. The Jivara, west of the
   river Pastaca, are a warlike tribe, who, possibly through a
   mixture of Spanish blood, have a European cast of countenance
   and a beard. The half Christian Napo or Quijo and their
   peaceful neighbors, the Zaporo, live on the Rio Napo. The
   Yamco, living on the lower Chambiva and crossing the Marañon,
   wandering as far as Saryacu, have a clearer complexion. The
   Pacamora and the Yuguarzongo live on the Maranon, where it
   leaves its northerly course and bends toward the east. The
   Cochiquima live on the lower Yavari; the Mayoruna, or Barbudo,
   on the middle Ucayali beside the Campo and Cochibo, the most
   terrible of South American Indians; they dwell in the woods
   between the Tapiche and the Marañon, and like the Jivaro have
   a beard. The Pano, who formerly dwelt in the territory of
   Lalaguna, but who now live in villages on the upper Ucayali,
   are Christians. ... Their language is the principal one on the
   river, and it is shared by seven other tribes called
   collectively by the missionaries Manioto or Mayno. ... Within
   the woods on the right bank live the Amahuaca and Shacaya. On
   the north they join the Remo, a powerful tribe who are
   distinguished from all the others by the custom of tattooing.
   Outside this Pano linguistic group stand the Campa, Campo, or
   Antis on the east slope of the Peruvian Cordillera at the
   source of the Rio Beni and its tributaries. The Chontaquiros,
   or Piru, now occupy almost entirely the bank of the Ucayali
   below the Pachilia. The Mojos or Moxos live in the Bolivian
   province of Moxos with the small tribes of the Baure, Itonama,
   Pacaguara. A number of smaller tribes belonging to the
   Antesian group need not be enumerated. The late Professor
   James Orton described the Indian tribes of the territory
   between Quito and the river Amazon. The Napo approach the type
   of the Quichua. ... Among all the Indians of the Provincia del
   Oriente, the tribe of Jivaro is one of the largest. These
   people are divided into a great number of sub-tribes. All of
   these speak the clear musical Jivaro language. They are
   muscular, active men. ... The Morona are cannibals in the full
   sense of the word. ... The Campo, still very little known, is
   perhaps the largest Indian tribe in Eastern Peru, and,
   according to some, is related to the Inca race, or at least
   with their successors. They are said to be cannibals, though
   James Orton does not think this possible. ... The nearest
   neighbors of the Campo are the Chontakiro, or Chontaquiro, or
   Chonquiro, called also Piru, who, according to Paul Marcoy,
   are said to be of the same origin with the Campo; but the
   language is wholly different. ... Among the Pano people are
   the wild Conibo; they are the most interesting, but are
   passing into extinction."

      _The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor),
      volume 6, pages 227-231._

{80}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Apache Group [Footnote: See Note, Appendix E.]

   Under the general name of the Apaches "I include all the
   savage tribes roaming through New Mexico, the north-western
   portion of Texas, a small part of northern Mexico, and
   Arizona. ... Owing to their roving proclivities and incessant
   raids they are led first in one direction and then in another.
   In general terms they may be said to range about as follows:
   The Comanches, Jetans, or Nauni, consisting of three tribes,
   the Comanches proper, the Yamparacks, and Tenawas, inhabiting
   northern Texas, eastern Chihuahua, Nuevo Leon, Coahuila,
   Durango, and portions of south-western New Mexico, by language
   allied to the Shoshone family; the Apaches, who call
   themselves Shis Inday, or 'men of the woods,' and whose tribal
   divisions are the Chiricaguis, Coyoteros, Faraones, Gileños,
   Lipanes, Llaneros, Mescaleros, Mimbreños, Natages, Pelones,
   Pinaleños, Tejuas, Tontos, and Vaqueros, roaming over New
   Mexico, Arizona, North-western Texas, Chihuahua and Sonora,
   and who are allied by language to the great Tinneh family; the
   Navajos, or Tenuai, 'men,' as they designate themselves,
   having linguistic affinities with the Apache nation, with
   which they are sometimes classed, living in and around the
   Sierra de los Mimbres; the Mojaves, occupying both banks of
   the Colorado in Mojave Valley; the Hualapais, near the
   head-waters of Bill Williams Fork; the Yumas, on the east bank
   of the Colorado, near its junction with the Rio Gila; the
   Cosninos, who, like the Hualapais, are sometimes included in
   the Apache nation, ranging through the Mogollon Mountains; and
   the Yampais, between Bill Williams Fork and the Rio
   Hassayampa. ... The Apache country is probably the most desert
   of all. ... In both mountain and desert the fierce, rapacious
   Apache, inured from childhood to hunger and thirst, and heat
   and cold, finds safe retreat. ... The Pueblos ... are nothing
   but partially reclaimed Apaches or Comanches."

      _H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapter 5_.

   Dr. Brinton prefers the name Yuma for the whole of
   the Apache Group, confining the name Apache (that being the
   Yuma word for "fighting men") to the one tribe so called. "It
   has also been called the Katchan or Cuchan stock."

      _D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 109._

      See, also, below: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Apalaches.

   "Among the aboriginal tribes of the United States perhaps none
   is more enigmatical than the Apalaches. They are mentioned as
   an important nation by many of the early French and Spanish
   travellers and historians, their name is preserved by a bay
   and river on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico, and by the
   great eastern coast range of mountains, and has been applied
   by ethnologists to a family of cognate nations that found
   their hunting grounds from the Mississippi to the Atlantic and
   from the Ohio river to the Florida Keys; yet, strange to say,
   their own race and place have been but guessed at." The
   derivation of the name of the Apalaches "has been a 'questio
   vexata' among Indianologists." We must "consider it an
   indication of ancient connections with the southern continent,
   and in itself a pure Carib word. 'Apáliché' in the Tamanaca
   dialect of the Guaranay stem on the Orinoco signifies 'man,'
   and the earliest application of the name in the northern
   continent was as the title of the chief of a country, 'l'homme
   par excellence,' and hence, like very many other Indian tribes
   (Apaches, Lenni Lenape, Illinois), his subjects assumed by
   eminence the proud appellation of 'The Men.' ... We have ...
   found that though no general migration took place from the
   continent southward, nor from the islands northward, yet there
   was a considerable intercourse in both directions; that not
   only the natives of the greater and lesser Antilles and
   Yucatan, but also numbers of the Guaranay stem of the southern
   continent, the Caribs proper, crossed the Straits of Florida
   and founded colonies on the shores of the Gulf of Mexico; that
   their customs and language became to a certain extent grafted
   upon those of the early possessors of the soil; and to this
   foreign language the name Apalache belongs. As previously
   stated, it was used as a generic title, applied to a
   confederation of many nations at one time under the domination
   of one chief, whose power probably extended from the Alleghany
   mountains on the north to the shore of the Gulf; that it
   included tribes speaking a tongue closely akin to the Choktah
   is evident from the fragments we have remaining. ... The
   location of the tribe in after years is very uncertain. Dumont
   placed them in the northern part of what is now Alabama and
   Georgia, near the mountains that bear their name. That a
   portion of them did live in this vicinity is corroborated by
   the historians of South Carolina, who say that Colonel Moore,
   in 1703, found them 'between the head-waters of the Savannah
   and Altamaha.' ... According to all the Spanish authorities,
   on the other hand, they dwelt in the region of country between
   the Suwannee and Appalachicola rivers--yet must not be
   confounded with the Apalachicolos. ... They certainly had a
   large and prosperous town in this vicinity, said to contain
   1,000 warriors. ... I am inclined to believe that these were
   different branches of the same confederacy. ... In the
   beginning of the 18th century they suffered much from the
   devastations of the English, French and Creeks. ... About the
   time Spain regained possession of the soil, they migrated to
   the West and settled on the Bayou Rapide of Red River. Here
   they had a village numbering about 50 souls."

      _D. G. Brinton, Notes on the Floridian Peninsula,
      chapter 2._

      See, also, below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Apelousas.

      See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Araicu.

      See below: GUCK ON COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Arapahoes.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Araucanians.

      See CHILE.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Arawaks, or Arauacas.

      See below: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Arecunas.

      See below: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Arikaras.

      See below: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Arkansas.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Assiniboins.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Athapascan Family.
   Chippewyans.
   Tinneh.
   Sarcees [Footnote: See Note, Appendix E.]

   "This name [Athapascans or Athabascans] has been applied to a
   class of tribes who are situated north of the great Churchill
   river, and north of the source of the fork of the
   Saskatchawine, extending westward till within about 150 miles
   of the Pacific Ocean. ... The name is derived, arbitrarily,
   from Lake Athabasca, which is now more generally called the
   Lake of the Hills. Surrounding this lake extends the tribe of
   the Chippewyans, a people so-called by the Kenistenos and
   Chippewas, because they were found to be clothed, in some
   primary encounter, in the scanty garb of the fisher's skin.
   ... We are informed by Mackenzie that the territory occupied
   by the Chippewyans extends between the parallels of 60° and
   65° North and longitudes from 100° to 110° West."

      _H. R. Schoolcraft, Information Respecting the Indian
      Tribes, part 5, page 172._

{81}

   "The Tinneh may be divided into four great families of
   nations; namely, the Chippewyans, or Athabascas, living
   between Hudson Bay and the Rocky Mountains; the Tacullies, or
   Carriers, of New Caledonia or North-western British America;
   the Kutchins, occupying both banks of the Upper Yukon and its
   tributaries, from near its mouth to the Mackenzie River, and
   the Kenai, inhabiting the interior from the lower Yukon to
   Copper River."

      _H. H. Bancroft, The Native Races of the Pacific States,
      chapter 2._

   "The Indian tribes of Alaska and the adjacent region may be
   divided into two groups. ...

   1. Tinneh--Chippewyans of
   authors. ... Father Petitot discusses the terms Athabaskans,
   Chippewayans, Montagnais, and Tinneh as applied to this group
   of Indians. ... This great family includes a large number of
   American tribes extending from near the mouth of the Mackenzie
   south to the borders of Mexico. The Apaches and Navajos belong
   to it, and the family seems to intersect the continent of
   North America in a northerly and southerly direction,
   principally along the flanks of the Rocky Mountains. ... The
   designation [Tinneh] proposed by Messrs. Ross and Gibbs has
   been accepted by most modern ethnologists. ...

   2. T'linkets, which family includes the Yakutats and other
   groups.

      _W. H. Dall, Tribes of the Extreme Northwest
      (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 1)._

   "Wherever found, the members of this group present a certain
   family resemblance. In appearance they are tall and strong,
   the forehead low with prominent superciliary ridges, the eyes
   slightly oblique, the nose prominent but wide toward the base,
   the mouth large, the hands and feet small. Their strength and
   endurance are often phenomenal, but in the North, at least,
   their longevity is slight, few living beyond fifty.
   Intellectually they rank below most of their neighbors, and
   nowhere do they appear as fosterers of the germs of
   civilization. Where, as among the Navajos, we find them having
   some repute for the mechanical arts, it turns out that this is
   owing to having captured and adopted the members of more
   gifted tribes. ... Agriculture was not practised either in the
   north or south, the only exception being the Navajos, and with
   them the inspiration came from other stocks. ... The most
   cultured of their bands were the Navajos, whose name is said
   to signify 'large cornfields,' from their extensive
   agriculture. When the Spaniards first met them in 1541 they
   were tillers of the soil, erected large granaries for their
   crops, irrigated their fields by artificial water courses or
   acequias, and lived in substantial dwellings, partly
   underground; but they had not then learned the art of weaving
   the celebrated 'Navajo blankets,' that being a later
   acquisition of their artisans."

      _D. G. Brinton, The American Race, pages 69-72._

      See, above, APACHE GROUP, and BLACKFEET.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Atsinas (Caddoes).

      See Note, Appendix E.

      See below: BLACKFEET.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Attacapan Family.

   "Derivation: From a Choctaw word meaning 'man-eater.' Little
   is known of the tribe, the language of which forms the basis
   of the present family. The sole knowledge possessed by
   Gallatin was derived from a vocabulary and some scanty
   information furnished by Dr. John Sibley, who collected his
   material in the year 1805. Gallatin states that the tribe was
   reduced to 50 men. ... Mr. Gatschet collected some 2,000 words
   and a considerable body of text. His vocabulary differs
   considerably from the one furnished by Dr. Sibley and
   published by Gallatin. ... The above material seems to show
   that the Attacapa language is distinct from all others, except
   possibly the Chitimachan."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 57._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Aymaras.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Aztecs.

      See below: MAYAS;
      also MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502;
      and AZTEC AND MAYA PICTURE WRITING.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Bakairi.

      See below: CARIBS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Balchitas.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Bannacks.

      See below: SNOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Barbudo.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Baré.

      See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Baure.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Beothukan Family.

   The Beothuk were a tribe, now extinct, which is believed to
   have occupied the whole of Newfoundland at the time of its
   discovery. What is known of the language of the Beothuk
   indicates no relationship to any other American tongue.

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 57._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Biloxis.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Blackfeet, or Siksikas.

      See Note, Appendix E.

   "The tribe that wandered the furthest from the primitive home
   of the stock [the Algonquian] were the Blackfeet, or Sisika,
   which word has this signification. It is derived from their
   earlier habitat in the valley of the Red river of the north,
   where the soil was dark and blackened their moccasins. Their
   bands include the Blood or Kenai and the Piegan Indians. Half
   a century ago they were at the head of a confederacy which
   embraced these and also the Sarcee (Tinné) and the Atsina
   (Caddo) nations, and numbered about 30,000 souls. They have an
   interesting mythology and an unusual knowledge of the
   constellations."

      _D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 79_.

      SEE above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;

      And, below: FLATHEADS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Blood, or Kenai Indians.

      See above: BLACKFEET.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Botocudos.

      See below: TUPI.--GUARANI.--TUPUYAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Brulé:

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Caddoan Family.

      See below: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY;

      See, also, TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cakchiquels.

      See below: QUICHES, and MAYAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Calusa.

      See below: TUMUQUANAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cambas, or Campo, or Campa.

      See above: ANDESIANS;
      also, BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cañares.

      See ECUADOR.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Canas.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Canichanas.

      See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

{82}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Caniengas.

      See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cariay.

      See below: GUCK OR COCO Group.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Caribs and their Kindred.

   "The warlike and unyielding character of these people, so
   different from that of the pusillanimous nations around them,
   and the wide scope of their enterprises and wanderings, like
   those of the nomad tribes of the Old World, entitle them to
   distinguished attention. ... The traditional accounts of their
   origin, though of course extremely vague, are yet capable of
   being verified to a great degree by geographical facts, and
   open one of the rich veins of curious inquiry and speculation
   which abound in the New World. They are said to have migrated
   from the remote valleys embosomed in the Apalachian mountains.
   The earliest accounts we have of them represent them with
   weapons in their hands, continually engaged in wars, winning
   their way and shifting their abode, until, in the course of
   time, they found themselves at the extremity of Florida. Here,
   abandoning the northern continent, they passed over to the
   Lucayos [Bahamas], and thence gradually, in the process of
   years, from island to island of that vast verdant chain, which
   links, as it were, the end of Florida to the coast of Paria,
   on the southern continent. The archipelago extending from
   Porto Rico to Tobago was their stronghold, and the island of
   Guadaloupe in a manner their citadel. Hence they made their
   expeditions, and spread the terror of their name through all
   the surrounding countries. Swarms of them landed upon the
   southern continent, and overran some parts of terra firma.
   Traces of them have been discovered far in the interior of
   that vast country through which flows the Oroonoko. The Dutch
   found colonies of them on the banks of the Ikouteka, which
   empties into the Surinam; along the Esquibi, the Maroni, and
   other rivers of Guayana; and in the country watered by the
   windings of the Cayenne."

      _W. Irving, Life and Voyages of Columbus, book 6, chapter 3
      (volume 1)._

   "To this account [substantially as given above] of the origin
   of the Insular Charaibes, the generality of historians have
   given their assent; but there are doubts attending it that are
   not easily solved. If they migrated from Florida, the
   imperfect state and natural course of their navigation induce
   a belief that traces of them would have been found on those
   islands which are near to the Florida shore; let the natives
   of the Bahamas, when discovered by Columbus, were evidently a
   similar people to those of Hispaniola. Besides, it is
   sufficiently known that there existed anciently many numerous
   and powerful tribes of Charaibes on the southern peninsula,
   extending from the river Oronoko to Essequebe, and throughout
   the whole province of Surinam, even to Brazil, some of which
   still maintain their independency. ... I incline therefore to
   the opinion of Martyr, and conclude that the islanders were
   rather a colony from the Charaibes of South America, than from
   any nation of the North. Rochefort admits that their own
   traditions referred constantly to Guiana."

      _B. Edwards, History of British Colonies in the West
      Indies, book 1, chapter 2._

   "The Carabisce, Carabeesi, Charaibes, Caribs, or Galibis,
   originally occupied [in Guiana] the principal rivers, but as
   the Dutch encroached upon their possessions they retired
   inland, and are now daily dwindling away. According to Mr.
   Hillhouse, they could formerly muster nearly 1,000 fighting
   men, but are now [1855] scarcely able to raise a tenth part of
   that number. ... The smaller islands of the Caribbean Sea were
   formerly thickly populated by this tribe, but now not a trace of
   them remains."

      _H. G. Dalton, History of British Guiana, volume 1, chapter 1._

      _E. F. im Thurn, Among the Indians of Guiana, chapter 6._

   "Recent researches have shown that the original home of the
   stock was south of the Amazon, and probably in the highlands
   at the head of the Tapajoz river. A tribe, the Bakairi, is
   still resident there, whose language is a pure and archaic
   form of the Carib tongue."

      _D. G. Brinton, Races and Peoples, page 268._

   "Related to the Caribs stand a long list of small tribes ...
   all inhabitants of the great primeval forest in and near
   Guiana. They may have characteristic differences, but none
   worthy of mention are known. In bodily appearance, according
   to all accounts, these relatives of the Caribs are beautiful.
   In Georgetown the Arauacas [or Arawaks] are celebrated for
   their beauty. They are slender and graceful, and their
   features handsome and regular, the face having a Grecian
   profile, and the skin being of a reddish cast. A little
   farther inland we find the Macushi [or Macusis], with a
   lighter complexion and a Roman nose. These two types are
   repeated in other tribes, except in the Tarumi, who are
   decidedly ugly. In mental characteristics great similarity
   prevails."

      _The Standard Natural History
      (J. S. Kingsley, ed.), page 237._

   "The Arawaks occupied on the continent the area of the modern
   Guiana, between the Corentyn and the Pomeroon rivers, and at
   one time all the West Indian Islands. From some of them they
   were early driven by the Caribs, and within 40 years of the
   date of Columbus' first voyage the Spanish had exterminated
   nearly all on the islands. Their course of migration had been
   from the interior of Brazil northward; their distant relations
   are still to be found between the headwaters of the Paraguay
   and Schingu rivers."

      _D. G. Brinton, Races and Peoples, page 268-269._

   "The Kapohn (Acawoios, Waikas, &c.) claim kindred with the
   Caribs. ... The Acawoios, though resolute and determined, are
   less hasty and impetuous than the Caribs. ... According to
   their tradition, one of their hordes removed [to the Upper
   Demerera] ... from the Masaruni. The Parawianas, who
   originally dwelt on the Demerera, having been exterminated by
   the continual incursions of the Caribs, the Waika-Acawoios
   occupied their vacant territory. ... The Macusis ... are
   supposed by some to have formerly inhabited the banks of the
   Orinoco. ... As they are industrious and unwarlike, they have
   been the prey of every savage tribe around them. The
   Wapisianas are supposed to have driven them northward and
   taken possession of their country. The Brazilians, as well as
   the Caribs, Acawoios, &c., have long been in the habit of
   enslaving them. ... The Arecunas have been accustomed to
   descend from the higher lands and attack the Macusis. ... This
   tribe is said to have formerly dwelt on the banks of the
   Uaupes or Ucayari, a tributary of the Rio Negro. ... The
   Waraus appear to have been the most ancient inhabitants of the
   land. Very little, however, can be gleaned from them
   respecting their early history. ... The Tivitivas, mentioned
   by Raleigh, were probably a branch of the Waraus, whom he
   calls Quarawetes."

      _W. H. Brett, Indian Tribes of Guiana,
      part 2, chapter 13._

{83}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Caripuna.

      See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cat Nation, or Eries.

      See below: HURONS, &c.,
      and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Catawbas, or Kataba.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY;
      also, TIMUQUANAN.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cayugas.

      See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chancas.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chapas, or Chapanecs.

      See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cherokees.

   "The Cherokee tribe has long been a puzzling factor to
   students of ethnology and North American languages. Whether to
   be considered an abnormal offshoot from one of the well-known
   Indian stocks or families of North America, or the remnant of
   some undetermined or almost extinct family which has merged
   into another, appear to be questions yet unsettled."

      _C. Thomas, Burial Mounds of the Northern Sections of the
      United States (Fifth Annual Report of the Bureau of
      Ethnology, 1883-4)_.

   Facts which tend to identify the Cherokees with the ancient
   "mound-builders" of the Ohio Valley--the Alleghans or
   Talligewi of Indian tradition--are set forth by Professor Thomas
   in a later paper, on the Problem of the Ohio Mounds, published
   by the Bureau of Ethnology in 1889 [see above: ALLEGHANS] and
   in a little book published in 1890, entitled "The Cherokees in
   Pre-Columbian Times." "The Cherokee nation has probably
   occupied a more prominent place in the affairs and history of
   what is now the United States of America, since the date of
   the early European settlements, than any other tribe, nation,
   or confederacy of Indians, unless it be possible to except the
   powerful and warlike league of the Iroquois or Six Nations of
   New York. It is almost certain that they were visited at a
   very early period [1540] following the discovery of the
   American continent by that daring and enthusiastic Spaniard,
   Fernando de Soto. ... At the time of the English settlement of
   the Carolinas the Cherokees occupied a diversified and
   well-watered region of country of large extent upon the waters
   of the Catawba, Broad, Saluda, Keowee, Tugaloo, Savannah, and
   Coosa rivers on the east and south, and several tributaries of
   the Tennessee on the north and west. ... In subsequent years,
   through frequent and long continued conflicts with the ever
   advancing white settlements, and the successive treaties
   whereby the Cherokees gradually yielded portions of their
   domain, the location and names of their towns were continually
   changing until the final removal of the nation [1836-1839]
   west of the Mississippi. ... This removal turned the Cherokees
   back in the calendar of progress and civilization at least a
   quarter of a century. The hardships and exposures of the
   journey, coupled with the fevers and malaria of a radically
   different climate, cost the lives of perhaps 10 per cent. of
   their total population. The animosities and turbulence born of
   the treaty of 1835 not only occasioned the loss of many lives,
   but rendered property insecure, and in consequence diminished
   the zeal and industry of the entire community in its
   accumulation. A brief period of comparative quiet, however,
   was again characterized by an advance toward a higher
   civilization. Five years after their removal we find from the
   report of their agent that they are again on the increase in
   population. ... With the exception of occasional
   drawbacks--the result of civil feuds--the progress of the
   nation in education, industry and civilization continued until
   the outbreak of the rebellion. At this period, from the best
   attainable information, the Cherokees numbered 21,000 souls.
   The events of the war brought to them more of desolation and
   ruin than perhaps to any other community. Raided and sacked
   alternately, not only by the Confederates and Union forces,
   but by the vindictive ferocity and hate of their own factional
   divisions, their country became a blackened and desolate
   waste. ... The war over, and the work of reconstruction
   commenced, found them numbering 14,000 impoverished,
   heart-broken, and revengeful people. ... To-day their country
   is more prosperous than ever. They number 22,000, a greater
   population than they have had at any previous period, except
   perhaps just prior to the date of the treaty of 1835, when
   those east added to those west of the Mississippi are stated
   to have aggregated nearly 25,000 people. To-day they have
   2,300 scholars attending 75 schools, established and supported
   by themselves at an annual expense to the nation of nearly
   $100,000. To-day, 13,000 of their people can read and 18,000
   can speak the English language. To-day, 5,000 brick, frame and
   log-houses are occupied by them, and they have 64 churches
   with a membership of several thousand. They cultivate 100,000
   acres of land and have an additional 150,000 fenced. ... They
   have a constitutional form of government predicated upon that
   of the United States. As a rule their laws are wise and
   beneficent and are enforced with strictness and justice. ...
   The present Cherokee population is of a composite character.
   Remnants of other nations or tribes [Delawares, Shawnees,
   Creeks, Natchez] have from time to time been absorbed and
   admitted to full participation in the benefits of Cherokee
   citizenship."

      _C. C. Royce, The Cherokee Nation of Indians (Fifth
      Annual Reportt of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84)._

   This elaborate paper by Mr. Royce is a narrative in detail of
   the official relations of the Cherokees with the colonial and
   federal governments, from their first treaty with South
   Carolina, in 1721, down to the treaty of April 27, 1868.--"As
   early as 1798 Barton compared the Cheroki language with that
   of the Iroquois and stated his belief that there was a
   connection between them. ... Mr. Hale was the first to give
   formal expression to his belief in the affinity of the Cheroki
   to Iroquois. Recently extensive Cheroki vocabularies have come
   into possession of the Bureau of Ethnology, and a careful
   comparison of them with ample Iroquois material has been made
   by Mr Hewitt. The result is convincing proof of the
   relationship of the two languages."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 77._

      See Note, Appendix: E.

      ALSO IN
      _S. G. Drake, The Aboriginal Races of North America, book
      4, chapter 13-16._

      See, above: ALLEGHANS.

      See, also, for an account of the Cherokee War of 1759-1761,
      SOUTH CAROLINA: A. D. 1759-1761; and for "Lord Dunmore's
      War," OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cheyennes, or Sheyennes.

      See above; ALGONQUIAN FAMILY

{84}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chibchas.

   The most northerly group of the tribes of the Andes "are the
   Cundinamarca of the table lands of Bogota. At the time of the
   conquest the watershed of the Magdalena was occupied by the
   Chibcha, or, as they were called by the Spaniards, Muyscas. At
   that time the Chibcha were the most powerful of all the
   autochthonous tribes, had a long history behind them, were
   well advanced toward civilization, to which numerous
   antiquities bear witness. The Chibcha of to-day no longer
   speak the well-developed and musical language of their
   forefathers. It became extinct about 1730, and it can now only
   be inferred from existing dialects of it; these are the
   languages of the Turiero, a tribe dwelling north of Bogota,
   and of the Itoco Indians who live in the neighborhood of the
   celebrated Emerald mines of Muzo."

      _The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor)
      volume 6, page 215_.

   "As potters and goldsmiths they [the Chibcha] ranked among the
   finest on the continent."

      _D. G. Brinton, Races and Peoples, page 272._

      See, also, COLOMBIAN STATES: A. D. 1536-1731.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chicasas.

      See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
      also, LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chichimecs.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chimakuan Family.

   "The Chimakum are said to have been formerly one of the
   largest and most powerful tribes of Puget Sound. Their
   warlike habits early tended to diminish their numbers, and
   when visited by Gibbs in 1854 they counted only about 70
   individuals. This small remnant occupied some 15 small lodges
   on Port Townsend Bay."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 62._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chimarikan Family.

   "According to Powers, this family was represented, so far as
   known, by two tribes in California, one the Chi-mál-a-kwe,
   living on New River, a branch of the Trinity, the other the
   Chimariko, residing upon the Trinity itself from Burnt Ranch
   up to the mouth of North Fork, California. The two tribes are
   said to have been as numerous formerly as the Hupa, by whom
   they were overcome and nearly exterminated. Upon the arrival
   of the Americans only 25 of the Chimalakwe were left."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 63._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chinantecs.

      See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chinookan Family.

   "The banks of the Columbia, from the Grand Dalles to its
   mouth, belong to the two branches of the Tsinuk [or Chinook]
   nation, which meet in the neighborhood of the Kowlitz River,
   and of which an almost nominal remnant is left. ... The
   position of the Tsinuk previous to their depopulation was, as
   at once appears, most important, occupying both sides of the
   great artery of Oregon for a distance of 200 miles, they
   possessed the principal thoroughfare between the interior and
   the ocean, boundless resources of provisions of various kinds,
   and facilities for trade almost unequalled on the Pacific."

      _G. Gibbs, Tribes of West Washington and N. W. Oregon
      (Contributions to North American Ethnology, volume 1),
      page 164._

      See, also, below: FLATHEADS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chippewas.

      See below: OJIBWAS;
      and above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chippewyans.

      See below: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Choctaws.

      See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chontals and Popolocas.

   "According to the census of 1880 there were 31,000 Indians in
   Mexico belonging to the Familia Chontal. No such family
   exists. The word 'chontalli' in the Nahuatl language means
   simply 'stranger,' and was applied by the Nahuas to any people
   other than their own. According to the Mexican statistics, the
   Chontals are found in the states of Mexico, Puebla, Oaxaca,
   Guerrero, Tabasco, Guatemala and Nicaragua. A similar term is
   'popoloca,' which in Nahuatl means a coarse fellow, one
   speaking badly, that is, broken Nahuatl. The Popolocas have
   also been erected into an ethnic entity by some ethnographers,
   with as little justice as the Chontallis. They are stated to
   have lived in the provinces of Puebla, Oaxaca, Vera Cruz,
   Mechoacan and Guatemala."

      _D. G. Brinton, The American Race, pages 146-153._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chontaquiros.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Chumashan Family.

   "Derivation: From Chumash, the name of the Santa Rosa
   Islanders. The several dialects of this family have long been
   known under the group or family name, 'Santa Barbara,' which
   seems first to have been used in a comprehensive sense by
   Latham in 1856, who included under it three languages, viz.:
   Santa Barbara, Santa Inez, and San Luis Obispo. The term has
   no special pertinence as a family designation, except from the
   fact that the Santa Barbara Mission, around which one of the
   dialects of the family was spoken, is perhaps more widely
   known than any of the others."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 67._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cliff-dwellers.

      See AMERICA: PREHISTORIC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Coahuiltecan Family.

   "Derivation: From the name of the Mexican State Coahuila. This
   family appears to have included numerous tribes in
   southwestern Texas and in Mexico. ... A few Indians still
   survive who speak one of the dialects of this family, and in
   1886 Mr. Gatschet collected vocabularies of two tribes, the
   Comecrudo and Cotoname, who live on the Rio Grande, at Las
   Prietas, State of Tamaulipas."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 68._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Coajiro, or Guajira.

   "An exceptional position is taken, in many respects, by the
   Coajiro, or Guajira, who live on the peninsula of the same
   name on the northwestern boundary of Venezuela. Bounded on all
   sides by so-called civilized peoples, this Indian tribe is
   known to have maintained its independence, and acquired the
   well-deserved reputation for cruelty, a tribe which, in many
   respects, can be classed with the Apaches and Comanches of New
   Mexico, the Araucanians of Chili, and the Guaycara and Guarani
   on the Parana. The Coajiro are mostly large, with
   chestnut-brown complexion and black, sleek hair. While all the
   other coast tribes have adopted the Spanish language, the
   Coajiro have preserved their own speech. They are the especial
   foes of the other peoples. No one is given entrance into their
   land, and they live with their neighbors, the Venezuelans, in
   constant hostilities. They have fine horses, which they know
   how to ride excellently. ... They have numerous herds of
   cattle. ... They follow agriculture a little."

      _The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor),
      volume 6, page 243._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cochibo.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cochiquima.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Coco Group.

      See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Coconoons.

      See below: MARIPOSAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cofan.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

{85}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Collas.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Comanches.

      See below: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY,
      and KIOWAN FAMILY;
      and above: APACHE GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Conestogas.

      See below: SUSQUEHANNAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Conibo.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Conoys.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Copehan Family.

   "The territory of the Copehan family is bounded on the north
   by Mount Shasta and the territory of the Sastean and Lutuamian
   families, on the east by the territory of the Palaihnihan,
   Yanan, and Punjunan families, and on the south by the bays of
   San Pablo and Suisun and the lower waters of the Sacramento."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 69._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Costanoan Family.

   "Derivation: From the Spanish costano, 'coast-men.' Under this
   group name Latham included five tribes ... which were under
   the supervision of the Mission Dolores. ... The territory of
   the Costanoan family extends from the Golden Gate to a point
   near the southern end of Monterey Bay. ... The surviving
   Indians of the once populous tribes of this family are now
   scattered over several counties and probably do not number,
   all told, over 30 individuals, as was ascertained by Mr.
   Henshaw in 1888. Most of these are to be found near the
   towns of Santa Cruz and Monterey."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      p, 71._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Creek Confederacy, Creek Wars.

      See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY;
      also UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813-1814 (AUGUST-APRIL);
      and FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Crees.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Croatans,

      See AMERICA: A. D. 1587-1590.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Crows (Upsarokas, or Absarokas).

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cuatos.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cunimaré.

      See below: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Cuyriri or Kiriri.

      See below: GUCK on Coco GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Dakotas, or Dacotahs, or Dahcotas.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Delawares, or Lenape.

   "The proper name of the Delaware Indians was and is Lenapé (a
   as in father, é as a in mate). ... The Lenape were divided
   into three sub-tribes:
      1. The Minsi, Monseys, Montheys, Munsees, or Minisinks.
      2. The Unami or Wonameys.
      3. The Unalachtigo.
   No explanation of these designations will be
   found in Heckewelder or the older writers. From
   investigations among living Delawares, carried out at my
   request by Mr. Horatio Hale, it is evident that they are
   wholly geographical, and refer to the location of these
   sub-tribes on the Delaware river. ... The Minsi lived in the
   mountainous region at the head waters of the Delaware, above
   the Forks or junction of the Lehigh river. ... The Unamis'
   territory on the right bank of the Delaware river extended
   from the Lehigh Valley southward. It was with them and their
   southern neighbors, the Unalachtigos, that Penn dealt for the
   land ceded to him in the Indian deed of 1682. The Minsis did
   not take part in the transaction, and it was not until 1737
   that the Colonial authorities treated directly with the latter
   for the cession of their territory. The Unalachtigo or Turkey
   totem had its principal seat on the affluents of the Delawares
   near where Wilmington now stands."

      _D. G. Brinton, The Lenape and Their Legends,
      chapter 3._

   "At the ... time when
   William Penn landed in Pennsylvania, the Delawares had been
   subjugated and made women by the Five Nations. It is well
   known that, according to that Indian mode of expression, the
   Delawares were henceforth prohibited from making war, and
   placed under the sovereignty of the conquerors, who did not
   even allow sales of land, in the actual possession of the
   Delawares, to be valid without their approbation. William
   Penn, his descendants, and the State of Pennsylvania,
   accordingly, always purchased the right of possession from the
   Delawares, and that of Sovereignty from the Five Nations. ...
   The use of arms, though from very different causes, was
   equally prohibited to the Delawares and to the Quakers. Thus
   the colonization of Pennsylvania and of West New Jersey by the
   British, commenced under the most favorable auspices. Peace
   and the utmost harmony prevailed for more than sixty years
   between the whites and the Indians; for these were for the
   first time treated, not only justly, but kindly, by the
   colonists. But, however gradually and peaceably their lands
   might have been purchased, the Delawares found themselves at
   last in the same situation as all the other Indians, without
   lands of their own, and therefore without means of
   subsistence. They were compelled to seek refuge on the waters
   of the Susquehanna, as tenants at will, on lands belonging to
   their hated conquerors, the Five Nations. Even there and on
   the Juniata they were encroached upon. ... Under those
   circumstances, many of the Delawares determined to remove west
   of the Alleghany Mountains, and, about the year 1740-50,
   obtained from their ancient allies and uncles, the Wyandots,
   the grant of a derelict tract of land lying principally on the
   Muskingum. The great body of the nation was still attached to
   Pennsylvania. But the grounds of complaint increased. The
   Delawares were encouraged by the western tribes, and by the
   French, to shake off the yoke of the Six Nations, and to join
   in the war against their allies, the British. The frontier
   settlements of Pennsylvania were accordingly attacked both by
   the Delawares and the Shawnoes. And, although peace was made
   with them at Easton in in 1758, and the conquest of Canada put
   an end to the general war, both the Shawnoes and Delawares
   removed altogether in 1768 beyond the Alleghany Mountains. ...
   The years 1765-1795 are the true period of the power and
   importance of the Delawares. United with the Shawnoes, who
   were settled on the Scioto, they sustained during the Seven
   Years' War the declining power of France, and arrested for
   some years the progress of the British and American arms.
   Although a portion of the nation adhered to the Americans
   during the War of Independence, the main body, together with
   all the western nations made common cause with the British.
   And, after the short truce which followed the treaty of 1783,
   they were again at the head of the western confederacy in
   their last struggle for independence. Placed by their
   geographical situation in the front of battle, they were,
   during those three wars, the aggressors, and, to the last
   moment, the most active and formidable enemies of America. The
   decisive victory of General Wayne (1794), dissolved the
   confederacy; and the Delawares were the greatest sufferers by
   the treaty of Greenville of 1795."
{86}
   After this, the greater part of the Delawares were settled on
   White River, Indiana, "till the year 1819, when they finally
   ceded their claim to the United States. Those residing there
   were then reduced to about 800 souls. A number ... had
   previously removed to Canada; and it is difficult to ascertain
   the situation or numbers of the residue at this time [1836].
   Those who have lately removed west of the Mississippi are, in
   an estimate of the War Department, computed at 400 souls.
   Former emigrations to that quarter had however taken place,
   and several small dispersed bands are, it is believed, united
   with the Senecas and some other tribes."

      _A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia
      Americana, volume 2), introduction, section 2._

      See, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY:
      below: SHAWANESE, and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.
      Also, PONTIAC'S WAR; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768;
      and MORAVIAN BRETHREN;
      and, for an account of "Lord Dunmore's War,"
      see Ohio (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Eries.

      See below: HURONS, &c.,
      and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Eskimauan Family.

   "Save a slight inter-mixture of European settlers, the Eskimo
   are the only inhabitants of the shores of Arctic America, and
   of both sides of Davis Strait and Baffin Bay, including
   Greenland, as well as a tract of about 400 miles on the
   Behring Strait coast of Asia. Southward they extend as far as
   about 50° North latitude on the eastern side, 60° on the
   western side of America, and from 55° to 60° on the shores of
   Hudson Bay. Only on the west the Eskimo near their frontier
   are interrupted on two small spots of the coast by the Indians,
   named Kennayans and Ugalenzes, who have there advanced to the
   sea-shore for the sake of fishing. These coasts of Arctic
   America, of course, also comprise all the surrounding islands.
   Of these, the Aleutian Islands form an exceptional group; the
   inhabitants of these on the one hand distinctly differing from
   the coast people here mentioned, while on the other they show
   a closer relationship to the Eskimo than any other nation. The
   Aleutians, therefore, may be considered as only an abnormal
   branch of the Eskimo nation. ... As regards their northern
   limits, the Eskimo people, or at least remains of their
   habitations, have been found nearly as far north as any Arctic
   explorers have hitherto advanced: and very possibly bands of
   them may live still farther to the north, as yet quite unknown
   to us. ... On comparing the Eskimo with the neighbouring
   nations, their physical complexion certainly seems to point at
   an Asiatic origin; but, as far as we know, the latest
   investigations have also shown a transitional link to exist
   between the Eskimo and the other American nations, which would
   sufficiently indicate the possibility of a common origin from
   the same continent. As to their mode of life, the Eskimo
   decidedly resemble their American neighbours. ... With regard
   to their language, the Eskimo also appear akin to the American
   nations in regard to its decidedly polysynthetic structure.
   Here, however, on the other hand, we meet with some very
   remarkable similarities between the Eskimo idiom and the
   language of Siberia, belonging to the Altaic or Finnish group.
   ... According to the Sagas of the Icelanders, they were
   already met with on the east coast of Greenland about the year
   1000, and almost at the same time on the east coast of the
   American continent. ... Between the years 1000 and 1300 they
   do not seem to have occupied the land south of 65° North L. on
   the west coast of Greenland, where the Scandinavian colonies
   were then situated. But the colonists seem to have been aware
   of their existence in higher latitudes, and to have lived in
   fear of an attack by them, since, in the year 1266, an
   expedition was sent out for the purpose of exploring the
   abodes of the Skrælings, as they were called by the colonists.
   ... About the year 1450, the last accounts were received from
   the colonies, and the way to Greenland was entirely forgotten
   in the mother country.  ... The features of the natives in the
   Southern part of Greenland indicate a mixed descent from the
   Scandinavians and Eskimo, the former, however, not having left
   the slightest sign of any influence on the nationality or
   culture of the present natives. In the year 1585, Greenland
   was discovered anew by John Davis, and found inhabited
   exclusively by Eskimo."

      _H. Rink, Tales and Traditions of the Eskimo,
      introduction and chapter 6._

      _H. Rink, The Eskimo tribes._

   "In 1869, I proposed for the Aleuts and people of Innuit stock
   collectively the term Orarians, as indicative of their
   coastwise distribution, and as supplying the need of a general
   term to designate a very well-defined race. ...The Orarians
   are divided into two well-marked groups, namely the Innuits,
   comprising all the so-called Eskimo and Tuskis, and the
   Aleuts."

      _W. H. Dall, Tribes of the Extreme Northwest (Contributed
      to North American Ethnology, volume 1), part 1._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Esselenian Family.

   "The present family was included by Latham in the
   heterogeneous group called by him Salinas. ... The term
   Salinan [is now] restricted to the San Antonio and San Miguel
   languages, leaving the present family ... [to be] called
   Esselenian, from the name of the single tribe Esselen, of
   which it is composed. ... The tribe or tribes composing this
   family occupied a narrow strip of the California coast from
   Monterey Bay south to the vicinity of the Santa Lucia
   Mountain, a distance of about 50 miles."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, pages 75-76._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Etchemins.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Eurocs, or Yuroks.

      See below: MODOCS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Five Nations.

      See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Flatheads (Salishan Family).

      See Note, Appendix E.

   "The name Flathead was commonly given to the Choctaws, though,
   says Du Pratz, he saw no reason why they should be so
   distinguished, when the practice of flattening the head was so
   general. And in the enumeration just cited [Documentary Hist.
   of New York, volume 1, page 24] the next paragraph. ... is: 'The
   Flatheads, Cherakis, Chicachas, and Totiris are included under
   the name of Flatheads by the Iroquois."

      _M. F. Force, Some Early Notices of the Indians of Ohio,
      page 32._

   "The Salish ... are distinctively known as Flatheads, though
   the custom of deforming the cranium is not confined to them."

      _D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 107._

   "In ... early times the hunters and trappers could not
   discover why the Blackfeet and Flatheads [of Montana] received
   their respective designations, for the feet of the former are
   no more inclined to sable than any other part of the body,
   while the heads of the latter possess their fair proportion of
   rotundity. Indeed it is only below the falls and rapids that
   real Flatheads appear, and at the mouth of the Columbia that
   they flourish most supernaturally. The tribes who practice the
   custom of flattening the head, and who lived at the mouth of
   the Columbia, differed little from each other in laws, manners
   or customs, and were composed of the Cathlamahs, Killmucks,
   Clatsops, Chinooks and Chilts. The abominable custom of
   flattening their heads prevails among them all."

      _P. Ronan, Historical Sketch of the Flathead Indian
      Nation, page 17._

   In Major Powell's linguistic classification, the "Salishan
   Family" (Flathead) is given a distinct place.

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 102._

{87}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Fox Indians.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      and below, SACS, &c.

   For an account of the massacre of Fox Indians at Detroit in
   1712,

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1711-1713.

   For an account of the Black Hawk War,

      See Illinois: A. D. 1832.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Fuegians.

      See below: PATAGONIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Gausarapos or Guuchies.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Ges Tribes.

      See below: TUPI.--GUARANI.--TUPUYAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Gros Ventres (Minnetaree; Hidatsa).

      See Note, Appendix E.
      See below: HIDATSA;
      also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Guaicarus.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Guajira.

      See above: COAJIRO.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Guanas.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Guarani.

      See below: TUPI.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Guayanas.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Guck or Coco Group.

   An extensive linguistic group of tribes in Brazil, on and
   north of the Amazon, extending as far as the Orinoco, has been
   called the Guck, or Coco group. "There is no common name for
   the group, that here used meaning a father's brother, a very
   important personage in these tribes. The Guck group embraces a
   large number of tribes. ... We need enumerate but few. The
   Cuyriri or Kiriri (also known as Sabaja, Pimenteiras, etc.),
   number about 3,000. Some of them are half civilized, some are
   wild, and, without restraint, wander about, especially in the
   mountains in the Province of Pernambuco. The Araicu live on
   the lower Amazon and the Tocantins. Next come the Manaos, who
   have a prospect of maintaining themselves longer than most
   tribes. With them is connected the legend of the golden lord
   who washed the gold dust from his limbs in a lake [see EL
   DORADO].  ... The Uirina, Baré, and Cariay live on the Rio
   Negro, the Cunimaré on the Jurua, the Maranha on the Jutay.
   Whether the Chamicoco on the right bank of the Paraguay,
   belong to the Guck is uncertain. Among the tribes which,
   though very much mixed, are still to be enumerated with the
   Guck, are the Tecuna and the Passé. In language the Tecunas
   show many similarities to the Ges; they live on the western
   borders of Brazil, and extend in Equador to the Pastaça. Among
   them occur peculiar masques which strongly recall those found
   on the northwest coast of North America. ... In the same
   district belong the Uaupe, who are noticeable from the fact
   that they live in barracks, indeed the only tribe in South
   America in which this custom appears. The communistic houses
   of the Uaupe are called 'malloca;' they are buildings of about
   120 feet long, 75 feet wide, and 30 high, in which live a band
   of about 100 persons in 12 families, each of the latter,
   however, in its own room. ... Finally, complex tribes of the
   most different nationality are comprehended under names which
   indicate only a common way of life, but are also incorrectly
   used as ethnographic names. These are Caripuna, Mura, and
   Miranha, all of whom live in the neighborhood of the Madeira
   River. Of the Caripuna or Jaûn-Avô (both terms signify
   'watermen'), who are mixed with Quichua blood, it is related
   that they not only ate human flesh, but even cured it for
   preservation. ... Formerly the Mura ... were greatly feared;
   this once powerful and populous tribe, however, was almost
   entirely destroyed at the end of the last century by the
   Mundruco; the remnant is scattered. ... The Mura are the
   gypsies among the Indians on the Amazon; and by all the other
   tribes they are regarded with a certain degree of contempt as
   pariahs. ... Much to be feared, even among the Indians, are
   also the Miranha (i. e., rovers, vagabonds), a still populous
   tribe on the right bank of the Japura, who seem to know
   nothing but war, robbery, murder, and man-hunting."

      _The Standard Natural History
      (J. S. Kingsley, ed.), volume 6, pages 245-248._

      ALSO IN _F. Keller, The Amazon and Madeira Rivers,
      chapter 2 and 6._

      _H. W. Bates, A Naturalist on the River Amazons,
      chapter 7-13._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Guuchies.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Hackinsacks.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Haidas.

      See below: SKITTAGETAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Hidatsa, or Minnetaree, or Grosventres

      See Note, Appendix E.

   "The Hidatsa, Minnetaree, or Grosventre Indians, are one of
   the three tribes which at present inhabit the permanent
   village at Fort Berthold, Dakota Territory, and hunt on the
   waters of the Upper Missouri and Yellowstone Rivers, in
   Northwestern Dakota and Eastern Montana. The history of this
   tribe is ... intimately connected with that of the politically
   allied tribes of the Aricarees and Mandans." The name,
   Grosventres, was given to the people of this tribe "by the
   early French and Canadian adventurers. The same name was
   applied also to a tribe, totally distinct from these in
   language and origin, which lives some hundreds of miles west
   of Fort Berthold; and the two nations are now distinguished
   from one another as Grosventres of the Missouri and
   Grosventres of the Prairie. ... Edward Umfreville, who traded
   on the Saskatchewan River from 1784 to 1787, ... remarks: ...
   'They [the Canadian French] call them Grosventres, or
   Big-Bellies; and without any reason, as they are as comely and
   as well made as any tribe whatever.' ... In the works of many
   travellers they are called Minnetarees, a name which is
   spelled in various ways. ... This, although a Hidatsa word, is
   the name applied to them, not by themselves, but by the
   Mandans; it signifies 'to cross the water,' or 'they crossed
   the water.' ... Hidatsa was the name of the village on Knife
   River farthest from the Missouri, the village of those whom
   Lewis and Clarke considered the Minnetarees proper." It is the
   name "now generally used by this people to designate
   themselves."

      _W. Matthews, Ethnography and Philology of the Hidatsa
      Indians, parts 1-2 (United States Geological and
      Geographical Survey. F. V. Hayden, Mis. Pub., No. 7)_.

   See also, below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

{88}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES: Hitchitis.

      See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Horikans.

   North of the Mohegans, who occupied the east bank of the
   Hudson River opposite Albany, and covering the present
   counties of Columbia and Rensselaer, dwelt the Algonkin tribe
   of Horikans, "whose hunting grounds appear to have extended
   from the waters of the Connecticut, across the Green
   Mountains, to the borders of that beautiful lake [named Lake
   George by the too loyal Sir William Johnson] which might now
   well bear their sonorous name."

      _J. R. Brodhead, History of the State of New York,
      page 77._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Huamaboya.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Huancas.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Huastecs.

      See below: MAYAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Huecos, or Wacos.

      See below: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Humas, or Oumas.

      See below: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Hupas.

      See Note, Appendix E.
      See below: MODOCS, &c.

   Hurons, or Wyandots.
   Neutral Nation.
   Eries.

   "The peninsula between the Lakes Huron, Erie, and Ontario was
   occupied by two distinct peoples, speaking dialects of the
   Iroquois tongue. The Hurons or Wyandots, including the tribe
   called by the French the Dionondadies, or Tobacco Nation,
   dwelt among the forests which bordered the eastern shores of
   the fresh water sea to which they have left their name; while
   the Neutral Nation, so called from their neutrality in the war
   between the Hurons and the Five Nations, inhabited the
   northern shores of Lake Erie, and even extended their eastern
   flank across the strait of Niagara. The population of the
   Hurons has been variously stated at from 10,000 to 30,000
   souls, but probably did not exceed the former estimate. The
   Franciscans and the Jesuits were early among them, and from
   their descriptions it is apparent that, in legends, and
   superstitions, manners and habits, religious observances and
   social customs, they were closely assimilated to their
   brethren of the Five Nations. ... Like the Five Nations, the
   Wyandots were in some measure an agricultural people; they
   bartered the surplus products of their maize fields to
   surrounding tribes, usually receiving fish in exchange; and
   this traffic was so considerable that the Jesuits styled their
   country the Granary of the Algonquins. Their prosperity was
   rudely broken by the hostilities of the Five Nations; for
   though the conflicting parties were not ill matched in point
   of numbers, yet the united counsels and ferocious energies of
   the confederacy swept all before them. In the year 1649, in
   the depth of winter, their warriors invaded the country of the
   Wyandots, stormed their largest villages, and involved all
   within in indiscriminate slaughter. The survivors fled in
   panic terror, and the whole nation was broken and dispersed.
   Some found refuge among the French of Canada, where, at the
   village of Lorette, near Quebec, their descendants still
   remain; others were incorporated with their conquerors, while
   others again fled northward, beyond Lake Superior, and sought
   an asylum among the wastes which bordered on the north-eastern
   lands of the Dahcotah. Driven back by those fierce bison-hunters,
   they next established themselves about the outlet of Lake
   Superior, and the shores and islands in the northern parts of
   Lake Huron. Thence, about the year 1680, they descended to
   Detroit, where they formed a permanent settlement, and where,
   by their superior valor, capacity and address, they soon
   acquired an ascendancy over the surrounding Algonquins. The
   ruin of the Neutral Nation followed close on that of the
   Wyandots, to whom, according to Jesuit authority, they bore an
   exact resemblance in character and manners. The Senecas soon
   found means to pick a quarrel with them; they were assailed by
   all the strength of the insatiable confederacy, and within a
   few years their destruction as a nation was complete."

      _F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1._

      _F. Parkman, The Jesuits in North America, chapter 1._

   "The first in this locality [namely, the western extremity of
   the State of New York, on and around the site of the city of
   Buffalo], of whom history makes mention, were the
   Attiouandaronk, or Neutral Nation, called Kah-kwas by the
   Senecas. They had their council-fires along the Niagara, but
   principally on its western side. Their hunting grounds
   extended from the Genesee nearly to the eastern shores of Lake
   Huron, embracing a wide and important territory. ... They are
   first mentioned by Champlain during his winter visit to the
   Hurons in 1615 ... but he was unable to visit their territory.
   ... The peace which this peculiar people had so long
   maintained with the Iroquois was destined to be broken. Some
   jealousies and collisions occurred in 1647, which culminated
   in open war in 1650. One of the villages of the Neutral
   Nation, nearest the Senecas and not far from the site of our
   city [Buffalo], was captured in the autumn of the latter year,
   and another the ensuing spring. So well-directed and energetic
   were the blows of the Iroquois, that the total destruction of
   the Neutral Nation was speedily accomplished. ... The
   survivors were adopted by their conquerors. .... A long period
   intervened between the destruction of the Neutral Nation and
   the permanent occupation of their country by the
   Senecas,"--which latter event occurred after the expulsion of
   the Senecas from the Genesee Valley, by the expedition under
   General Sullivan, in 1779, during the Revolutionary War. "They
   never, as a nation, resumed their ancient seats along the
   Genesee, but sought and found a new home on the secluded banks
   and among the basswood forests of the Dó-syo-wa, or Buffalo
   Creek, whence they had driven the Neutral Nation 130 years
   before. ... It has been assumed by many writers that the
   Kah-kwas and Eries were identical. This is not so. The latter,
   according to the most reliable authorities, lived south of the
   western extremity of Lake Erie until they were destroyed by
   the Iroquois in 1655. The Kah-kwas were exterminated by them
   as early as 1651. On Coronelli's map, published in 1688, one
   of the villages of the latter, called 'Kahouagoga, a destroyed
   nation,' is located at or near the site of Buffalo."

      _O. H. Marshall, The Niagara Frontier, pages 5-8, and
      foot-note_.

   "Westward of the Neutrals, along the Southeastern shores of
   Lake Erie, and stretching as far east as the Genesee river,
   lay the country of the Eries, or, as they were denominated by
   the Jesuits, 'La Nation Chat,' or Cat Nation, who were also a
   member of the Huron-Iroquois family. The name of the beautiful
   lake on whose margin our city [Buffalo] was cradled is their
   most enduring monument, as Lake Huron is that of the generic
   stock. They were called the Cat Nation either because that
   interesting but mischievous animal, the raccoon, which the
   holy fathers erroneously classed in the feline gens, was the
   totem of their leading clan, or sept, or in consequence of the
   abundance of that mammal within their territory."

      _W. C. Bryant, Interesting Archaeological Studies in and
      about Buffalo, page 12._

{89}

   Mr. Schoolcraft either identifies or confuses the Eries and
   the Neutral Nation.

      _H. R. Schoolcraft, Sketch of the History of the Ancient
      Eries (Information Respecting the Indian Tribes, part 4. p.
      197)._

      ALSO IN
      _J. G. Shea, Inquiries Respecting the lost Neutral Nation
      (same, part 4, page 204)._-

      _D. Wilson, The Huron-Iroquois of Canada (Trans. Royal
      Society of Canada, 1884)_.

      _P. D. Clarke, Origin and Traditional History of the
      Wyandottes._

      _W. Ketchum, History of Buffalo, volume 1, chapter 1-2_.

      _N. B. Craig. The Olden Time, volume 1, page 225_.

      See below: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY;

      Also, CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1608-1611; 1611-1616;
      1634-1652; 1640-1700.

      See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.

   For an account of "Lord Dunmore's War,"

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Illinois and Miamis.

   "Passing the country of the Lenape and the Shawanoes, and
   descending the Ohio, the traveller would have found its valley
   chiefly occupied by two nations, the Miamis or Twightwees, on
   the Wabash and its branches, and the Illinois, who dwelt in
   the neighborhood of the river to which they have given their
   name, while portions of them extended beyond the Mississippi.
   Though never subjugated, as were the Lenape, both the Miamis
   and the Illinois were reduced to the last extremity by the
   repeated attacks of the Five Nations; and the Illinois, in
   particular, suffered so much by these and other wars, that the
   population of ten or twelve thousand, ascribed to them by the
   early French writers, had dwindled, during the first quarter
   of the eighteenth century,
   to a few small villages."

      _F. Parkman, Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1._

      See, also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      and below: SACS, &c.;
      also CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1669-1687.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Incas, or Yncas.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Innuits.

      See above: ESKIMAUAN.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Iowas.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY, and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Iroquois Confederacy.
   Iroquoian Family.

   "At the outset of the 16th Century, when the five tribes or
   nations of the Iroquois confederacy first became known to
   European explorers, they were found occupying the valleys and
   uplands of northern New York, in that picturesque and fruitful
   region which stretches westward from the head-waters of the
   Hudson to the Genesee. The Mohawks, or Caniengas--as they
   should properly be called--possessed the Mohawk River, and
   covered Lake George and Lake Champlain with their flotillas of
   large canoes, managed with the boldness and skill which,
   hereditary in their descendants, make them still the best
   boatmen of the North American rivers. West of the Caniengas
   the Oneidas held the small river and lake which bear their
   name. ... West of the Oneidas, the imperious Onondagas, the
   central and, in some respects, the ruling nation of the
   League, possessed the two lakes of Onondaga and Skaneateles.
   together with the common outlet of this inland lake system,
   the Oswego River to its issue into Lake Ontario. Still
   proceeding westward, the lines of trail and river led to the
   long and winding stretch of Lake Cayuga, about which were
   clustered the towns of the people who gave their name to the
   lake; and beyond them, over the wide expanse of hills and
   dales surrounding Lakes Seneca and Canandaigua, were scattered
   the populous villages of the Senecas, more correctly called
   Sonontowanas, or Mountaineers. Such were the names and abodes
   of the allied nations, members of the far-famed Kanonsionni,
   or League of United Households, who were destined to become
   for a time the most notable and powerful community among the
   native tribes of North America. The region which has been
   described was not, however, the original seat of those nations.
   They belonged to that linguistic family which is known to
   ethnologists as the Huron-Iroquois stock. This stock comprised
   the Hurons or Wyandots, the Attiwandaronks or Neutral Nation,
   the Iroquois, the Eries, the Andastes or Conestogas, the
   Tuscaroras and some smaller bands. The tribes of this family
   occupied a long irregular area of inland territory, stretching
   from Canada to North Carolina. The northern nations were all
   clustered about the great lakes; the southern bands held the
   fertile valleys bordering the head-waters of the rivers which
   flowed from the Allegheny mountains. The languages of all
   these tribes showed a close affinity. ... The evidence of
   language, so far as it has yet been examined, seems to show
   that the Huron clans were the older members of the group; and
   the clear and positive traditions of all the surviving tribes,
   Hurons, Iroquois, and Tuscarora, point to the lower St.
   Lawrence as the earliest known abode of their stock. Here the
   first explorer, Cartier, found Indians of this stock at
   Hochelaga and Stadaconé, now the sites of Montreal and Quebec.
   ... As their numbers increased, dissensions arose. The hive
   swarmed, and band after band moved off to the west and south.
   As they spread they encountered people of other stocks, with
   whom they had frequent wars. Their most constant and most
   dreaded enemies were the tribes of the Algonkin family, a
   fierce and restless people, of northern origin, who everywhere
   surrounded them. At one period, however, if the concurrent
   traditions of both Iroquois and Algonkins can be believed,
   these contending races for a time stayed their strife, and
   united their forces in an alliance against a common and
   formidable foe. This foe was the nation, or perhaps the
   confederacy, of the Alligewi or Talligewi, the semi-civilized
   'Mound-builders' of the Ohio Valley, who have left their name
   to the Allegheny river and mountains, and whose vast
   earthworks are still, after half-a-century of study, the
   perplexity of archæologists. A desperate warfare ensued, which
   lasted about a hundred years, and ended in the complete overthrow
   and destruction, or expulsion, of the Alligewi. The survivors
   of the conquered people fled southward. ... The time which has
   elapsed since the overthrow of the Alligewi is variously
   estimated. The most probable conjecture places it at a period
   about a thousand years before the present day. It was
   apparently soon after their expulsion that the tribes of the
   Huron-Iroquois and the Algonkin stocks scattered themselves
   over the wide region south of the Great Lakes, thus left open
   to their occupancy."

      _H. Hale, Introduction to Iroquois Book of Rites._

{90}

   After the coming of the Europeans into the New World, the
   French were the first to be involved in hostilities with the
   Iroquois, and their early wars with them produced a hatred
   which could never be extinguished. Hence the English were able
   to win the alliance of the Five Nations, when they struggled
   with France for the mastery of the North American continent,
   and they owed their victory to that alliance, probably, more
   than to any other single cause. England still retained the
   faithful friendship and alliance of the Iroquois when she came
   to a struggle with her own colonies, and all the tribes except
   the Oneidas were in arms against the Americans in the
   Revolutionary War. "With the restoration of peace, the
   political transaction of the League were substantially closed.
   This was, in effect, the termination of their political
   existence. The jurisdiction of the United States was extended
   over their ancient territories, and from that time forth they
   became dependent nations. During the progress of the
   Revolution, the Mohawks abandoned their country and removed to
   Canada, finally establishing themselves partly upon Grand
   River, in the Niagara peninsula, and partly near Kingston,
   where they now reside upon two reservations secured to them by
   the British government. ... The policy of the State of New York
   [toward the Iroquois nations] was ever just and humane.
   Although their country, with the exception of that of the
   Oneidas, might have been considered as forfeited by the event
   of the Revolution, yet the government never enforced the
   rights of conquest, but extinguished the Indian title to the
   country by purchase, and treaty stipulations. A portion of the
   Oneida nation [who had sold their lands to the State, from
   time to time, excepting one small reservation] emigrated to a
   reservation on the river Thames in Canada, where about 400 of
   them now [1851] reside. Another and a larger band removed to
   Green Bay, in Wisconsin, where they still make their homes to
   the number of 700. But a small part of the nation have
   remained around the seat of their ancient council-fire ...
   near Oneida Castle, in the county of Oneida." The Onondagas
   "still retain their beautiful and secluded valley of Onondaga,
   with sufficient territory for their comfortable maintenance.
   About 150 Onondagas now reside with the Senecas; another party
   are established on Grand River, in Canada, and a few have
   removed to the west. ... In the brief space of twelve years
   after the first house of the white man was erected in Cayuga
   county (1789) the whole nation [of the Cayugas] was uprooted
   and gone. In 1795, they ceded, by treaty, all their lands to
   the State, with the exception of one reservation, which they
   finally abandoned about the year 1800. A portion of them
   removed to Green Bay, another to Grand River, and still
   another, and a much larger band, settled at Sandusky, in Ohio,
   from whence they were removed by government, a few years
   since, into the Indian territory, west of the Mississippi.
   About 120 still reside among the Senecas, in western New York.
   ... The Tuscaroras, after removing from the Oneida territory,
   finally located near the Niagara river, in the vicinity of
   Lewiston, on a tract given to them by the Senecas. ... The
   residue of the Senecas are now shut up within three small
   reservations, the Tonawanda, the Cattaraugus and the Allegany,
   which, united, would not cover the area of one of the lesser
   counties of the State."

      _L. H. Morgan, The League of the Iroquois,
      book 1, chapter 1._

   "The Indians of the State of New York number about 5,000, and
   occupy lands to the estimated extent of 87,()77 acres. With
   few exceptions, these people are the direct descendants of the
   native Indians, who once possessed and controlled the soil of
   the entire State."

      _Report of Special Committee to Investigate the Indian
      Problem of the State of New York 1889._

      _H. R. Schoolcraft, Notes on the Iroquois._

      _F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1._

      _C. Colden, History of the Five Indian Nations._

      _J. Fiske, Discovery of America, chapter 1._

   In 1715 the Five Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy became
   Six Nations, by the admission of the Tuscaroras, from N.
   Carolina.

      See below: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

   On the relationship between the Iroquois and the Cherokees,

      See above: CHEROKEES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Iroquois Confederacy.
   Their Name.

   "The origin and proper meaning of the word Iroquois are
   doubtful. All that can be said with certainty is that the
   explanation given by Charlevoix cannot possibly be correct.
   The name of Iroquois, he says, is purely French, and has been
   formed from the term 'hiro,' 'I have spoken,' a word by which
   these Indians close all their speeches, and 'kouê,' which,
   when long drawn out, is a cry of sorrow, and when briefly
   uttered is an exclamation of joy. ... But ... Champlain had
   learned the name from his Indian allies before he or any other
   Frenchman, so far as is known, had ever seen an Iroquois. It
   is probable that the origin of the word is to be sought in the
   Huron language; yet, as this is similar to the Iroquois
   tongue, an attempt may be made to find a solution in the
   latter. According to Bruyas, the word 'garokwa' meant a pipe,
   and also a piece of tobacco,--and, in its verbal form, to
   smoke. This word is found, somewhat disguised by aspirates, in
   the Book of Rites,--denighroghkwayen,--'let us two smoke
   together.' ... In the indeterminate form the verb becomes
   'ierokwa,' which is certainly very near to Iroquois. It might
   be rendered 'they who smoke,' or 'they who use tobacco,' or,
   briefly, 'the Tobacco People.' This name, the Tobacco Nation
   ('Nation du Petun') was given by the French, and probably also
   by the Algonkins, to one of the Huron tribes, the Tionontates,
   noted for the excellent tobacco which they raised and sold.
   The Iroquois were equally well known for their cultivation of
   this plant, of which they had a choice variety."

      _H. Hale, Iroquois Book of Rites, appendix, note A._

Iroquois Confederacy.
   Their conquests and wide dominion.

   "The project of a League [among the 'Five Nations' of the
   Iroquois] originated with the Onondagas, among whom it was
   first suggested, as a means to enable them more effectually to
   resist the pressure of contiguous nations. The epoch of its
   establishment cannot now be decisively ascertained; although
   the circumstances attending its formation are still preserved
   by tradition with great minuteness. These traditions all refer
   to the northern shore of the Onondaga lake, as the place where
   the Iroquois chiefs assembled in general congress, to agree
   upon the terms and principles of the compact. ... After the
   formation of the League, the Iroquois rose rapidly in power
   and influence. ... With the first consciousness of rising
   power, they turned their long-cherished resentment upon the
   Adirondacks, who had oppressed them in their infancy as a
   nation, and had expelled them from their country, in the first
   struggle for the ascendancy.
{91}
   ... At the era of French discovery (1535), the latter nation
   [the Adirondacks] appear to have been dispossessed of their
   original country, and driven down the St. Lawrence as far as
   Quebec. ... A new era commenced with the Iroquois upon the
   establishment of the Dutch trading-post at Orange, now Albany,
   in 1615. ... Friendly relations were established between the
   Iroquois and the Dutch, which continued without interruption
   until the latter surrendered their possessions upon the Hudson
   to the English in 1664. During this period a trade sprang up
   between them in furs, which the Iroquois exchanged for
   European fabrics, but more especially for fire-arms, in the
   use of which they were afterwards destined to become so
   expert. The English, in turn, cultivated the same relations of
   friendship. ... With the possession of fire-arms commenced not
   only the rapid elevation, but absolute supremacy of the
   Iroquois over other Indian nations. In 1643, they expelled the
   Neuter Nation from the Niagara peninsula and established a
   permanent settlement at the mouth of that river. They nearly
   exterminated, in 1653, the Eries, who occupied the south side
   of Lake Erie, and from thence east to the Genesee, and thus
   possessed themselves of the whole area of western New York,
   and the northern part of Ohio. About the year 1670, after they
   had finally completed the dispersion and subjugation of the
   Adirondacks and Hurons, they acquired possession of the whole
   country between lakes Huron, Erie and Ontario, and of the
   north bank of the St. Lawrence, to the mouth of the Ottawa
   river, near Montreal. ... They also made constant inroads upon
   the New England Indians. ... In 1680, the Senecas with 600
   warriors invaded the country of the Illinois, upon the borders
   of the Mississippi, while La Salle was among the latter. ...
   At various times, both before and after this period, the
   Iroquois turned their warfare against the Cherokees upon the
   Tennessee, and the Catawbas in South Carolina. ... For about a
   century, from the year 1600 to the year 1700, the Iroquois
   were involved in an almost uninterrupted warfare. At the close
   of this period, they had subdued and held in nominal
   subjection all the principal Indian nations occupying the
   territories which are now embraced in the states of New York,
   Delaware, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, the northern and
   western parts of Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, Northern Tennessee,
   Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, a portion of the New England
   States, and the principal part of Upper Canada. Over these
   nations, the haughty and imperious Iroquois exercised a
   constant supervision. If any of them became involved in
   domestic difficulties, a delegation of chiefs went among them
   and restored tranquillity, prescribing at the same time their
   future conduct."

      _L. H. Morgan, League of the Iroquois, book 1, chapter 1._

   "Their [the Iroquois's] war-parties roamed over half America,
   and their name was a terror from the Atlantic to the
   Mississippi; but when we ask the numerical strength of the
   dreaded confederacy, when we discover that, in the days of
   their greatest triumphs, their united cantons could not have
   mustered 4,000 warriors, we stand amazed at the folly and
   dissension which left so vast a region the prey of a handful
   of bold marauders. Of the cities and villages now so thickly
   scattered over the lost domain of the Iroquois, a single one
   might boast a more numerous population than all the five
   united tribes."

      _F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1608-1700.
   Their wars with the French.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1608-1611; 1611-1616;
      1634-1652; 1640-1700; 1696.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1648-1649.
   Their destruction of the Hurons and the Jesuit Missions.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1634-1652;
      also, above, HURONS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1684-1744.
   Surrenders and conveyances to the English.

      See
      NEW YORK: A. D. 1684, and 1726;
      VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744;
      OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1748-1754;
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Iroquois Confederacy: A. D. 1778-1779.
   Their part in the War of the American Revolution.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER)
      and (JULY); and 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Iroquois Tribes of the South.

      See Note, Appendix E.

   "The southern Iroquois tribes occupied Chowan River and its
   tributary streams. They were bounded on the east by the most
   southerly Lenape tribes, who were in possession of the low
   country along the sea shores, and those of Albemarle and
   Pamlico Sounds. Towards the south and the west they extended
   beyond the river Neuse. They appear to have been known in
   Virginia, in early times, under the name of Monacans, as far
   north as James River. ... Lawson, in his account of the North
   Carolina Indians, enumerates the Chowans, the Meherrins, and
   the Nottoways, as having together 95 warriors in the year
   1708. But the Meherrins or Tuteloes and the Nottoways
   inhabited respectively the two rivers of that name, and were
   principally seated in Virginia. We have but indistinct notices
   of the Tuteloes. ... It appears by Beverly that the Nottoways
   had preserved their independence and their numbers later than
   the Powhatans, and that, at the end of the 17th century, they
   had still 130 warriors. They do not appear to have migrated
   from their original seats in a body. In the year 1820, they
   are said to have been reduced to 27 souls, and were still in
   possession of 7,000 acres in Southampton county, Virginia,
   which had been at an early date reserved for them. ... The
   Tuscaroras were by far the most powerful nation in North
   Carolina, and occupied all the residue of the territory in
   that colony, which has been described as inhabited by Iroquois
   tribes. Their principal seats in 1708 were on the Neuse and
   the Taw or Tar rivers, and according to Lawson they had 1,200
   warriors in fifteen towns." In 1711 the Tuscaroras attacked
   the English colonists, massacring 130 in a single day, and a
   fierce war ensued. "In the autumn of 1712. all the inhabitants
   south and southwest of Chowan River were obliged to live in
   forts; and the Tuscaroras expected assistance from the Five
   Nations. This could not have been given without involving the
   confederacy in a war with Great Britain; and the Tuscaroras
   were left to their own resources. A force, consisting chiefly
   of southern Indians under the command of Colonel Moore, was
   again sent by the government of South Carolina to assist the
   northern Colonies. He besieged and took a fort of the
   Tuscaroras. ... Of 800 prisoners 600 were given up to the
   Southern Indians, who carried them to South Carolina to sell
   them as slaves.
{92}
   The Eastern Tuscaroras, whose principal town was on
   the Taw, twenty miles above Washington, immediately made
   peace, and a portion was settled a few years after north of
   the Roanoke, near Windsor, where they continued till the year
   1803. But the great body of the nation removed in 1714-15 to
   the Five Nations, was received as the Sixth, and has since
   shared their fate."

      _A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia
      Americana, volume 2), introduction, section 2._

      ALSO IN
      _J. W. Moore, History of North Carolina, volume 1, chapter 3._

      See, also, above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Itocos.

      See above: CHIBCHAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Itonamos, or Itonomos.

      See above: ANDESIANS;
      also BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Jivara, or Jivaro.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kah-kwas.

      See above: HURONS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kalapooian Family.

   "Under this family name Scouler places two tribes, the
   Kalapooian, inhabiting 'the fertile Willamat plains' and the
   Yamkallie, who live 'more in the interior, towards the sources
   of the Willamat River.'... The tribes of the Kalapooian family
   inhabited the valley of Willamette River, Oregon, above the
   falls."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 81._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kanawhas, or Ganawese.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kansas, or Kaws.

      See below: SIOUAN.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kapohn.

      See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Karankawan Family.

   "The Karankawa formerly dwelt upon the Texan coast, according
   to Sibley, upon an island or peninsula in the Bay of St.
   Bernard (Matagorda Bay). ... In 1884 Mr. Gatschet found a
   Tonkawe at Fort Griffin, Texas, who claimed to have formerly
   lived among the Karankawa. From him a vocabulary of
   twenty-five terms was obtained, which was all of the language
   he remembered. The vocabulary ... such as it is, represents
   all of the language that is extant. Judged by this vocabulary
   the language seems to be distinct not only from the Attakapa
   but from all others."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 82._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Karoks, or Cahrocs.

      See below: MODOCS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kaskaskias.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kaus, or Kwokwoos.

      See below: KUSAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kaws, or Kansas.

      See below: SIOUAN.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kenai, or Blood Indians.

      See above: BLACKFEET.

      See Note, Appendix E.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Keresan Family.

   "The ... pueblos of Keresan stock ... are situated in New
   Mexico on the upper Rio Grande, on several of its small
   western affluents, and on the Jemez and San Jose, which also
   are tributaries of the Rio Grande."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 83_.

      See PUEBLO.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kikapoos.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      and below: SACS, &c., and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kiowan Family.

   "Derivation: From the Kiowa word Kó-i, plural Kó-igu, meaning
   'Káyowe man.' The Comanche term Káyowe means 'rat.' The author
   who first formally separated this family appears to have been
   Turner. ... Turner, upon the strength of a vocabulary
   furnished by Lieutenant Whipple, dissents from the opinion
   expressed by Pike and others to the effect that the language
   is of the same stock as the Comanche, and, while admitting
   that its relationship to Comanche is greater than to any other
   family, thinks that the likeness is merely the result of long
   intercommunication. His opinion that it is entirely distinct
   from any other language has been indorsed by Buschmann and
   other authorities. The family is represented by the Kiowa
   tribe. So intimately associated with the Comanches have the
   Kiowa been since known to history that it is not easy to
   determine their pristine home. ... Pope definitely locates the
   Kiowa in the valley of the Upper Arkansas, and of its
   tributary, the Purgatory (Las Animas) River. This is in
   substantial accord with the statements of other writers of
   about the same period. Schermerhorn (1812) places the Kiowa on
   the heads of the Arkansas and Platte. Earlier still they
   appear upon the headwaters of the Platte."-

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 84._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kiriri, Cuyriri.

      See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kitunahan Family.

   "This family was based upon a tribe variously termed Kitunaha,
   Kutenay, Cootenai, or Flatbow, living on the Kootenay River,
   a branch of the Columbia in Oregon."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 85._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Klamaths.

      See below: MODOCS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Koluschan Family.

   "Derivation: From the Aleut word kolosh, or more properly,
   kaluga, meaning 'dish,' the allusion being to the dishshaped
   lip ornaments. This family was based by Gallatin upon the
   Koluschen tribe (the Tshinkitani of Marchand), 'who inhabit
   the islands and the [Pacific] coast from the 60th to the 55th
   degree of north latitude.'"

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 86._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kulanapan Family.

   "The main territory of the Kulanapan family is bounded on the
   west by the Pacific Ocean, on the east by the Yukian and
   Copohan territories, on the north by the watershed of the
   Russian River, and on the south by a line drawn from Bodega
   Head to the southwest corner of the Yukian territory, near
   Santa Rosa, Sonoma County, California."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 88._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kusan Family:

   "The 'Kaus or Kwokwoos' tribe is merely mentioned by Hale as
   living on a river of the same name between the Umqua and the
   Clamet."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 89._

      See Note, Appendix E.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Kwokwoos.

      See above: KUSAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Lenape.

      See above: DELAWARES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Machicuis.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Macushi.

      See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Manaos.

      See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mandans, or Mandanes.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Manhattans.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY,
      and, also, MANHATTAN ISLAND.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Manioto, or Mayno.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mapochins.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Maranha.

      See above: GUCK OR Coco GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Maricopas.

      See below: PUEBLOS.

{93}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mariposan Family.

   "Derivation: A Spanish word meaning 'butterfly,' applied to a
   county in California and subsequently taken for the family
   name. Latham mentions the remnants of three distinct bands of
   the Coconoon, each with its own language, in the north of
   Mariposa County. These are classed together under the above
   name. More recently the tribes speaking languages allied to
   the Coconun have been treated of under the family name Yokut.
   As, however, the stock was established by Latham on a sound
   basis, his name is here restored."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 90._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mascoutins, or Mascontens,

      See below: SACS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Massachusetts,

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mataguayas.

      See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mayas.

   "In his second voyage, Columbus heard vague rumors of a
   mainland westward from Jamaica and Cuba, at a distance of ten
   days' journey in a canoe. ... During his fourth voyage
   (1503-4), when he was exploring the Gulf southwest from Cuba,
   he picked up a canoe laden with cotton clothing variously
   dyed. The natives in it gave him to understand that they were
   merchants, and came from a land called Maia. This is the first
   mention in history of the territory now called Yucatan, and of
   the race of the Mayas; for although a province of similar name
   was found in the western extremity of the island of Cuba, the
   similarity was accidental, as the evidence is conclusive that
   no colony of the Mayas was found on the Antilles. ... Maya was
   the patrial name of the natives of Yucatan. It was the proper
   name of the northern portion of the peninsula. No single
   province bore it at the date of the Conquest, and probably it
   had been handed down as a generic term from the period, about
   a century before, when this whole district was united under
   one government. ... Whatever the primitive meaning and first
   application of the name Maya, it is now used to signify
   specifically the aborigines of Yucatan. In a more extended
   sense, in the expression 'the Maya family,' it is understood
   to embrace all tribes, wherever found, who speak related
   dialects presumably derived from the same ancient stock as the
   Maya proper. ... The total number of Indians of pure blood
   speaking the Maya proper may be estimated as nearly or quite
   200,000, most of them in the political limits of the
   department of Yucatan; to these should be added nearly 100,000
   of mixed blood, or of European descent, who use the tongue in
   daily life. For it forms one of the rare examples of American
   languages possessing vitality enough not only to maintain its
   ground, but actually to force itself on European settlers and
   supplant their native speech. ... The Mayas did not claim to
   be autochthones. Their legends referred to their arrival by
   the sea from the East, in remote times, under the leadership
   of Itzamna, their hero-god, and also to a less numerous
   immigration from the West, which was connected with the
   history of another hero-god, Kukul Càn. The first of these
   appears to be wholly mythical. ... The second tradition
   deserves more attention from the historian. ... It cannot be
   denied that the Mayas, the Kiches [or Quiches] and the
   Cakchiquels, in their most venerable traditions, claimed to
   have migrated from the north or west from some part of the
   present country of Mexico. These traditions receive additional
   importance from the presence on the shores of the Mexican
   Gulf, on the waters of the river Panuco, north of Vera Cruz,
   of a prominent branch of the Maya family, the Huastecs. The
   idea suggests itself that these were the rear-guard of a great
   migration of the Maya family from the north toward the south.
   Support is given to this by their dialect, which is most
   closely akin to that of the Tzendals of Tabasco, the nearest
   Maya race to the south of them, and also by very ancient
   traditions of the Aztecs. It is noteworthy that these two
   partially civilized races, the Mayas and the Aztecs, though
   differing radically in language, had legends which claimed a
   community of origin in some indefinitely remote past. We find
   these on the Maya side narrated in the sacred book of the
   Kiches, the Popol Vuh, in the Cakchiquel 'Records of Tecpan
   Atillan,' and in various pure Maya sources. ... The annals of
   the Aztecs contain frequent allusions to the Huastecs."

      _D. G. Brinton, The Maya Chronicles, introduction._

   "Closely enveloped in the dense forests of Chiapas, Gautemala,
   Yucatan, and Honduras, the ruins of several ancient cities
   have been discovered, which are far superior in extent and
   magnificence to any seen in Aztec territory, and of which a
   detailed description may be found in the fourth volume of this
   work. Most of these cities were abandoned and more or less
   unknown at the time of the [Spanish] Conquest. They bear
   hieroglyphic inscriptions apparently identical in character;
   in other respects they resemble each other more than they
   resemble the Aztec ruins--or even other and apparently later
   works in Guatemala and Honduras. All these remains bear
   evident marks of great antiquity. ... I deem the grounds
   sufficient ... for accepting this Central American
   civilization of the past as a fact, referring it not to an
   extinct ancient race, but to the direct ancestors of the
   peoples still occupying the country with the Spaniards, and
   applying to it the name Maya as that of the language which has
   claims as strong as any to be considered the mother tongue of
   the linguistic family mentioned. ... There are no data by
   which to fix the period of the original Maya empire, or its
   downfall or breaking up into rival factions by civil and
   foreign wars. The cities of Yucatan, as is clearly shown by
   Mr. Stephens, were, many of them, occupied by the descendants
   of the builders down to the conquest, and contain some
   remnants of wood-work still in good preservation, although
   some of the structures appear to be built on the ruins of
   others of a somewhat different type. Palenque and Copan, on
   the contrary, have no traces of wood or other perishable
   material, and were uninhabited and probably unknown in the
   16th century. The loss of the key to what must have been an
   advanced system of hieroglyphics, while the spoken language
   survived, is also an indication of great antiquity, confirmed
   by the fact that the Quiché structures of Guatemala differed
   materially from those of the more ancient epoch. It is not
   likely that the Maya empire in its integrity continued later
   than the 3d or 4th century, although its cities may have been
   inhabited much later, and I should fix the epoch of its
   highest power at a date preceding rather than following the
   Christian era."

      _H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States,
      volume 2, chapter 2; volume 4, ch, 3-6; 
	  volume 5, chapter 11-13._

{94}

      ALSO IN
      _Marquis de Nadaillac, Prehistoric America, chapter 6-7._

      _J. L. Stephens, Incidents of Travel in Yucatan; and
      Travel in Central America, &c._

      _B. M. Norman, Rambles in Yucatan_.

      _D. Charnay, Ancient Cities of the New World_.

      See, also, MEXICO: ANCIENT, and AZTEC AND AND MAYA
      PICTURE-WRITING.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mayoruna, or Barbudo.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Menominees.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Metöacs.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Miamis, or Twightwees.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, ILLINOIS, and SACS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Micmacs.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mingoes.

   "The name of Mingo, or Mengwe, by which the Iroquois were
   known to the Delawares and the other southern Algonkins, is
   said to be a contraction of the Lenape word 'Mahongwi,'
   meaning the 'People of the Springs.' The Iroquois possessed
   the head-waters of the rivers which flowed through the country
   of the Delawares."

      _H. Hale, The Iroquois Book of Rites,
      appendix, note. A._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Minneconjou.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Minnetarees.

      See above: HIDATSA;
      and below: SIOUAN FAMILY.
      See Note, Appendix E. 9.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Minquas.

      See below: SUSQUEHANNAS;
      and above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Minsis, Munsees, or Minisinks.

      See above: DELAWARES, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Miranha.

      See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Missouris.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mixes.

      See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mixtecs.

      See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mocovis.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Modocs (Klamaths) and their California and Oregon neighbors.

      See Note, Appendix E.

   "The principal tribes occupying this region [of Northern
   California from Rogue River on the north to the Eel River,
   south] are the Klamaths, who live on the head waters of the
   river and on the shores of the lake of that name; the Modocs,
   on Lower Klamath Lake and along Lost River; the Shastas, to
   the south-west of the Lakes; the Pitt River Indians; the
   Euroes, on the Klamath River between Weitspek and the coast;
   the Cahrocs, on the Klamath River from a short distance above
   the junction of the Trinity to the Klamath Mountains; the
   Hoopahs [or Hupas, a tribe of the Athapascan Family] in Hoopah
   Valley on the Trinity near its junction with the Klamath;
   numerous tribes on the coast from Eel River and Humboldt Bay
   north, such as the Weeyots, Wallies, Tolewahs, etc., and the
   Rogue River Indians, on and about the river of that name. The
   Northern Californians are in every way superior to the central
   and southern tribes."

      _H. Bancroft, The Native Races of the Pacific States, volume
      1, ch, 4._

   "On the Klamath there live three distinct tribes, called the
   Yú-rok, Ká-rok, and Mó-dok, which names are said to mean,
   respectively, 'down the river,' 'up the river,' and 'head of
   the river.' ... The Karok are probably the finest tribe in
   California. ... Hoopa Valley, on the Lower Trinity, is the
   home of [the Hú-pá]. Next after the Ká-rok they are the finest
   race in all that region, and they even excel them in their
   statecraft, and in the singular influence, or perhaps brute
   force, which they exercise over the vicinal tribes. They are
   the Romans of Northern California in their valor and their
   wide-reaching dominions; they are the French in the extended
   diffusion of their language." The Modoks, "on the whole ...
   are rather a cloddish, indolent, ordinarily good-natured race,
   but treacherous at bottom, sullen when angered, notorious for
   keeping Punic faith. But their bravery nobody can impeach or
   deny; their heroic and long defense of their stronghold
   against the appliances of modern civilized warfare, including
   that arm so awful to savages--the artillery--was almost the
   only feature that lent respectability to their wretched
   tragedy of the Lava Beds [1873]."

      _S. Powers, Tribes of California (Contributions to N. A.
      Ethnology, volume 3), chapter 1, 7, and 27._

   "The home of the Klamath tribe of southwestern Oregon lies
   upon the eastern slope of the southern extremity of the
   Cascade Range, and very nearly coincides with what we may call
   the head waters of the Klamath River, the main course of which
   lies in Northern California. ... The main seat of the Modoc
   people was the valley of Lost River, the shores of Tule and of
   Little Klamath Lake. ... The two main bodies forming the Klamath
   people are (1) the Klamath Lake Indians; (2) the Modoc
   Indians. The Klamath Lake Indians number more than twice as
   many as the Modoc Indians. They speak the northern dialect and
   form the northern chieftaincy. ... The Klamath people possess
   no historic traditions going further back in time than a
   century, for the simple reason that there was a strict law
   prohibiting the mention of the person or acts of a deceased
   individual by using his name. ... Our present knowledge does
   not allow us to connect the Klamath language genealogically
   with any of the other languages compared, but ... it stands as
   a linguistic family for itself."

      _A. S. Gatschet, The Klamath Indians (Contributions to N.
      A. Ethnology, volume 2, part 1)._

   In Major Powell's linguistic classification, the Klamath and
   Modoc dialects are embraced in a family called the Lutuamian
   Family, derived from a Pit River word signifying "lake;" the
   Yuroks in a family called the Weitspekan; and the Pit River
   Indian dialects are provisionally set apart in a distinct
   family named the Palaihnihan Family.

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, pages 89 and 97._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mohaves (Mojaves).

      See above: APACHE GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mohawks.

      See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mohegans, or Mahicans.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      and below: STOCKBRIDGE INDIANS;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

   Montagnais.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Montauks.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Moquelumnan Family.

   "Derivation: From the river and hill of the same name in
   Calaveras County, California. ... It was not until 1856 that
   the distinctness of the linguistic family was fully set forth
   by Latham. Under the head of Moquelumne, this author gathers
   several vocabularies representing different languages and
   dialects of the same stock. These are the Talatui of Hale, the
   Tuolumne from Schoolcraft, the Sonoma dialects as represented
   by the Tshokoyem vocabulary, the Chocuyem and Youkiousme
   paternosters, and the Olamentke of Kostromitonov in Bäer's
   Beiträge. ... The Moquelumnan family occupies the territory
   bounded on the north by the Cosumne River, on the south by the
   Fresno River, on the east by the Sierra Nevada, and on the
   west by the San Joaquin River, with the exception of a strip
   on the east bank occupied by the Cholovone. A part of this
   family occupies also a territory bounded on the south by San
   Francisco Bay."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, pages 92-93._

{95}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Moquis.

      See below: PUEBLOS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Morona.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Moxos, or Mojos.

      See above: ANDESIANS;
      also, BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mundrucu.

      See below: TUPI.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Munsees.

      See above: DELAWARES, and ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also MANHATTAN ISLAND.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Mura.

      See above: GUCK Ort Coco GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Muskhogean, or Maskoki Family.

   "Among the various nationalities of the Gulf territories the
   Maskoki family of tribes occupied a central and commanding
   position. Not only the large extent of territory held by them,
   but also their numbers, their prowess in war, and a certain
   degree of mental culture and self-esteem made of the Maskoki
   one of the most important groups in Indian history. From their
   ethnologic condition of later times, we infer that these
   tribes have extended for many centuries back in time from the
   Atlantic to the Mississippi and beyond that river, and from
   the Apalachian ridge to the Gulf of Mexico. With short
   intermissions they kept up warfare with all the circumjacent
   Indian communities, and also among each other. ... The
   irresolute and egotistic policy of these tribes often caused
   serious difficulties to the government of the English and
   French colonies, and some of them constantly wavered in their
   adhesion between the French and the English cause. The
   American government overcame their opposition easily whenever
   a conflict presented itself (the Seminole War forms an
   exception), because, like all the Indians, they never knew how
   to unite against a common foe. The two main branches of the
   stock, the Creek and the Cha'hta [or Choctaw] Indians, were
   constantly at war, and the remembrance of their deadly
   conflicts has now passed to their descendants in the form of
   folk lore. ... The only characteristic by which a subdivision
   of the family can be attempted, is that of language. Following
   their ancient topographic location from east to west, we
   obtain the following synopsis: First branch, or Maskoki
   proper: The Creek, Maskokálgi or Maskoki proper, settled on
   Coosa, Tallapoosa, Upper and Middle Chatahuchi rivers. From
   these branched off by segmentation the Creek portion of the
   Seminoles, of the Yámassi and of the little Yamacraw
   community. Second, or Apalachian branch: This southeastern
   division, which may be called also 'a parte potiori' the
   Hitchiti connection, anciently comprised the tribes on the
   Lower Chatahuchi river, and, east from there, the extinct
   Apalachi, the Mikasuki, and the Hitchiti portion of the
   Seminoles, Yámassi and Yamacraws. Third, or Alibamu branch,
   comprised the Alibamu villages on the river of that name; to
   them belonged the Koassáti and Witumka on Coosa river, its
   northern affluent. Fourth, Western or Cha'hta [Choctaw]
   branch: From the main people, the Cha'hta, settled in the
   middle portions of the State of Mississippi, the Chicasa,
   Pascagoula, Biloxi, Huma, and other tribes once became
   separated through segmentation. The strongest evidence for a
   community of origin of the Maskoki tribes is furnished by the
   fact that their dialects belong to one linguistic family. ...
   Maskóki, Maskógi, isti Maskóki, designates a single person of
   the Creek tribe, and forms, as a collective plural,
   Maskokálgi, the Creek community, the Creek people, the Creek
   Indians. English authors write this name Muscogee, Muskhogee,
   and its plural Muscogulgee. The first syllable, as pronounced
   by the Creek Indians, contains a clear short a. ... The accent
   is usually laid on the middle syllable: Maskóki, Maskógi. None
   of the tribes are able to explain the name from their own
   language. ... Why did the English colonists call them Creek
   Indians? Because, when the English traders entered the Maskoki
   country from Charleston or Savannah, they had to cross a
   number of streams or creeks, especially between the Chatahuchi
   and Savannah rivers. Gallatin thought it probable that the
   inhabitants of the country adjacent to Savannah river were
   called Creeks from an early time. ... In the southern part of
   the Cha'hta territory several tribes, represented to be of
   Cha'hta lineage, appear as distinct from the main body, and
   are always mentioned separately. The French colonists, in
   whose annals they figure extensively, call them Mobilians,
   Tohomes, Pascogoulas, Biloxis, Mougoulachas, Bayogoulas and
   Humas (Oumas). They have all disappeared in our epoch, with
   the exception of the Biloxi [Major Powell, in the Seventh
   Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, places the Biloxi in
   the Siouan Family], [See Note, Appendix E.] of whom scattered
   remnants live in the forests of Louisiana, south of the Red
   River."

      _A. S. Gatschet, A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians,
      volume 1, part 1._

   "The Uchees and the Natches, who are both incorporated in the
   [Muskhogee or Creek] confederacy, speak two distinct languages
   altogether different from the Muskhogee. The Natches, a
   residue of the well-known nation of that name, came from the
   banks of the Mississippi, and joined the Creeks less than one
   hundred years ago. The original seats of the Uchees were east
   of the Coosa and probably of the Chatahoochee; and they
   consider themselves as the most ancient inhabitants of the
   country. They may have been the same nation which is called
   Apalaches in the accounts of De Soto's expedition. ... The
   four great Southern nations, according to the estimates of the
   War Department ... consist now [1836] of 67,000 souls, viz.:
   The Cherokees, 15,000; the Choctaws (18,500), the Chicasas
   (5,500), 24,000; the Muskhogees, Seminoles, and Hitchittees,
   26,000; the Uchees, Alibamons, Coosadas, and Natches, 2,000.
   The territory west of the Mississippi, given or offered to
   them by the United States in exchange for their lands east of
   that river, contains 40,000,000 acres, exclusively of
   what may be allotted to the Chicasas."

      _A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia
      Americana, volume 2), section 3._

      See below: SEMINOLES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Musquito, or Mosquito Indians.

   "That portion of Honduras known as the Musquito Coast derived
   its name, not from the abundance of those troublesome insects,
   but from a native tribe who at the discovery occupied the
   shore near Blewfield Lagoon. They are an intelligent people,
   short in stature, unusually dark in color, with finely cut
   features, and small straight noses--not at all negroid,
   except where there has been an admixture of blood. They number
   about 6,000, many of whom have been partly civilized by the
   efforts of missionaries, who have reduced the language to
   writing and published in it a number of works. The Tunglas are
   one of the sub-tribes of the Musquitos."

      _D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 162._

      See, also, NICARAGUA: A. D., 1850.

{96}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Nahuas.

      See MEXICO, ANCIENT: THE MAYA AND NAHUA PEOPLES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Nanticokes.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Napo.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Narragansetts.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1636;
      and NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637; 1674-1675; 1675; and 1676-1678.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Natchesan Family.

   When the French first entered the lower Mississippi valley,
   they found the Natchez [Na'htchi] occupying a region of
   country that now surrounds the city which bears their name.
   "By the persevering curiosity of Gallatin, it is established
   that the Natchez were distinguished from the tribes around
   them less by their customs and the degree of their
   civilization than by their language, which, as far as
   comparisons have been instituted, has no etymological affinity
   with any other whatever. Here again the imagination too
   readily invents theories; and the tradition has been widely
   received that the dominion of the Natchez once extended even
   to the Wabash. History knows them only as a feeble and
   inconsiderable nation, who in the 18th century attached
   themselves to the confederacy of the Creeks."

      _G. Bancroft, History of the United States
      (Author's last revision), volume 2, page 97._

   "Chateaubriand, in his charming romances, and some of the
   early French writers, who often drew upon their fancy for
   their facts, have thrown an interest around the Natchez, as a
   semi-civilized and noble race, that has passed into history.
   We find no traces of civilization in their architecture, or in
   their social life and customs. Their religion was brutal and
   bloody, indicating an Aztec origin. They were perfidious and
   cruel, and if they were at all superior to the neighboring
   tribes it was probably due to the district they occupied--the
   most beautiful, healthy and productive in the valley of the
   Mississippi--and the influence of its attractions in
   substituting permanent for temporary occupation. The residence
   of the grand chief was merely a spacious cabin, of one
   apartment, with a mat of basket work for his bed and a log for
   his pillow. ... Their government was an absolute despotism.
   The supreme chief was master of their labor, their property,
   and their lives. ... The Natchez consisted exclusively of two
   classes--the Blood Royal and its connexions, and the common
   people, the Mich-i-mioki-quipe, or Stinkards. The two classes
   understood each other, but spoke a different dialect. Their
   customs of war, their treatment of prisoners, their ceremonies
   of marriage, their feasts and fasts, their sorceries and
   witchcraft, differed very little from other savages. Father
   Charlevoix, who visited Natchez in 1721, saw no evidences of
   civilization. Their villages consisted of a few cabins, or
   rather ovens, without windows and roofed with matting. The
   house of the Sun was larger, plastered with mud, and a narrow
   bench for a seat and bed. No other furniture in the mansion of
   this grand dignitary, who has been described by imaginative
   writers as the peer of Montezuma!"

      _J. F. H. Claiborne, Mississippi, volume 1, chapter 4._

   In 1729, the Natchez, maddened by insolent oppressions,
   planned and executed a general massacre of the French within
   their territory. As a consequence, the tribe was virtually
   exterminated within the following two years.

      _C. Gayarre, Louisiana, its Colonial History and Romance,
      2d series, lecture 3 and 5._

   "The Na'htchi, according to Gallatin, a residue of the
   well-known nation of that name, came from the banks of the
   Mississippi, and joined the Creek less than one hundred years
   ago. The seashore from Mobile to the Mississippi was then
   inhabited by several small tribes, of which the Na'htchi was
   the principal. Before 1730 the tribe lived in the vicinity of
   Natchez, Miss., along St. Catherine Creek. After their
   dispersion by the French in 1730 most of the remainder joined
   the Chicasa and afterwards the Upper Creek. They are now in
   Creek and Cherokee Nations, Indian Territory. The linguistic
   relations of the language spoken by the Taensa tribe have long
   been in doubt, and it is possible they will ever remain so."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 96._

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1719-1750.
      See, also, above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Natchitoches;

      See Note, Appendix E.
      See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Nausets.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Navajos.

      See above: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY, and APACHE GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Neutral Nation.

      See above: HURONS, &c.;
      and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR CONQUESTS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Nez Percés, or Sahaptins.

   "The Sahaptins or Nez Percés [the Shahaptian Family in Major
   Powell's classification], with their affiliated tribes,
   occupied the middle and upper valley of the Columbia and its
   affluents, and also the passes of the mountains. They were in
   contiguity with the Shoshones and the Algonkin Blackfeet, thus
   holding an important position, intermediate between the eastern
   and the Pacific tribes. Having the commercial instinct of the
   latter, they made good use of it."

      _D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 107._

      ALSO IN
      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the
      Bureau of Ethnology, page 106._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Niniquiquilas.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Nipmucs, or Nipnets.

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

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Nootkas.

      See below: WAKASHAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Nottoways.

      See above: IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Nyantics.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Ogalalas.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Ojibwas, or Chippewas.

   "The Ojibways, with their kindred, the Pottawattamies, and
   their friends the Ottawas,--the latter of whom were fugitives
   from the eastward, whence they had fled from the wrath of the
   Iroquois,--were banded into a sort of confederacy. They were
   closely allied in blood, language, manners and character. The
   Ojibways, by far the most numerous of the three, occupied the
   basin of Lake Superior, and extensive adjacent regions. In
   their boundaries, the career of Iroquois conquest found at
   length a check. The fugitive Wyandots sought refuge in the
   Ojibway hunting grounds; and tradition relates that, at the
   outlet of Lake Superior, an Iroquois war-party once
   encountered a disastrous repulse. In their mode of life, they
   were far more rude than the Iroquois, or even the southern
   Algonquin tribes."

      _F. Parkman, Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1._

{97}

   "The name of the tribe appears to be recent. It is not met
   with in the older writers. The French, who were the earliest
   to meet them, in their tribal seat at the falls or Sault de
   Ste Marie, named them Saulteur, from this circumstance.
   M'Kenzie uses the term 'Jibway,' as the equivalent of this
   term, in his voyages. They are referred to, with little
   difference in the orthography, in General Washington's report,
   in 1754, of his trip to Le Bœuf, on Lake Erie; but are first
   recognized, among our treaty-tribes, in the general treaty of
   Greenville, of 1794, in which, with the Ottawas they ceded the
   island of Michilimackinac, and certain dependencies, conceded
   by them at former periods to the French. ... The Chippewas are
   conceded, by writers on American philology ... to speak one of
   the purest forms of the Algonquin."

      _H. R. Schoolcraft, Information respecting the History,
      Condition and Prospects of the Indian Tribes, part 5, p.
      142._

      ALSO IN
      _G. Copway, The Ojibway Nation._
      _J. G. Kohl, Kitchi-gami_.

      See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR:
      and above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Omahas.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY, and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Oneidas.

      See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

   Onondagas.

      See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Orejones.

      See below: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Osages.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY,
      and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Otoes, or Ottoes.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY,
      and PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Otomis.

   "According to Aztec tradition, the Otomis were the earliest
   owners of the soil of Central Mexico. Their language was at
   the conquest one of the most widely distributed of any in this
   portion of the continent. Its central regions were the States
   of Queretaro and Guanajuato. ... The Otomis are below the
   average stature, of dark color, the skull markedly
   dolichocephalic, the nose short and flattened, the eyes
   slightly oblique."

      _D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 135._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Ottawas.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and OJIBWAS.
      See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES
   Pacaguara.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pacamora.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pamlicoes.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pampas Tribes.

   "The chief tribe of the Pampas Indians was entitled Querandis
   by the Spaniards, although they called themselves Pehuelches
   [or Puelts--that is, the Eastern]. Various segments of these,
   under different names, occupied the immense tract of ground,
   between the river Parana and the republic of Chili. The
   Querandis ... were the great opponents to settlement of the
   Spaniards in Buenos Ayres. ... The Ancas or Aracaunos Indians
   [see CHILE] resided on the west of the Pampas near Chili, and
   from time to time assisted the Querandis in transporting
   stolen cattle across the Cordilleras. The southern part of the
   Pampas was occupied by the Balchitas, Uhilches, Telmelches,
   and others, all of whom were branches of the original Quelches
   horde. The Guarani Indians were the most famous of the South
   American races. ... Of the Guayanas horde there were several
   tribes--independent of each other, and speaking different
   idioms, although having the same title of race. Their
   territory extended from the river Guarai, one of the affluents
   into the Uruguay, for many leagues northwards, and stretched
   over to the Parana opposite the city of Corpus Christi. They
   were some of the most vigorous opponents of the Spanish
   invaders. ... The Nalicurgas Indians, who lived up to near 21°
   South  latitude were reputed to dwell in caves, to be very limited in
   number, and to go entirely naked. The Gausarapos, or Guuchies
   dwelt in the marshy districts near where the river Gausarapo,
   or Guuchie, has its source. This stream enters from the east
   into the Paraguay at 19° 16' 30" South latitude. ... The Cuatos lived
   inside of a lake to the west of the river Paraguay, and
   constituted a very small tribe. ... The Orejones dwelt on the
   eastern brows of the mountains of Santa Lucia or San
   Fernando--close to the western side of Paraguay river. ...
   Another tribe, the Niniquiquilas, had likewise the names of
   Potreros, Simanos, Barcenos, and Lathanos. They occupied a forest
   which began at about 19° South latitude, some leagues backward
   from the river Paraguay, and separated the Gran Chaco from the
   province of Los Chiquitos in Peru. ... The Guanas Indians were
   divided into eight separate segments, for each of which there
   was a particular and different name. They lived between 20°
   and 22° of South latitude in the Gran Chaco to the west of Paraguay,
   and they were not known to the Spaniards till the latter
   crossed the last-named river in 1673. ... The Albaias and
   Payaguas Indians ... in former times, were the chief tribes of
   the Paraguay territory. ... The Albaias were styled Machicuis
   and Enimgas by other authors. At the time of the Spaniards'
   arrival here, the Albaias occupied the Gran Chaco side of the
   river Paraguay from 20° to 22° South latitude. Here they entered into
   a treaty offensive and defensive with the Payaguas. ... The
   joined forces of Albaias and Payaguas had managed to extend
   their territory in 1673 down to 24° 7' South on the eastern side
   of Paraguay river. ... The Albaias were a very tall and
   muscular race of people. ... The Payagua Indians, before and
   up to, as well as after, the period of the conquest, were
   sailors, and domineered over the river Paraguay. ... The
   Guaicarus lived on the Chaco side of Paraguay river and
   subsisted entirely by hunting. From the barbarous custom which
   their women had of inducing abortion to avoid the pain or
   trouble of child-bearing, they became exterminated soon after
   the conquest. ... The Tobas, who have also the titles of
   Natecœt and Yncanabaite, were among the best fighters of the
   Indians. They occupy the Gran Chaco, chiefly on the banks of
   the river Vermejo, and between that and the Pilcomayo. Of
   these there are some remains in the present day. ... The
   Mocovis are likewise still to be found in the Chaco. ... The
   Abipones, who were also styled Ecusgina and Quiabanabaite,
   lived in the Chaco, so low down as 28° South. This was the
   tribe with whom the Jesuits incorporated, when they erected
   the city of San Geronimo, in the Gran Chaco, and nearly
   opposite Goya, in 1748."

      _T. J. Hutchinson, The Parana, chapter 6-7._

{98}

   "The Abipones inhabit [in the 18th century] the province
   Chaco, the centre of all Paraguay; they have no
   fixed abodes, nor any boundaries, except what fear of their
   neighbours has established. They roam extensively in every
   direction, whenever the opportunity of attacking their
   enemies, or the necessity of avoiding them renders a journey
   advisable. The northern shore of the Rio Grande or Bermejo,
   which the Indians call Iñatè, was their native land in the
   last century [the 17th]. Thence they removed, to avoid the war
   carried on against Chaco by the Spaniards ... and, migrating
   towards the south, took possession of a valley formerly held
   by the Calchaquis. ... From what region their ancestors came
   there is no room for conjecture."

      _M. Dobrizhoffer, Account of the Abipones, volume 2, chapter 1._

   "The Abipones are in general above the middle stature, and of
   a robust constitution. In summer they go quite naked; but in
   winter cover themselves with skins. ... They paint themselves
   all over with different colours."

      _Father Charlevoix, History of Paraguay,
      book 7 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN
      _The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor),
      volume 6, pages 256-262._

      See, also, below: TUPI.--GUARANI.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pampticokes.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pano.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Papagos.

      See below: PIMAN FAMILY, and PUEBLOS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Parawianas.

      See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pascogoulas.

      See above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Passé.

      See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Patagonians and Fuegians.

   "The Patagonians call themselves Chonek or Tzoueca, or Inaken
   (men, people), and by their Pampean neighbors are referred to
   as Tehuel-Che, southerners. They do not, however, belong to
   the Aucanian stock, nor do they resemble the Pampeans
   physically. They are celebrated for their stature, many of
   them reaching from six to six feet four inches in height, and
   built in proportion. In color they are a reddish brown, and
   have aquiline noses and good foreheads. They care little for a
   sedentary life, and roam the coast as far north as the Rio Negro.
   ... On the inhospitable shores of Tierra del Fuego there dwell
   three nations of diverse stock, but on about the same plane of
   culture. One of these is the Yahgans, or Yapoos, on the Beagle
   Canal; the second is the Onas or Aonik, to the north and east
   of these; and the third the Aliculufs, to the north and west.
   ... The opinion has been advanced by Dr. Deniker of Paris,
   that the Fuegians represent the oldest type or variety of the
   American race. He believes that at one time this type occupied
   the whole of South America south of the Amazon, and that the
   Tapuyas of Brazil and the Fuegians are its surviving members.
   This interesting theory demands still further evidence before
   it can be accepted."

      _D. G. Brinton, The American Race, pages 327-332._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pawnee Family (named "Caddoan" by Major Powell).

   "The Pawnee Family, though some of its branches have long been
   known, is perhaps in history and language one of the least
   understood of the important tribes of the West. In both
   respects it seems to constitute a distinct group. During
   recent years its extreme northern and southern branches have
   evinced a tendency to blend with surrounding stocks; but the
   central branch, constituting the Pawnee proper, maintains
   still in its advanced decadence a bold line of demarcation
   between itself and all adjacent tribes. The members of the
   family are: The Pawnees, the Arikaras, the Caddos, the Huecos
   or Wacos, the Keechies, the Tawaconies, and the Pawnee Picts
   or Wichitas. The last five may be designated as the Southern
   or Red River branches. At the date of the Louisiana purchase
   the Caddos were living about 40 miles northwest of where
   Shreveport now stands. Five years earlier their residence was
   upon Clear Lake, in what is now Caddo Parish. This spot they
   claimed was the place of their nativity, and their residence
   from time immemorial. ... They have a tradition that they are
   the parent stock, from which all the southern branches have
   sprung, and to some extent this claim has been recognized. ...
   The five [southern] bands are now all gathered upon a reserve
   secured for them in the Indian Territory by the Government.
   ... In many respects, their method of building lodges, their
   equestrianism, and certain social and tribal usages, they
   quite closely resemble the Pawnees. Their connection, however,
   with the Pawnee family, not till recently if ever mentioned,
   is mainly a matter of vague conjecture. ... The name Pawnee is
   most probably derived from 'párĭk-ĭ,' a horn; and seems to
   have been once used by the Pawnees themselves to designate
   their peculiar scalp-lock. From the fact that this was the
   most noticeable feature in their costume, the name came
   naturally to be the denominative term of the tribe. The word
   in this use once probably embraced the Wichitas (i. e., Pawnee
   Picts) and the Arikaras. ... The true Pawnee territory till as
   late as 1833 may be described as extending from the Niobrara
   south to the Arkansas. They frequently hunted considerably
   beyond the Arkansas; tradition says as far as the Canadian.
   ... On the east they claimed to the Missouri, though in
   eastern Nebraska, by a sort of tacit permit, the Otoes,
   Poncas, and Omahas along that stream occupied lands extending
   as far west as the Elkhorn. In Kansas, also, east of the Big
   Blue, they had ceased to exercise any direct control, as
   several remnants of tribes, the Wyandots, Delawares,
   Kickapoos, and Iowas, had been settled there and were living
   under the guardianship of the United States. ... On the west
   their grounds were marked by no natural boundary, but may
   perhaps be described by a line drawn from the mouth of Snake
   River on the Niobrara southwest to the North Platte, thence
   south to the Arkansas. ... It is not to be supposed, however,
   that they held altogether undisturbed possession of this
   territory. On the north they were incessantly harassed by
   various bands of the Dakotas, while upon the south the Osages,
   Comanches, Cheyennes, Arapahoes and Kiowas (the last three
   originally northern tribes) were equally relentless in their
   hostility. ... In 1833 the Pawnees surrendered to the United
   States their claim upon all the above described territory
   lying south of the Platte. In 1858 all their remaining
   territory was ceded, except a reserve 30 miles long and 15
   wide upon the Loup Fork of the Platte, its eastern limit
   beginning at Beaver Creek. In 1874 they sold this tract and
   removed to a reserve secured for them by the Government in the
   Indian Territory, between the Arkansas and Cimarron at their
   junction."

      _J. B. Dunbar, The Pawnee Indians (Magazine of American
      History, April, 1880, v.4)._

      ALSO IN
      _G. B. Grinnell, Pawnee Hero Stories._
      _D. G. Brinton, The American Race, pages 95-97._
      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 59._

      See, also, above: ADAIS and BLACKFEET.

{99}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Payaguas.

      See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pehuelches, or Puelts.

      See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Penacooks, or Pawtucket Indians.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Peorias.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pequots.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      and below: SHAWANESE;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1637.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Piankishaws.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and SACS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Piegans.

      See above: BLACKFEET.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Piman Family.

   "Only a small portion of the territory occupied by this family
   is included within the United States, the greater portion
   being in Mexico, where it extends to the Gulf of California.
   The family is represented in the United States by three
   tribes, Pima alta, Sobaipuri, and Papago. The former have
   lived for at least two centuries with the Maricopa on the Gila
   River about 160 miles from the mouth. The Sobaipuri occupied
   the Santa Cruz and San Pedro Rivers, tributaries of the Gila,
   but are no longer known. The Papago territory is much more
   extensive and extends to the south across the border."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, pages 98-99._

      See below: PUEBLOS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pimenteiras.

      See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Piru.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pit River Indians.

      See above: MODOCS (KLAMATHS), &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Piutes.

      See below: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pokanokets, or Wampanoags.

      See above:
      ALGONQUIAN FAMILY;
      also, NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1674-1675; 1675; 1676-1678 (KING
      PHILIP'S WAR).

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Ponkas, or Puncas.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY;
      and above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Popolocas.

      See above: CHONTALS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pottawatomies.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, OJIBWAS, and SACS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Powhatan Confederacy.

   "At the time of the first settlement by the Europeans, it has
   been estimated that there were not more than 20,000 Indians
   within the limits of the State of Virginia. Within a circuit
   of 60 miles from Jamestown, Captain Smith says there were
   about 5,000 souls, and of these scarce 1,500 were warriors.
   The whole territory between the mountains and the sea was
   occupied by more than 40 tribes, 30 of whom were united in a
   confederacy under Powhatan, whose dominions, hereditary and
   acquired by conquest, comprised the whole country between the
   rivers James and Potomac, and extended into the interior as
   far as the falls of the principal rivers. Campbell, in his
   History of Virginia, states the number of Powhatan's subjects
   to have been 8,000. Powhatan was a remarkable man; a sort of
   savage Napoleon, who, by the force of his character and the
   superiority of his talents, had raised himself from the rank
   of a petty chieftain to something of imperial dignity and
   power. He had two places of abode, one called Powhatan, where
   Richmond now stands, and the other at Werowocomoco, on the
   north side of York River, within the present county of
   Gloucester. ... Besides the large confederacy of which
   Powhatan was the chief, there were two others, with which that
   was often at war. One of these, called the Mannahoacs,
   consisted of eight tribes, and occupied the country between
   the Rappahannoc and York rivers; the other, consisting of five
   tribes, was called the Monacans, and was settled between York and
   James rivers above the Falls. There were also, in addition to
   these, many scattering and independent tribes."

      _G. S. Hillard, Life of Captain John Smith
      (Library of Am. Biog.), chapter 4._

   "The English invested savage life with all the
   dignity of European courts. Powhatan was styled 'King,' or
   'Emperor,' his principal warriors were lords of the kingdom,
   his wives were queens, his daughter was a 'princess,' and his
   cabins were his various seats of residence. ... In his younger
   days Powhatan had been a great warrior. Hereditarily, he was
   the chief or werowance of eight tribes; through conquest his
   dominions had been extended. ... The name of his nation and
   the Indian appellation of the James River was Powhatan. He
   himself possessed several names."

      _E. Eggleston and L. E. Seelye, Pocahontas, chapter 3._

      ALSO IN
      _Captain John Smith, Description of Virginia, and General
      Historie of Virginia. (Arber's reprint of Works, pages 65 and
      360)_.

      See, also, above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Puans.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pueblos.

   "The non-nomadic semi-civilized town and agricultural peoples
   of New Mexico and Arizona ... I call the Pueblos, or
   Townspeople, from pueblo, town, population, people, a name
   given by the Spaniards to such inhabitants of this region as
   were found, when first discovered, permanently located in
   comparatively well-built towns. Strictly speaking, the term
   Pueblos applies only to the villagers settled along the banks
   of the Rio Grande del Norte and its tributaries between
   latitudes 34° 45' and 36° 30', and although the name is
   employed as a general appellation for this division, it will
   be used, for the most part, only in its narrower and popular
   sense. In this division, besides the before mentioned Pueblos
   proper, are embraced the Moquis, or villagers of eastern
   Arizona, and the non-nomadic agricultural nations of the lower
   Gila river,--the Pimas, Maricopas, Papagos, and cognate
   tribes. The country of the Townspeople, if we may credit
   Lieutenant Simpson, is one of 'almost universal barrenness,'
   yet interspersed with fertile spots; that of the agricultural
   nations, though dry, is more generally productive. The fame of
   this so-called civilization reached Mexico at an early day ...
   in exaggerated rumors of great cities to the north, which
   prompted the expeditions of Marco de Niza in 1539, of Coronado
   in 1540, and of Espejo in 1586 [1583]. These adventurers
   visited the north in quest of the fabulous kingdoms of
   Quivira, Tontonteac, Marata and others, in which great riches
   were said to exist. The name of Quivira was afterwards applied
   by them to one or more of the pueblo cities. The name Cibola,
   from 'Cibolo,' Mexican bull, 'bos bison,' or wild ox of New
   Mexico, where the Spaniards first encountered buffalo, was
   given to seven of the towns which were afterwards known as the
   Seven Cities of Cibola. But most of the villages known at the
   present day were mentioned in the reports of the early
   expeditions by their present names.
{100}
   ... The towns of the Pueblos are essentially unique, and are
   the dominant feature of these aboriginals. Some of them are
   situated in valleys, others on mesas; sometimes they are
   planted on elevations almost inaccessible, reached only by
   artificial grades, or by steps cut in the solid rock. Some of
   the towns are of an elliptical shape, while others are square,
   a town being frequently but a block of buildings. Thus a
   Pueblo consists of one or more squares, each enclosed by three
   or four buildings of from 300 to 400 feet in length, and about
   150 feet in width at the base, and from two to seven stories
   of from eight to nine feet each in height. ... The stories are
   built in a series of gradations or retreating surfaces,
   decreasing in size as they rise, thus forming a succession of
   terraces. In some of the towns these terraces are on both
   sides of the building; in others they face only towards the
   outside; while again in others they are on the inside. These
   terraces are about six feet wide, and extend around the three
   or four sides of the square, forming a walk for the occupants
   of the story resting upon it, and a roof for the story
   beneath; so with the stories above. As there is no inner
   communication with one another, the only means of mounting to
   them is by ladders which stand at convenient distances along
   the several rows of terraces, and they may be drawn up at
   pleasure, thus cutting off all unwelcome intrusion. The
   outside walls of one or more of the lower stories are entirely
   solid, having no openings of any kind, with the exception of,
   in some towns, a few loopholes. ... To enter the rooms on the
   ground floor from the outside, one must mount the ladder to
   the first balcony or terrace, then descend through a trap door
   in the floor by another ladder on the inside. ... The several
   stories of these huge structures are divided into
   multitudinous compartments of greater or less size, which are
   apportioned to the several families of the tribe."

      _H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapter 5._

   "There can be no doubt that Cibola is to be looked for in New
   Mexico. ... We cannot ... refuse to adopt the views of General
   Simpson and of Mr. W. W. H. Davis, and to look at the pueblo
   of Zuni as occupying, if not the actual site, at least one of
   the sites within the tribal area of the Seven Cities of
   Cibola. Nor can we refuse to identify Tusayan with the Moqui
   district, and Acuco with Acoma."

      _A. F. Bandelier, Historical Introduction to Studies
      among the Sedentary Indians of N. Mexico (Papers of the
      Archœology Institute of America: American Series,
      volume 1)._

      ALSO IN
      _J. H. Simpson, The March of Coronado._

      _L. H. Morgan, Houses and House-life of the Am.
      Aborigines (Contributions to N. Am. Ethnology, volume 4), 
	  chapter 6._

      _F. H. Cushing, My Adventures in Zuñi
      (Century, volume 3-4)_.

      _F. H. Cushing, Fourth Annual Report of the Bureau of
      Ethnology (1882-83), pages 473-480._

      _F. W. Blackmar, Spanish Institutions of the Southwest,
      chapter 10._

      See, also, AMERICA, PREHISTORIC,
      and above: PIMAN FAMILY and KERESAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Pujunan Family.

   "The following tribes were placed in this group by Latham:
   Pujuni, Secumne, Tsamak of Hale, and the Cushna of
   Schoolcraft. The name adopted for the family is the name of a
   tribe given by Hale. This was one of the two races into which,
   upon the information of Captain Sutter as derived by Mr. Dana,
   all the Sacramento tribes were believed to be divided. 'These
   races resembled one another in every respect but language.'
   ... The tribes of this family have been carefully studied by
   Powers, to whom we are indebted for most all we know of their
   distribution. They occupied the eastern bank of the Sacramento
   in California, beginning some 80 or 100 miles from its mouth,
   and extended northward to within a short distance of Pit
   River."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, pages 99-100._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Puncas, or Ponkas.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY:
      and above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Purumancians.

      See CHILE: A. D. 1450-1724.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Quapaws.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Quelches.

      See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Querandis, or Pehuelches, or Puelts.

      See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Quiches.--Cakchiquels.

   "Of the ancient races of America, those which approached the
   nearest to a civilized condition spoke related dialects of a
   tongue, which from its principal members has been called the
   Maya Quiche linguistic stock. Even to-day, it is estimated
   that half a million persons use these dialects. They are
   scattered over Yucatan, Guatemala, and the adjacent territory,
   and one branch formerly occupied the hot lowlands on the Gulf
   of Mexico, north of Vera Cruz. The so-called 'metropolitan'
   dialects are those spoken relatively near the city of
   Guatemala, and include the Cakchiquel, the Quiche, the
   Pokonchi and the Tzutuhill. They are quite closely allied, and
   are mutually intelligible, resembling each other about as much
   as did in ancient Greece the Attic, Ionic and Doric dialects.
   ... The civilization of these people was such that they used
   various mnemonic signs, approaching our alphabet, to record
   and recall their mythology and history. Fragments, more or
   less complete, of these traditions have been preserved. The
   most notable of them is the national legend of the Quiches of
   Guatemala, the so-called Popol Vuh. It was written at an
   unknown date in the Quiche dialect, by a native who was
   familiar with the ancient records."

      _D. G. Brinton, Essays of an Americanist, page 104._

      ALSO IN,
      _D. G. Brinton, Annals of the Cakchiquels._

      _H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States,
      chapter 11._

      See, also, above: MAYAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Quichuas.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Quijo.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Quoratean Family.

   "The tribes occupy both banks of the lower Klamath from a
   range of hills a little above Happy Camp to the junction of
   the Trinity, and the Salmon River from its mouth to its
   sources. On the north, Quoratean tribes extended to the
   Athapascan territory near the Oregon line."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 101._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Rapid Indians.

   A name applied by various writers to the Arapahoes, and other
   tribes.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Raritans.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Remo.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Rogue River Indians.

      See above: MODOCS, ETC.

      See Note, Appendix E.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Rucanas.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sabaja.

      See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

{101}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sacs (Sauks), Foxes, etc.

   "The Sauks or Saukies (White Clay), and Foxes or Outagamies,
   so called by the Europeans and Algonkins, but whose true name
   is Musquakkiuk (Red Clay), are in fact but one nation. The
   French missionaries on coming first in contact with them, in
   the year 1665, at once found that they spoke the same
   language, and that it differed from the Algonkin, though
   belonging to the same stock; and also that this language was
   common to the Kickapoos, and to those Indians they called
   Maskontens. This last nation, if it ever had an existence as a
   distinct tribe, has entirely disappeared. But we are informed
   by Charlevoix, and Mr. Schoolcraft corroborates the fact, that
   the word 'Mascontenck' means a country without woods, a
   prairie. The name Mascontens was therefore used to designate
   'prairie Indians.' And it appears that they consisted
   principally of Sauks and Kickapoos, with an occasional mixture
   of Potowotamies and Miamis, who probably came there to hunt
   the Buffalo. The country assigned to those Mascontens lay
   south of the Fox River of Lake Michigan and west of Illinois
   River. ... When first discovered, the Sauks and Foxes had
   their seats toward the southern extremity of Green Bay, on Fox
   River, and generally farther east than the country which they
   lately occupied. ... By the treaty of 1804, the Sauks and
   Foxes ceded to the United States all their lands east of ...
   the Mississippi. ... The Kickapoos by various treaties, 1809
   to 1819, have also ceded all their lands to the United States.
   They claimed all the country between the Illinois River and
   the Wabash, north of the parallel of latitude passing by the
   mouth of the Illinois and south of the Kankakee River. ... The
   territory claimed by the Miamis and Piankishaws may be
   generally stated as having been bounded eastwardly by the
   Maumee River of Lake Erie, and to have included all the
   country drained by the Wabash. The Piankishaws occupied the
   country bordering on the Ohio."

      _A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archæologia
      Americana, volume 2), introduction, section 2._

   The Mascontens, or Mascoutins, "seldom appear alone, but
   almost always in connection with their kindred, the Ottagamies
   or Foxes and the Kickapoos, and like them bear a character for
   treachery and deceit. The three tribes may have in earlier
   days formed the Fire-Nation [of the early French writers],
   but, as Gallatin observes in the Archæologia Americana, it is
   very doubtful whether the Mascoutins were ever a distinct
   tribe. If this be so, and there is no reason to reject it, the
   disappearance of the name will not be strange."

      _J. G. Shea, Brief Researches Respecting the Mascoutins
      (Schoolcraft's Information Respecting Indian Tribes,
      part 4, page 245)_.

      See above, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

   For an account of the Black Hawk War

      See Illinois, A. D. 1832.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sahaptins.

      See above: NEZ PERCÉS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Salinan Family.

   This name is given by Major Powell to the San Antonio and San
   Miguel dialects spoken by two tribes on the Salinas River,
   Monterey County, California.

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 101._

      See ESSELENIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Salishan Family.

      See above: FLATHEADS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sanhikans, or Mincees.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sans Arcs.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES
   Santees.

      See below: SIOUAN FAMILY.

      See Note. Appendix E.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sarcee (Tinneh).

      See above: BLACKFEET.

      See Note. Appendix E.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sastean Family.

   "The single tribe upon the language of which Hale based his
   name was located by him to the southwest of the Lutuami or
   Klamath tribes. ... The former territory of the Sastean family
   is the region drained by the Klamath River and its tributaries
   from the western base of the Cascade range to the point where
   the Klamath flows through the ridge of hills east of Happy
   Camp, which forms the boundary between the Sastean and the
   Quoratean families. In addition to this region of the Klamath,
   the Shasta extended over the Siskiyou range northward as far as
   Ashland, Oregon:"

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 106._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Savannahs.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Seminoles.

   "The term 'semanóle,' or 'isti Simanóle,' signifies
   'separatish' or 'runaway,' and as a tribal name points to the
   Indians who left the Creek, especially the Lower Creek
   settlements, for Florida, to live, hunt, and fish there in
   independence. The term does not mean 'wild,' 'savage,' as
   frequently stated; if applied now in this sense to animals, it
   is because of its original meaning, 'what has become a
   runaway.' ... The Seminoles of modern times are a people
   compounded of the following elements: separatists from the
   Lower Creek and Hitchiti towns; remnants of tribes partly
   civilized by the Spaniards; Yamassi Indians, and some negroes.
   ... The Seminoles were always regarded as a sort of outcasts
   by the Creek tribes from which they had seceded, and no doubt
   there were reasons for this. ... These Indians showed, like
   the Creeks, hostile intentions towards the thirteen states
   during and after the Revolution, and conjointly with the Upper
   Creeks on Tallapoosa river concluded a treaty of friendship
   with the Spaniards at Pensacola in May, 1784. Although under
   Spanish control, the Seminoles entered into hostilities with
   the Americans in 1793 and 1812. In the latter year Payne míko
   ['King Payne'] was killed in a battle at Alachua, and his
   brother, the influential Bowlegs, died soon after. These
   unruly tribes surprised and massacred American settlers on the
   Satilla river, Georgia, in 1817, and another conflict began,
   which terminated in the destruction of the Mikasuki and
   Suwanee river towns of the Seminoles by General Jackson, in
   April, 1818. [See FLORIDA: A. D. 1816-1818.] After the cession
   of Florida, and its incorporation into the American Union
   (1819), the Seminoles gave up all their territory by the
   treaty of Fort Moultrie, Sept. 18th, 1823, receiving in
   exchange goods and annuities. When the government concluded to
   move these Indians west of the Mississippi river, a treaty of
   a conditional character was concluded with them at Payne's
   landing, in 1832. The larger portion were removed, but the
   more stubborn part dissented, and thus gave origin to one of
   the gravest conflicts which ever occurred between Indians and
   whites. The Seminole war began with the massacre of Major
   Dade's command near Wahoo swamp, December 28th, 1835, and
   continued with unabated fury for five years, entailing an
   immense expenditure of money and lives. [See FLORIDA: A. D.
   1835-1843.] A number of Creek warriors joined the hostile
   Seminoles in 1836. A census of the Seminoles taken in 1822
   gave a population of 3,899, with 800 negroes belonging to
   them. The population of the Seminoles in the Indian Territory
   amounted to 2,667 in 1881. ... There are some Seminoles now in
   Mexico, who went there with their negro slaves."

      _A. S. Gatschet, A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians,
      volume 1, part 1, section 2._

{102}

   "Ever since the first settlement of these Indians in Florida
   they have been engaged in a strife with the whites. ... In the
   unanimous judgment of unprejudiced writers, the whites have
   ever been in the wrong."

      _D. G. Brinton, Notes on the Floridian Peninsula,
      page 148._

   "There were in Florida, October 1, 1880, of the Indians
   commonly known as Seminole, 208. They constituted 37 families,
   living in 22 camps, which were gathered into five widely
   separated groups or settlements. ... This people our
   Government has never been able to conciliate or to conquer.
   ... The Seminole have always lived within our borders as
   aliens. It is only of late years, and through natural
   necessities, that any friendly intercourse of white man and
   Indian has been secured. ... The Indians have appropriated for
   their service some of the products of European civilization,
   such as weapons, implements, domestic utensils, fabrics for
   clothing, &c. Mentally, excepting a few religious ideas which
   they received long ago from the teaching of Spanish
   missionaries, and, in the southern settlements, excepting some
   few Spanish words, the Seminole have accepted and appropriated
   practically nothing from the white man."

      _C. MacCauley, The Seminole Indians of Florida (Fifth
      Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology, 1883-84),
      introduction and chapter 4._

      ALSO IN
      _J. T. Sprague, The Florida War_.

      _S. G. Drake, The Aboriginal Races of North America.
      book 4, chapter 6-21._

      See, also, above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Senecas; their name.

   "How this name originated is a 'vexata quæstio' among
   Indo-antiquarians and etymologists. The least plausible
   supposition is, that the name has any reference to the
   moralist Seneca. Some have supposed it to be a corruption of
   the Dutch term for vermillion, cinebar, or cinnabar, under the
   assumption that the Senecas, being the most warlike of the
   Five Nations, used that pigment more than the others, and thus
   gave origin to the name. This hypothesis is supported by no
   authority. ... The name 'Sennecas' first appears on a Dutch
   map of 1616, and again on Jean de Laet's map of 1633. ... It
   is claimed by some that the word may be derived from
   'Sinnekox,' the Algonquin name of a tribe of Indians spoken of
   in Wassenaer's History of Europe, on the authority of Peter
   Barentz, who traded with them about the year 1626. ... Without
   assuming to solve the mystery, the writer contents himself
   with giving some data which may possibly aid others in
   arriving at a reliable conclusion. [Here follows a discussion
   of the various forms of name by which the Senecas designated
   themselves and were known to the Hurons, from whom the Jesuits
   first heard of them.] By dropping the neuter prefix O, the
   national title became 'Nan-do-wah-gaah,' or 'The great hill
   people,' as now used by the Senecas. ... If the name Seneca
   can legitimately be derived from the Seneca word
   'Nan-do-wah-gaah' ... it can only be done by prefixing 'Son,'
   as was the custom of the Jesuits, and dropping all unnecessary
   letters. It would then form the word 'Son-non-do-wa-ga,' the
   first two and last syllables of which, if the French sounds of
   the letters are given, are almost identical in pronunciation
   with Seneca. The chief difficulty, however, would be in the
   disposal of the two superfluous syllables. They may have been
   dropped in the process of contraction so common in the
   composition of Indian words--a result which would be quite
   likely to occur to a Seneca name, in its transmission through
   two other languages, the Mohawk and the Dutch. The foregoing
   queries and suggestions are thrown out for what they are
   worth, in the absence of any more reliable theory."

      _O. H. Marshall, Historical Writings, page 231_

      See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY, and HURONS, &c.

      See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR,

   For an account of Sullivan's expedition against the Senecas,

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Shacaya.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Shahaptian Family.

      See above: NEZ PERCÉS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES
   Shastas.

      See above: SASTEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Shawanese, Shawnees, or Shawanoes.

   "Adjacent to the Lenape [or Delawares--see above], and
   associated with them in some of the most notable passages of
   their history, dwelt the Shawanoes, the Chaouanons of the
   French, a tribe of bold, roving, and adventurous spirit. Their
   eccentric wanderings, their sudden appearances and
   disappearances, perplex the antiquary, and defy research; but
   from various scattered notices, we may gather that at an early
   period they occupied the valley of the Ohio; that, becoming
   embroiled with the Five Nations, they shared the defeat of the
   Andastes, and about the year 1672 fled to escape destruction.
   Some found an asylum in the country of the Lenape, where they
   lived tenants at will of the Five Nations; others sought
   refuge in the Carolinas and Florida, where, true to their
   native instincts, they soon came to blows with the owners of
   the soil. Again, turning northwards, they formed new
   settlements in the valley of the Ohio, where they were now
   suffered to dwell in peace, and where, at a later period, they
   were joined by such of their brethren as had found refuge
   among the Lenape."

      _F. Parkman, The Conspiracy of Pontiac, chapter 1._

   "The Shawnees were not found originally in Ohio, but migrated
   there after 1750. They were called Chaouanons by the French
   and Shawanoes by the English. The English name Shawano changed
   to Shawanee, and recently to Shawnee. Chaouanon and Shawano
   are obviously attempts to represent the same sound by the
   orthography of the two respective languages. ... Much industry
   has been used by recent writers, especially by Dr. Brinton, to
   trace this nomadic tribe to its original home; but I think
   without success. ... We first find the Shawano in actual
   history about the year 1660, and living along the Cumberland
   river, or the Cumberland and Tennessee. Among the conjectures
   as to their earlier history, the greatest probability lies for
   the present with the earliest account--the account given by
   Perrot, and apparently obtained by him from the Shawanoes
   themselves, about the year 1680--that they formerly lived by
   the lower lakes, and were driven thence by the Five Nations."

      _M. F. Force, Some Early Notices of the Indians of
      Ohio._

   "Their [the Shawnee's] dialect is more akin to the Mohegan
   than to the Delaware, and when, in 1692, they first appeared
   in the area of the Eastern Algonkin Confederacy, they came as
   the friends and relatives of the former. They were divided
   into four bands"--Piqua, properly Pikoweu, Mequachake,
   Kiscapokoke, Chilicothe. "Of these, that which settled in
   Pennsylvania was the Pikoweu, who occupied and gave their name
   to the Pequa valley in Lancaster county. According to ancient
   Mohegan tradition, the New England Pequods were members of
   this band."

      _D. G. Brinton, The Lenape and their Legends, chapter 2._

      _D. G. Brinton, The Shawnees and their Migrations (History
      Magazine, volume 10, 1866)_.

{103}

   "The Shawanese, whose villages were on the western bank [of
   the Susquehanna] came into the valley [of Wyoming] from their
   former localities, at the 'forks of the Delaware' (the
   junction of the Delaware and Lehigh, at Easton), to which
   point they had been induced at some remote period to emigrate
   from their earlier home, near the mouth of the river Wabash,
   in the 'Ohio region,' upon the invitation of the Delawares.
   This was Indian diplomacy, for the Delawares were desirous
   (not being upon the most friendly terms with the Mingos, or
   Six Nations) to accumulate a force against those powerful
   neighbors. But, as might be expected, they did not long live
   in peace with their new allies. ... The Shawanese [about 1755,
   or soon after] were driven out of the valley by their more
   powerful neighbors, the Delawares, and the conflict which
   resulted in their leaving it grew out of, or was precipitated
   by, a very trifling incident. While the warriors of the
   Delawares were engaged upon the mountains in a hunting
   expedition, a number of squaws or female Indians from
   Maughwauwame were gathering wild fruits along the margin of
   the river below the town, where they found a number of
   Shawanese squaws and their children, who had crossed the river
   in their canoes upon the same business. A child belonging to
   the Shawanese having taken a large grasshopper, a quarrel
   arose among the children for the possession of it, in which
   their mothers soon took part. ... The quarrel became general.
   ... Upon the return of the warriors both tribes prepared for
   battle. ... The Shawanese ... were not able to sustain the
   conflict, and, after the loss of about half their tribe, the
   remainder were forced to flee to their own side of the river,
   shortly after which they abandoned their town and removed to
   the Ohio." This war between the Delawares and Shawanese has
   been called the Grasshopper War.

      _L. H. Miner, The Valley of Wyoming, page 32._

      See, also, above, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY, and DELAWARES

      See, also, PONTIAC'S WAR; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1765-1768;

   For an account of "Lord Dunmore's War",

      See OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1774.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sheepeaters (Tukuarika).

      See below: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sheyennes.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Shoshonean Family.

   "This important family occupied a large part of the great
   interior basin of the United States. Upon the north Shoshonean
   tribes extended far into Oregon, meeting Shahaptian territory
   on about the 44th parallel or along the Blue Mountains. Upon
   the northeast the eastern limits of the pristine habitat of
   the Shoshonean tribes are unknown. The narrative of Lewis and
   Clarke contains the explicit statement that the Shoshoni bands
   encountered upon the Jefferson River, whose summer home was upon
   the head waters of the Columbia, formerly lived within their
   own recollection in the plains to the east of the Rocky
   Mountains, whence they were driven to their mountain retreats
   by the Minnetaree (Atsina), who had obtained firearms. ...
   Later a division of the Bannock held the finest portion of
   Southwestern Montana, whence apparently they were being pushed
   westward across the mountains by Blackfeet. Upon the east the
   Tukuarika or Sheepeaters held the Yellowstone Park country,
   where they were bordered by the Siouan territory, while the
   Washaki occupied southwestern Wyoming. Nearly the entire
   mountainous part of Colorado was held by the several bands of
   the Ute, the eastern and southeastern parts of the State being
   held respectively by the Arapaho and Cheyenne (Algonquian),
   and the Kaiowe (Kiowan). To the southeast the Ute country
   included the northern drainage of the San Juan, extending
   farther east a short distance into New Mexico. The Comanche
   division of the family extended farther east than any other.
   ... Bourgemont found a Comanche tribe on the upper Kansas
   River in 1724. According to Pike the Comanche territory
   bordered the Kaiowe on the north, the former occupying the
   head waters of the Upper Red River, Arkansas and Rio Grande.
   How far to the southward Shoshonean tribes extended at this
   early period is not known, though the evidence tends to show
   that they raided far down into Texas, to the territory they
   have occupied in more recent years, viz., the extensive plains
   from the Rocky Mountains eastward into Indian Territory and
   Texas to about 97°. Upon the south Shoshonean territory was
   limited generally by the Colorado River ... while the Tusayan
   (Moki) had established their seven pueblos ... to the east of
   the Colorado Chiquito. In the southwest Shoshonean tribes had
   pushed across California, occupying a wide band of country to
   the Pacific."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report., Bureau of
      Ethnology, pages 109-110._

   "The Pah Utes occupy the greater part of Nevada, and extend
   southward. ... The Pi Utes or Piutes inhabit Western Utah,
   from Oregon to New Mexico. ... The Gosh Utes [Gosuites]
   inhabit the country west of Great Salt Lake, and extend to the
   Pah Utes."

      _H. H. Bancroft, Native Races of the Pacific States,
      volume 1, chapter 4._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Siksikas, or Sisikas.

      See above: BLACKFEET.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Siouan Family.--Sioux.

      See Note, Appendix E.

   "The nations which speak the Sioux language may be considered,
   in reference both to their respective dialects and to their
   geographical position, as consisting of four subdivisions,
   viz., the Winnebagoes; the Sioux proper and the Assiniboins;
   the Minetare group; and the Osages and other southern kindred
   tribes. The Winnebagoes, so called by the Algonkins, but
   called Puans and also Otchagras by the French, and Horoje
   ('fish-eaters') by the Omahaws and other southern tribes, call
   themselves Hochungorah, or the 'Trout' nation. The Green Bay
   of Lake Michigan derives its French name from theirs (Baye des
   Puans). ... According to the War Department they amount [1836]
   to 4,600 souls, and appear to cultivate the soil to a
   considerable degree. Their principal seats are on the Fox
   River of Lake Michigan, and towards the heads of the Rock
   River of the Mississippi. ... The Sioux proper, or
   Naudowessies, names given to them by the Algonkins and the
   French, call themselves Dahcotas, and sometimes 'Ochente
   Shakoans,' or the Seven Fires, and are divided into seven
   bands or tribes, closely connected together, but apparently
   independent of each other. They do not appear to have been
   known to the French before the year 1660.
{104}
   ... The four most eastern tribes of the Dahcotas are known by
   the name of the Mendewahkantoan, or 'Gens du Lac,' Wahkpatoan
   and Wahkpakotoan, or 'People of the Leaves,' and Sisitoans.
   ... The three westerly tribes, the Yanktons, the Yanktonans,
   and the Tetons, wander between the Mississippi and the
   Missouri. ... The Assiniboins (Stone Indians), as they are
   called by the Algonkins, are a Dahcota tribe separated from
   the rest of the nation, and on that account called Hoha or
   'Rebels,' by the other Sioux. They are said to have made part
   originally of the Yanktons. ... Another tribe, called
   Sheyennes or Cheyennes, were at no very remote period seated
   on the left bank of the Red River of Lake Winnipek. ... Carver
   reckons them as one of the Sioux tribes; and Mackenzie informs
   us that they were driven away by the Sioux. They now [1836]
   live on the headwaters of the river Sheyenne, a southwestern
   tributary of the Missouri. ... I have been, however, assured
   by a well-informed person who trades with them that they speak
   a distinct language, for which there is no European
   interpreter. ... The Minetares (Minetaree and Minetaries)
   consist of three tribes, speaking three different languages,
   which belong to a common stock. Its affinities with the
   Dahcota are but remote, but have appeared sufficient to
   entitle them to be considered as of the same family. Two of
   those tribes, the Mandanes, whose number does not exceed
   1,500, and the stationary Minetares, amounting to 3,000 souls,
   including those called Annahawas, cultivate the soil, and live
   in villages situated on or near the Missouri, between 47° and
   48° north latitude. ... The third Minetare tribe, is that
   known by the name of the Crow or Upsaroka [or Absaroka]
   nation, probably the Keeheetsas of Lewis and Clarke. They are
   an erratic tribe, who hunt south of the Missouri, between the
   Little Missouri and the southeastern branches of the
   Yellowstone River. ... The southern Sioux consist of eight
   tribes, speaking four, or at most five, kindred dialects.
   Their territory originally extended along the Mississippi,
   from below the mouth of the Arkansas to the forty-first degree
   of north latitude. ... Their hunting grounds extend as far
   west as the Stony Mountains; but they all cultivate the soil,
   and the most westerly village on the Missouri is in about 100°
   west longitude. The three most westerly tribes are the Quappas
   or Arkansas, at the mouth of the river of that name, and the
   Osages and Kansas, who inhabited the country south of the
   Missouri and of the river Kansas. ... The Osages, properly
   Wausashe, were more numerous and powerful than any of the
   neighbouring tribes, and perpetually at war with all the other
   Indians, without excepting the Kansas, who speak the same
   dialect with themselves. They were originally divided into
   Great and Little Osages; but about forty years ago almost
   one-half of the nation, known by the name of Chaneers, or
   Clermont's Band, separated from the rest, and removed to the
   river Arkansa. The villages of those several subdivisions are
   now [1836] on the headwaters of the river Osage, and of the
   Verdigris, a northern tributary stream of the Arkansa. They
   amount to about 5,000 souls, and have ceded a portion of their
   lands to the United States, reserving to themselves a
   territory on the Arkansa, south of 38° North latitude,
   extending from 95° to 100° West longitude, on a breadth of 45
   to 50 miles. The territory allotted to the Cherokees, the
   Creeks and the Choctaws lies south of that of the Osage. ...
   The Kansas, who have always lived on the river of that name,
   have been at peace with the Osage for the last thirty years,
   and intermarry with them. They amount to 1,500 souls, and
   occupy a tract of about 3,000,000 acres. ... The five other
   tribes of this subdivision are the Ioways, or Pahoja (Grey
   Snow), the Missouris or Neojehe, the Ottoes, or Wahtootahtah,
   the Omahaws, or Mahas, and the Puncas. ... All the nations
   speaking languages belonging to the Great Sioux Family may ...
   be computed at more than 50,000 souls."

     _A. Gallatin, Synopsis of the Indian Tribes (Archœologia
     Americana, volume 2), section 4._

   "Owing to the fact that 'Sioux' is a word of reproach and
   means snake or enemy, the term has been discarded by many
   later writers as a family designation, and 'Dakota,' which
   signifies friend or ally, has been employed in its stead. The
   two words are, however, by no means properly synonymous. The
   term 'Sioux' was used by Gallatin in a comprehensive or family
   sense and was applied to all the tribes collectively known to
   him to speak kindred dialects of a widespread language. It is
   in this sense only, as applied to the linguistic family, that
   the term is here employed. The term 'Dahcota' (Dakota) was
   correctly applied by Gallatin to the Dakota tribes proper as
   distinguished from the other members of the linguistic family
   who are not Dakotas in a tribal sense. The use of the term
   with this signification should be perpetuated. It is only
   recently that a definite decision has been reached respecting
   the relationship of the Catawba and Woccon, the latter an
   extinct tribe known to have been linguistically related to the
   Catawba. Gallatin thought that he was able to discern some
   affinities of the Catawban language with 'Muskhogee and even
   with Choctaw,' though these were not sufficient to induce him
   to class them together. Mr. Gatschet was the first to call
   attention to the presence in the Catawba language of a
   considerable number of words having a Siouan affinity.
   Recently Mr. Dorsey has made a critical examination of all the
   Catawba linguistic material available, which has been
   materially increased by the labors of Mr. Gatschet, and the
   result seems to justify its inclusion as one of the dialects
   of the widespread Siouan family." The principal tribes in the
   Siouan Family named by Major Powell are the Dakota (including
   Santee, Sisseton, Wahpeton, Yankton, Yanktonnais, Teton,--the
   latter embracing Brulé, Sans Arcs, Blackfeet, Minneconjou, Two
   Kettles, Ogalala, Uncpapa), Assinaboin, Omaha, Ponca, Kaw,
   Osage, Quapaw, Iowa, Otoe, Missouri, Winnebago, Mandan, Gros
   Ventres, Crow, Tutelo, Biloxi (see MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY), Catawba
   and Woccon.

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 112._

      ALSO IN
      _J. O. Dorsey, Migrations of Siouan Tribes (American
      Naturalist, volume 20, March)_.

      _J. O. Dorsey, Biloxi Indians of Louisiana (V. P.
      address A. A. A. S., 1893)_.

      See, above: HIDATSA.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Sissetons.

      See above SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Six Nations.

      See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

{105}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Skittagetan Family.

   "A family designation ... retained for the tribes of the Queen
   Charlotte Archipelago which have usually been called Haida.
   From a comparison of the vocabularies of the Haida language
   with others of the neighboring Koluschan family, Dr. Franz
   Boas is inclined to consider that the two are genetically
   related. The two languages possess a considerable number of
   words in common, but a more thorough investigation is
   requisite for the settlement of the question."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 120._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Snakes.

      See above: SNOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Stockbridge Indians.

   "The Stockbridge Indians were originally a part of the
   Housatannuck Tribe [Mohegans], to whom the Legislature of
   Massachusetts granted or secured a township [afterward called
   Stockbridge] in the year 1736. Their number was increased by
   Wappingers and Mohikanders, and perhaps also by Indians
   belonging to several other tribes, both of New England and New
   York. Since their removal to New Stockbridge and Brotherton,
   in the western parts of New York, they have been joined by
   Mohegans and other Indians from East Connecticut, and even
   from Rhode Island and Long Island."

      _A. Gallatin, Synopsis of Indian Tribes (Archæologia
      Americana, volume 2), page 35._

      ALSO IN
      _A. Holmes, Annals of America, 1736 (volume 2)_.

      _S. G. Drake, Aboriginal Races, page 15._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Susquehannas, or Andastes, or Conestogas.

   "Dutch and Swedish writers speak of a tribe called Minquas;
   ... the French in Canada ... make frequent allusions to the
   Gandastogués (more briefly Andastés), a tribe friendly to
   their allies, the Hurons, and sturdy enemies of the Iroquois;
   later still Pennsylvania writers speak of the Conestogas, the
   tribe to which Logan belonged, and the tribe which perished at
   the hands of the Paxton boys. Although Gallatin in his map,
   followed by Bancroft, placed the Andastés near Lake Erie, my
   researches led me to correct this, and identify the
   Susquehannas, Minqua, Andastés or Gandastogués, and Conestogas
   as being an the same tribe, the first name being apparently an
   appellation given them by the Virginia tribes; the second that
   given them by the Algonquins on the Delaware; while
   Gandastogué as the French, or Conestoga as the English wrote
   it, was their own tribal name, meaning cabin-pole men, Natio
   Perticarum, from 'Andasta,' a cabin-pole. ... Prior to 1600
   the Susquehannas and the Mohawks ... came into collision, and
   the Susquehannas nearly exterminated the Mohawks in a war
   which lasted ten years." In 1647 they offered their aid to the
   Hurons against the Iroquois, having 1,300 warriors trained to
   the use of fire-arms by three Swedish soldiers: but the
   proposed alliance failed. During the third quarter of the 17th
   century they seem to have been in almost continuous war with
   the Five Nations, until, in 1675, they were completely
   overthrown. A party of about 100 retreated into Maryland and
   became involved there in a war with the colonists and were
   destroyed. "The rest of the tribe, after making overtures to
   Lord Baltimore, submitted to the Five Nations, and were
   allowed to retain their ancient grounds. When Pennsylvania was
   settled, they became known as Conestogas, and were always
   friendly to the colonists of Penn, as they had been to the
   Dutch and Swedes. In 1701 Canoodagtoh, their king, made a
   treaty with Penn, and in the document they are styled Minquas,
   Conestogas, or Susquehannas. They appear as a tribe in a
   treaty in 1742, but were dwindling away. In 1763 the feeble
   remnant of the tribe became involved in the general suspicion
   entertained by the colonists against the red men, arising out
   of massacres on the borders. To escape danger the poor
   creatures took refuge in Lancaster jail, and here they were
   all butchered by the Paxton boys, who burst into the place.
   Parkman, in his Conspiracy of Pontiac, page 414, details the sad
   story. The last interest of this unfortunate tribe centres in
   Logan, the friend of the white man, whose speech is so
   familiar to all, that we must regret that it has not sustained
   the historical scrutiny of Brantz Mayer."

      _(Tahgahjute; or Logan and Capt. Michael Cresap, Maryland
      Historical Society, May, 1851: and 8vo. Albany, 1867)_.

   "Logan was a Conestoga, in other words a Susquehanna."

      _J. G. Shea, Note 46 to George Alsop's Character of the
      Province of Maryland
      (Gowan's Bibliotheca Americana, 5)._

      See, also, above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tachies.

      See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS AND THE NAME.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tacullies.

      See below: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Taensas.

      See NATCHESAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Takilman Family.

      See Note, Appendix E.

   "This name was proposed by Mr. Gatschet for a distinct
   language spoken on the coast of Oregon about the lower Rogue
   River."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 121._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Talligewi.

      See above: ALLEGHANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tañoan Family.

   "The tribes of this family in the United States resided
   exclusively upon the Rio Grande and its tributary valleys from
   about 33° to about 36°."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 122._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tappans.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Taranteens or Tarratines.

      See above: ABNAKIS:
      also, ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tarascans.

   "The Tarascans, so called from Taras, the name of a tribal
   god, had the reputation of being the tallest and handsomest
   people of Mexico. They were the inhabitants of the present
   State of Michoacan, west of the valley of Mexico. According to
   their oldest traditions, or perhaps those of their neighbors,
   they had migrated from the north in company with, or about the
   same time as, the Aztecs. For some 300 years before the
   conquest they had been a sedentary, semi-civilized people,
   maintaining their independence, and progressing steadily in
   culture. When first encountered by the Spaniards they were
   quite equal and in some respects ahead of the Nahuas. ... In
   their costume the Tarascos differed considerably from their
   neighbors. The feather garments which they manufactured
   surpassed all others in durability and beauty. Cotton was,
   however, the usual material."

      _D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 136._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tarumi.

      See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tecuna.

      See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tehuel Che.

      See above: PATAGONIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Telmelches.

      See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tequestas.

      See below: TIMUQUANAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tetons.

      See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Teutecas, or Tenez.

      See below: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

{106}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Timuquanan Family.
   The Tequestas.

   "Beginning at the southeast, we first meet the historic
   Timucua family, the tribes of which are extinct at the present
   time. ... In the 16th century the Timucua inhabited the
   northern and middle portion of the peninsula of Florida, and
   although their exact limits to the north are unknown, they
   held a portion of Florida bordering on Georgia, and some of
   the coast islands in the Atlantic ocean. ... The people
   received its name from one of their villages called Timagoa.
   ... The name means 'lord,' 'ruler,' 'master' ('atimuca,'
   waited upon, 'muca,' by servants, 'ati'), and the people's
   name is written Atimuca early in the 18th century. ... The
   languages spoken by the Calusa and by the people next in
   order, the Tequesta, are unknown to us. ... The Calusa held
   the southwestern extremity of Florida, and their tribal name
   is left recorded in Calusahatchi, a river south of Tampa bay.
   ... Of the Tequesta people on the southeastern end of the
   peninsula we know still less than of the Calusa Indians. There
   was a tradition that they were the same people which held the
   Bahama or Lucayo Islands."

      _A. S. Gatschet, A Migration Legend of the Creek Indians,
      volume 1, part 1._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tinneh.

      See above: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tivitivas.

      See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tlascalans.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1519 (JUNE-OCTOBER).

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   T'linkets.

      See above: ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tobacco Nation.

      See above: HURONS;
      and IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY: THEIR NAME.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tobas.

      See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Toltecs.

      See MEXICO, ANCIENT.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tonikan Family.

   "The Tonika are known to have occupied three localities:
   First, on the Lower Yazoo River (1700); second, east shore of
   Mississippi River (about 1704); third, in Avoyelles Parish,
   Louisiana (1817). Near Marksville, the county seat of that
   parish, about twenty-five are now living."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 125._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tonkawan Family.

   "The Tónkawa were a migratory people and a colluvies gentium,
   whose earliest habitat is unknown. Their first mention occurs
   in 1719; at that time and ever since they roamed in the
   western and southern parts of what is now Texas."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 126._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tontos.

      See above: APACHE GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Toromonos.

      See BOLIVIA: ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Totonacos.

   "The first natives whom Cortes met on landing in Mexico were
   the Totonacos. They occupied the territory of Totonicapan, now
   included in the State of Vera Cruz. According to traditions of
   their own, they had resided there 800 years, most of which
   time they were independent, though a few generations before
   the arrival of the Spaniards they had been subjected by the
   arms of the Montezumas. ... Sahagun describes them as almost
   white in color, their heads artificially deformed, but their
   features regular and handsome. Robes of cotton beautifully
   dyed served them for garments, and their feet were covered
   with sandals. ... These people were highly civilized.
   Cempoalla, their capital city, was situated about five miles
   from the sea, at the junction of two streams. Its houses were
   of brick and mortar, and each was surrounded by a small
   garden, at the foot of which a stream of fresh water was
   conducted. ... The affinities of the Totonacos are difficult
   to make out. ... Their language has many words from Maya
   roots, but it has also many more from the Nahuatl."

      _D. G. Brinton, The American Race, page 139._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tukuarika.

      See above: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tupi.--Guarani.--Tupuyas.

   "The first Indians with whom the Portuguese came in contact,
   on the discovery of Brazil, called themselves Tupinama, a term
   derived by Barnhagen from Tupi and Mba, something like warrior
   or nobleman; by Martius from Tupi and Anamba (relative) with
   the signification 'belonging to the Tupi tribe.' These Tupi
   dwell on the east coast of Brazil, and with their language the
   Portuguese were soon familiar. It was found especially
   serviceable as a means of communication with other tribes, and
   this led the Jesuits later to develop it as much as possible,
   and introduce it as a universal language of intercourse with
   the Savages. Thus the 'lingua geral Brasilica' arose, which
   must be regarded as a Tupi with a Portuguese pronunciation.
   The result was a surprising one, for it really succeeded in
   forming, for the tribes of Brazil, divided in language, a
   universal means of communication. Without doubt the wide
   extent of the Tupi was very favorable, especially since on
   this side of the Andes, as far as the Caribbean Sea, the
   continent of South America was overrun with Tupi hordes. ...
   Von Martius has endeavored to trace their various migrations
   and abodes, by which they have acquired a sort of ubiquity in
   tropical South America. ... This history ... leads to the
   supposition that, had the discovery been delayed a few
   centuries, the Tupi might have become the lords of eastern
   South America, and have spread a higher culture over that
   region. The Tupi family may be divided, according to their
   fixed abodes, into the southern, northern, eastern, western,
   and central Tupi; all these are again divided into a number of
   smaller tribes. The southern Tupi are usually called Guarani
   (warriors), a name which the Jesuits first introduced. It
   cannot be determined from which direction they came. The
   greatest number are in Paraguay and the Argentine province of
   Corrientes. The Jesuits brought them to a very high degree of
   civilization. The eastern Tupi, the real Tupinamba, are
   scattered along the Atlantic coast from St. Catherina Island
   to the mouth of the Amazon. They are a very weak tribe. They
   say they came from the south and west. The northern Tupi are a
   weak and widely scattered remnant of a large tribe, and are
   now in the province of Para, on the island of Marajo, and
   along both banks of the Amazon. ... It is somewhat doubtful if
   this peaceable tribe are really Tupi. ... The central Tupi
   live in several free hordes between the Tocantins and Madeira.
   ... Cutting off the heads of enemies is in vogue among them.
   ... The Mundrucu are especially the head-hunting tribe. The
   western Tupi all live in Bolivia. They are the only ones who
   came in contact with the Inca empire, and their character and
   manners show the influence of this. Some are a picture of
   idyllic gayety and patriarchal mildness."

      _The Standard Natural History (J. S. Kingsley, editor)
      volume 6, pages 248-249._

   "In frequent contiguity with the Tupis was another stock, also
   widely dispersed through Brazil, called the Tupuyas, of whom
   the Botocudos in eastern Brazil are the most prominent tribe.
   To them also belong the Ges nations, south of the lower
   Amazon, and others. They are on a low grade of culture, going
   quite naked, not cultivating the soil, ignorant of pottery,
   and with poorly made canoes. They are dolichocephalic, and
   must have inhabited the country a long time."

      _D. G. Brinton, Races and Peoples, pages 269-270._

{107}

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Turiero.

      See above: CHIBCHAS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tuscaroras.

      See above: IROQUOIS CONFEDERACY,
      and IROQUOIS TRIBES OF THE SOUTH.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Tuteloes.

      See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Twightwees, or Miamis.

      See above: ILLINOIS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Two Kettles.

      See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Uaupe.

      See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Uchean Family.

   "The pristine homes of the Yuchi are not now traceable with
   any degree of certainty. The Yuchi are supposed to have been
   visited by De Soto during his memorable march, and the town of
   Cofitachiqui chronicled by him, is believed by many
   investigators to have stood at Silver Bluff, on the left bank
   of the Savannah, about 25 miles below Augusta. If, as is
   supposed by some authorities, Cofitachiqui was a Yuchi town,
   this would locate the Yuchi in a section which, when first
   known to the whites, was occupied by the Shawnee. Later the
   Yuchi appear to have lived somewhat farther down the
   Savannah."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of Ethnology,
      page 126._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Uhilches.

      See above: PAMPAS TRIBES.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Uirina.

      See above: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Uncpapas.

      See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Upsarokas, or Absarokas, or Crows.

      See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Utahs.

      See above: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wabenakies, or Abnakis.

      See above: ABNAKIS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wacos, or Huecos.

      See above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wahpetons.

      See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Waiilatpuan Family.

   "Hale established this family and placed under it the Cailloux
   or Cayuse or Willetpoos, and the Molele. Their headquarters as
   indicated by Hale are the upper part of the Walla Walla River
   and the country about Mounts Hood and Vancouver."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 127._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Waikas.

      See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wakashan Family.

   "The above family name was based upon a vocabulary of the
   Wakash Indians, who, according to Gallatin, 'inhabit the
   island on which Nootka Sound is situated.' ... The term
   'Wakash' for this group of languages has since been generally
   ignored, and in its place Nootka or Nootka-Columbian has been
   adopted. ... Though by no means as appropriate a designation
   as could be found, it seems clear that for the so-called
   Wakash, Newittee, and other allied languages usually assembled
   under the Nootka family, the term Wakash of 1836 has priority
   and must be retained."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, pages 129-130._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wampanoags, or Pokanokets.

      See above: POKANOKETS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wapisianas.

      See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wappingers.

      See above: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Waraus.

      See above: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Washakis.

      See above: SHOSHONEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES
    Washoan Family.

   "This family is represented by a single well known tribe,
   whose range extended from Reno, on the line of the Central
   Pacific Railroad, to the lower end of Carson Valley."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 131._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wichitas, or Pawnee Picts.

      See above: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Winnebagoes.

      See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wishoskan Family.

   "This is a small and obscure linguistic family and little is
   known concerning the dialects composing it or of the tribes
   which speak it. ... The area occupied by the tribes speaking
   dialects of this language was the coast from a little below
   the mouth of Eel River to a little north of Mad River,
   including particularly the country about Humboldt Bay."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 133._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Witumkas.

      See above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Woccons.

      See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Wyandots.

      See above: HURONS.

   Yamasis and Yamacraws.

      See above: MUSKHOGEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yamco.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yanan Family.

   "The eastern boundary of the Yanan territory is formed by a
   range of mountains a little west of Lassen Butte and
   terminating near Pit River; the northern boundary by a line
   running from northeast to southwest, passing near the northern
   side of Round Mountain, three miles from Pit River. The
   western boundary from Redding southward is on an average 10
   miles to the east of the Sacramento. North of Redding it
   averages double that distance or about 20 miles."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 135._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yanktons and Yanktonnais.

      See above: SIOUAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yncas, or Incas.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yuchi.

      See above: UCHEAN FAMILY.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yuguarzongo.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yukian Family.

   "Round Valley, California, subsequently made a reservation to
   receive the Yuki and other tribes, was formerly the chief seat
   of the tribes of the family, but they also extended across the
   mountains to the coast."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 136._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yuman Family.

   "The center of distribution of the tribes of this family is
   generally considered to be the lower Colorado and Gila
   Valleys."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 137._

      See above: APACHE GROUP.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yuncas.

      See PERU.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Yuroks or Eurocs.

      See above: MODOCS, &c.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Zaporo.

      See above: ANDESIANS.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Zapotecs, Mixtecs, Zoques, Mixes, etc.

   "The greater part of Gaxaca [Mexico] and the neighboring
   regions are still occupied by the Zapytees, who call
   themselves Didja-za. There are now about 265,000 of them,
   about 50,000 of whom speak nothing but their native tongue. In
   ancient times they constituted a powerful independent state,
   the citizens of which seem to have been quite as highly
   civilized as any member of the Aztec family. They were
   agricultural and sedentary, living in villages and
   constructing buildings of stone and mortar.
{108}
   The most remarkable, but by no means the only, specimens of
   these    still remaining are the ruins of Mitla. ... The Mixtecs
   adjoined the Zapotecs to the west, extending along the coast
   of the Pacific to about the present port of Acapulco. In
   culture they were equal to the Zapotecs. ... The mountain
   regions of the isthmus of Tehuantepec and the adjacent
   portions of the states of Chiapas and Oaxaca are the habitats
   of the Zoques, Mixes, and allied tribes. The early historians
   draw a terrible picture of their valor, savagery and
   cannibalism, which reads more like tales to deter the
   Spaniards from approaching their domains than truthful
   accounts. However this may be, they have been for hundreds of
   years a peaceful, ignorant, timid part of the population,
   homely, lazy and drunken. ... The faint traditions of these
   peoples pointed to the South for their origin. ... The
   Chinantecs inhabited Chinantla, which is a part of the state
   of Oaxaca. ... The Chinantecs had been reduced by the Aztecs
   and severely oppressed by them. Hence they welcomed the
   Spaniards as deliverers. ... Other names by which they are
   mentioned are Tenez and Teutecas. ... In speaking of the
   province of Chiapas the historian Herrera informs us that it
   derived its name from the pueblo so-called, 'whose inhabitants
   were the most remarkable in New Spain for their traits and
   inclinations.' They had early acquired the art of
   horsemanship, they were skillful in all kinds of music,
   excellent painters, carried on a variety of arts, and were
   withal very courteous to each other. One tradition was that
   they had reached Chiapas from Nicaragua. ... But the more
   authentic legend of the Chapas or Chapanecs, as they were
   properly called from their totemic bird the Chapa, the red
   macaw, recited that the whole stock moved down from a northern
   latitude, following down the Pacific coast until they came to
   Soconusco, where they divided, one part entering the mountains
   of Chiapas, the other proceeding on to Nicaragua."

      _D. G. Brinton, The American Race, pages 140-146._

      ALSO IN
      _A. Bandelier, Report of Archæological Tour in Mexico._

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Zoques.

      See above: ZAPOTECS, ETC.

AMERICAN ABORIGINES:
   Zuñian Family.

   "Derivation: From the Cochiti term Suinyi, said to mean 'the
   people of the long nails,' referring to the surgeons of Zuñi
   who always wear some of their nails very long (Cushing)."

      _J. W. Powell, Seventh Annual Report, Bureau of
      Ethnology, page 138._

      See, above, PUEBLOS;
      also, AMERICA: PREHISTORIC.

----------AMERICAN ABORIGINES: End----------

AMERICAN CIVIL WAR.

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

      Statistics of. See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1865 (MAY).

AMERICAN KNIGHTS, Order of.

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

AMERICAN PARTY, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1852.

AMERICAN SYSTEM, The.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (UNITED STATES): A. D. 1816-1824.

AMHERST, Lord, The Indian Administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

AMHERST'S CAMPAIGNS IN AMERICA.

      See CANADA (NEW FRANCE): A. D. 1758 to 1760.

AMICITIÆ.

      See GUILDS OF FLANDERS.

AMIDA, Sieges of.

   The ancient city of Amida, now Diarbekr, on the right bank of
   the Upper Tigris was thrice taken by the Persians from the
   Romans, in the course of the long wars between the two
   nations. In the first instance, A. D. 359, it fell after a
   terrible siege of seventy-three days, conducted by the Persian
   king Sapor in person, and was given up to pillage and
   slaughter, the Roman commanders crucified and the few
   surviving inhabitants dragged to Persia as slaves. The town
   was then abandoned by the Persians, repeopled by the Romans
   and recovered its prosperity and strength, only to pass
   through a similar experience again in 502 A. D., when it was
   besieged for eighty days by the Persian king Kobad, carried by
   storm, and most of its inhabitants slaughtered or enslaved. A
   century later, A. D. 605, Chosroes took Amida once more, but
   with less violence.

      _G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 9, 19
      and 24._

      See, also, PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

AMIENS.--Origin of name.

      See BELGÆ.

AMIENS: A. D. 1597.
   Surprise by the Spaniards.
   Recovery by Henry IV.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1593-1598.

AMIENS: A. D. 1870.
   Taken by the Germans.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1870-1871.

----------AMIENS: End----------

AMIENS, The Mise of.

      See OXFORD, PROVISIONS OF.

AMIENS, Treaty of (1527).
   Negotiated by Cardinal Wolsey, between Henry VIII. of England
   and Francis I. of France, establishing an alliance against the
   Emperor, Charles V. The treaty was sealed and sworn to in the
   cathedral church at Amiens, Aug. 18, 1527.

      _J. S. Brewer, Reign of Henry VIII.,
      volume 2. chapter 26 and 28._

AMIENS, Treaty of (1801).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1801-1802.

AMIN AL, Caliph, A. D. 809-813.

AMIR.
   An Arabian title, signifying chief or ruler.

AMISIA, The.
   The ancient name of the river Ems.

AMISUS, Siege of.

   The siege of Amisus by Lucullus was one of the important
   operations of the Third Mithridatic war. The city was on the
   coast of the Black Sea, between the rivers Halys and Lycus; it
   is represented in site by the modern town of Samsoon. Amisus,
   which was besieged in 73 B. C. held out until the following
   year. Tyrannio the grammarian was among the prisoners taken
   and sent to Rome.

      _G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 3, chapter 1 and
      2._

AMMANN.
   This is the title of the Mayor or President of the Swiss Communal
   Council or Gemeinderath.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1848-1890.

AMMON, The Temple and Oracle of.

   The Ammonium or Oasis of Ammon, in the Libyan desert, which
   was visited by Alexander the Great, has been identified with
   the oasis now known as the Oasis of Siwah. "The Oasis of Siwah
   was first visited and described by Browne in 1792; and its
   identity with that of Ammon fully established by Major Rennell
   ('Geography of Herodotus,' pages 577-591). ... The site of the
   celebrated temple and oracle of Ammon was first discovered by
   Mr. Hamilton in 1853." "Its famous oracle was frequently
   visited by Greeks from Cyrene, as well as from other parts of
   the Hellenic world, and it vied in reputation with those of
   Delphi and Dodona."

      _E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography, chapter 8,
      section 1, and chapter 12, section 1, and note E._

   An expedition of 50,000 men sent by Cambyses to Ammon, B. C.
   525, is said to have perished in the desert, to the last man.

      See EGYPT: B. C. 525-332.

{109}

AMMONITES, The.

   According to the narrative in Genesis xix: 30-39, the
   Ammonites were descended from Ben-Ammi, son of Lot's second
   daughter, as the Moabites came from Moab, the eldest
   daughter's son. The two people are much associated in Biblical
   history. "It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, while Moab
   was the settled and civilized half of the nation of Lot, the
   Bene Ammon formed its predatory and Bedouin section."

      _G. Grove, Dictionary of the Bible._

      See JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY;
      also, MOABITES.

AMMONITI, OR AMMONIZIONI, The.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1358.

AMNESTY PROCLAMATION.

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

AMORIAN DYNASTY, The.

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D. 820-1057.

AMORIAN WAR, The.

   The Byzantine Emperor, Theophilus, in war with the Saracens,
   took and destroyed, with peculiar animosity, the town of
   Zapetra or Sozopetra, in Syria, which happened to be the
   birthplace of the reigning caliph, Motassem, son of Haroun
   Alraschid. The caliph had condescended to intercede for the
   place, and his enemy's conduct was personally insulting to
   him, as well as atrociously inhumane. To avenge the outrage he
   invaded Asia Minor, A. D. 838, at the head of an enormous
   army, with the special purpose of destroying the birthplace of
   Theophilus. The unfortunate town which suffered that
   distinction was Amorinm in Phrygia,--whence the ensuing war
   was called the Amorian War. Attempting to defend Amorinm in
   the field, the Byzantines were hopelessly defeated, and the
   doomed city was left to its fate. It made an heroic resistance
   for fifty-five days, and the siege is said to have cost the
   caliph 70,000 men. But he entered the place at last with a
   merciless sword, and left a heap of ruins for the monument of
   his revenge.

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter  52.

AMORITES, The.

   "The Hittites and Amorites were ... mingled together in the
   mountains of Palestine like the two races which ethnologists
   tell us go to form the modern Kelt. But the Egyptian monuments
   teach us that they were of very different origin and
   character. The Hittites were a people with yellow skins and
   'Mongoloid' features, whose receding foreheads, oblique eyes,
   and protruding upper jaws, are represented as faithfully on
   their own monuments as they are on those of Egypt, so that we
   cannot accuse the Egyptian artists of caricaturing their
   enemies. If the Egyptians have made the Hittites ugly, it was
   because they were so in reality. The Amorites, on the
   contrary, were a tall and handsome people. They are depicted
   with white skins, blue eyes, and reddish hair, all the
   characteristics, in fact, of the white race. Mr. Petrie points
   out their resemblance to the Dardanians of Asia Minor, who
   form an intermediate link between the white-skinned tribes of
   the Greek seas and the fair-complexioned Libyans of Northern
   Africa. The latter are still found in large numbers in the
   mountainous regions which stretch eastward from Morocco, and
   are usually known among the French under the name of Kabyles.
   The traveller who first meets with them in Algeria cannot fail
   to be struck by their likeness to a certain part of the
   population in the British Isles. Their clear-white freckled
   skins, their blue eyes, their golden-red hair and tall
   stature, remind him of the fair Kelts of an Irish village; and
   when we find that their skulls, which are of the so-called
   dolichocephalic or 'long-headed' type, are the same as the
   skulls discovered in the prehistoric cromlechs of the country
   they still inhabit, we may conclude that they represent the
   modern descendants of the white-skinned Libyans of the
   Egyptian monuments. In Palestine also we still come across
   representatives of a fair-complexioned blue-eyed race in whom
   we may see the descendants of the ancient Amorites, just as we
   see in the Kabyles the descendants of the ancient Libyans. We
   know that the Amorite type continued to exist in Judah long
   after the Israelitish conquest of Canaan. The captives taken
   from the southern cities of Judah br Shishak in the time of
   Rehoboam, and depicted by him upon the walls of the great
   temple of Karnak, are people of Amorite origin. Their 'regular
   profile of sub-aquiline cast,' as Mr. Tomkins describes it,
   their high cheek-bones and martial expression, are the
   features of the Amorites, and not of the Jews. Tallness of
   stature has always been a distinguishing characteristic of the
   white race. Hence it was that the Anakim, the Amorite
   inhabitants of Hebron, seemed to the Hebrew spies to be as
   giants, while they themselves were but 'as grasshoppers' by,
   the side of them (Numbers xiii: 33). After the Israelitish
   invasion remnants of the Anakim were left in Gaza and Gath and
   Ashkelon (Joshua xi: 22). and in the time of David, Goliath of
   Gath and his gigantic family were objects of dread to their
   neighbors (2 Samuel xxi: 15-22). It is clear, then, that the
   Amorites of Canaan belonged to the same white race as the
   Libyans of Northern Africa, and like them preferred the
   mountains to the hot plains and valleys below. The Libyans
   themselves belonged to a race which can be traced through the
   peninsula of Spain and the western side of France into the
   British Isles. Now it is curious that wherever this particular
   branch of the white race has extended it has been accompanied
   by a particular form of cromlech, or sepulchral chamber built
   of large uncut stones. ... It has been necessary to enter at
   this length into what has been discovered concerning the
   Amorites by recent research, in order to show how carefully
   they should be distinguished from the Hittites with whom they
   afterwards intermingled. They must have been in possession of
   Palestine long before the Hittites arrived there. They
   extended over a much wider area."

      _A. H. Sayce, The Hittites, chapter 1._

AMPHIKTYONIC COUNCIL.

   "An Amphiktyonic, or, more correctly, an Amphiktionic, body
   was an assembly of the tribes who dwelt around any famous
   temple, gathered together to manage the affairs of that
   temple. There were other Amphiktyonic Assemblies in Greece
   [besides that of Delphi], amongst which that of the isle of
   Kalaureia, off the coast of Argolis, was a body of some
   celebrity. The Amphiktyons of Delphi obtained greater
   importance than any other Amphiktyons only because of the
   greater importance of the Delphic sanctuary, and because it
   incidentally happened that the greater part of the Greek
   nation had some kind of representation among them.
{110}
   But that body could not be looked upon as a perfect
   representation of the Greek nation which, to postpone other
   objections to its constitution, found no place for so large a
   fraction of the Hellenic body as the Arkadians. Still the
   Amphiktyons of Delphi undoubtedly came nearer than any other
   existing body to the character of a general representation of
   all Greece. It is therefore easy to understand how the
   religious functions of such a body might incidentally assume a
   political character. ... Once or twice then, in the course of
   Grecian history, we do find the Amphiktyonic body acting with
   real dignity in the name of united Greece. ... Though the list
   of members of the Council is given with some slight variations
   by different authors, all agree in making the constituent
   members of the union tribes and not cities. The
   representatives of the Ionic and Doric races sat and voted as
   single members, side by side with the representatives of petty
   peoples like the Magnêsians and Phthiôtic Achaians. When the
   Council was first formed, Dorians and Ionians were doubtless
   mere tribes of northern Greece, and the prodigious development
   of the Doric and Ionic races in after times made no difference
   in its constitution. ... The Amphiktyonic Council was not
   exactly a diplomatic congress, but it was much more like a
   diplomatic congress than it was like the governing assembly of
   any commonwealth, kingdom, or federation. The Pylagoroi and
   Hieromnêmones were not exactly Ambassadors, but they were much
   more like Ambassadors than they were like members of a British
   Parliament or even an American Congress. ... The nearest
   approach to the Amphiktyonic Council in modern times would be
   if the College of Cardinals were to consist of members chosen
   by the several Roman Catholic nations of Europe and America."

      _E. A. Freeman, History of Federal Government,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

AMPHILOCHIANS, The.

      See AKARNANIANS.

AMPHIPOLIS.

   This town in Macedonia, occupying an important situation on
   the eastern bank of the river Strymon, just below a small lake
   into which it widens near its mouth, was originally called
   "The Nine Ways," and was the scene of a horrible human
   sacrifice made by Xerxes on his march into Greece.

      _Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 15._

   It was subsequently taken by the Athenians, B. C. 437, and
   made a capital city by them [see ATHENS: B. C. 440-437],
   dominating the surrounding district, its name being changed to
   Amphipolis. During the Peloponnesian War (B. C. 424), the able
   Lacedæmonian general, Brasidas, led a small army into
   Macedonia and succeeded in capturing Amphipolis, which caused
   great dismay and discouragement at Athens. Thucydides, the
   historian, was one of the generals held responsible for the
   disaster and he was driven as a consequence into the fortunate
   exile which produced the composition of his history. Two years
   later the Athenian demagogue-leader, Cleon, took command of an
   expedition sent to recover Amphipolis and other points in
   Macedonia and Thrace. It was disastrously beaten and Cleon was
   killed, but Brasidas fell likewise in the battle. Whether
   Athens suffered more from her defeat than Sparta from her
   victory is a question.

      _Thucydides, History, book 4, section 102-135:
      book 5, section 1-11._

      See, also,
      ATHENS: B. C. 466-454,
      and GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

   Amphipolis was taken by Philip of Macedon, B. C. 358.

      See GREECE: B. C. 359-358.

AMPHISSA, Siege and Capture by Philip of Macedon (B. C. 339-338).

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

AMPHITHEATRES, Roman.

   "There was hardly a town in the [Roman] empire which had not
   an amphitheatre large enough to contain vast multitudes of
   spectators. The savage excitement of gladiatorial combats
   seems to have been almost necessary to the Roman legionaries
   in their short intervals of inaction, and was the first
   recreation for which they provided in the places where they
   were stationed. ... Gladiatorial combats were held from early
   times in the Forum, and wild beasts hunted in the Circus; but
   until Curio built his celebrated double theatre of wood, which
   could be made into an amphitheatre by turning the two
   semi-circular portions face to face, we have no record of any
   special building in the peculiar form afterwards adopted. It
   may have been, therefore, that Curio's mechanical contrivance
   first suggested the elliptical shape. ... As specimens of
   architecture, the amphitheatres are more remarkable for the
   mechanical skill and admirable adaptation to their purpose
   displayed in them, than for any beauty of shape or decoration.
   The hugest of all, the Coliseum, was ill-proportioned and
   unpleasing in its lines when entire."

      _R. Burn, Rome and the Campagna, introduction._

AMPHORA.--MODIUS.

   "The [Roman] unit of capacity was the Amphora or Quadrantal,
   which contained a cubic foot ... equal to 5.687 imperial
   gallons, or 5 gallons, 2 quarts, 1 pint, 2 gills, nearly. The
   Amphora was the unit for both liquid and dry measures, but the
   latter was generally referred to the Modius, which contained
   one-third of an Amphora. ... The Culeus was equal to 20
   Amphoræ."

      _W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 13._

AMRITSAR.

      See SIKHS.

AMSTERDAM:
   The rise of the city.

   "In 1205 a low and profitless marsh upon the coast of Holland,
   not far from the confines of Utrecht, had been partially
   drained by a dam raised upon the hitherto squandered stream of
   the Amstel. Near this dam a few huts were tenanted by poor men
   who earned a scanty livelihood by fishing in the Zuyder Sea;
   but so uninviting seemed that barren and desolate spot, that a
   century later Amstel-dam was still an obscure seafaring town,
   or rather hamlet. Its subsequent progress was more rapid. The
   spirit of the land was stirring within it, and every portion
   of it thrilled with new energy and life. Some of the fugitive
   artizans from Flanders saw in the thriving village safety and
   peace, and added what wealth they had, and, what was better,
   their manufacturing intelligence and skill, to the humble
   hamlet's store. Amsteldam was early admitted to the fellowship
   of the Hanse League; and, in 1342, having outgrown its primary
   limits, required to be enlarged. For this an expensive
   process, that of driving piles into the swampy plain, was
   necessary; and to this circumstance, no doubt, it is owing
   that the date of each successive enlargement has been so
   accurately recorded."

      _W. T. McCullagh, Industrial History of Three Nations,
      volume 2, chapter 9._

{111}

AMT.--AMTER.

      See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (DENMARK-ICELAND): A. D. 1849-1874;
      and SCANDINAVIAN STATES (NORWAY): A. D. 1814-1815.

AMURATH I., Turkish Sultan, A. D. 1359-1389.
   Amurath II., A. D. 1421-1451.
   Amurath III., A. D. 1574-1595.
   Amurath IV., A. D. 1623-1640.

AMYCLÆ,
   The Silence of.-

   Amyclæ was the chief city of Laconia while that district of
   Peloponnesus was occupied by the Achæans, before the Doric
   invasion and before the rise of Sparta. It maintained its
   independence against the Doric Spartans for a long period, but
   succumbed at length under circumstances which gave rise to a
   proverbial saying among the Greeks concerning "the silence of
   Amyclæ." "The peace of Amyclæ, we are told, had been so often
   disturbed by false alarms of the enemy's approach, that at
   length a law was passed forbidding such reports, and the
   silent city was taken by surprise."

      _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 7._

AMYTHAONIDÆ, The.

      See ARGOS.--ARGOLIS.

AN, The City of.

      See ON.

ANABAPTISTS OF MÜNSTER.

   "Münster is a town in Westphalia, the seat of a bishop, walled
   round, with a noble cathedral and many churches; but there is
   one peculiarity about Münster that distinguishes it from all
   other old German towns; it has not one old church spire in it.
   Once it had a great many. How comes it that it now has none?
   In Münster lived a draper, Knipperdolling by name, who was
   much excited over the doctrines of Luther, and he gathered
   many people in his house, and spoke to them bitter words
   against the Pope, the bishops, and the clergy. The bishop at
   this time was Francis of Waldeck, a man much inclined himself
   to Lutheranism; indeed, later, he proposed to suppress
   Catholicism in the diocese, as he wanted to seize on it and
   appropriate it as a possession to his family. Moreover, in
   1544, he joined the Protestant princes in a league against the
   Catholics; but he did not want things to move too fast, lest
   he should not be able to secure the wealthy See as personal
   property. Knipperdolling got a young priest, named Rottmann,
   to preach in one of the churches against the errors of
   Catholicism, and he was a man of such fiery eloquence that he
   stirred up a mob which rushed through the town, wrecking the
   churches. The mob became daily more daring and threatening.
   They drove the priests out of the town, and some of the
   wealthy citizens fled, not knowing what would follow. The
   bishop would have yielded to all the religious innovations if
   the rioters had not threatened his temporal position and
   revenue. In 1532 the pastor, Rottmann, began to preach against
   the baptism of infants. Luther wrote to him remonstrating, but
   in vain. The bishop was not in the town; he was at Minden, of
   which See he was bishop as well. Finding that the town was in
   the hands of Knipperdolling and Rottmann, who were
   confiscating the goods of the churches, and excluding those
   who would not agree with their opinions, the bishop advanced
   to the place at the head of some soldiers. Münster closed its
   gates against him. Negotiations were entered into; the
   Landgrave of Hesse was called in as pacificator, and articles
   of agreement were drawn up and signed. Some of the churches
   were given to the Lutherans, but the Cathedral was reserved
   for the Catholics, and the Lutherans were forbidden to molest
   the latter, and disturb their religious services. The news of
   the conversion of the city of Münster to the gospel spread,
   and strangers came to it from all parts. Among these was a
   tailor of Leyden, called John Bockelson. Rottmann now threw up
   his Lutheranism and proclaimed himself opposed to many of the
   doctrines which Luther still retained. Amongst other things he
   rejected was infant baptism. This created a split among the
   reformed in Münster, and the disorders broke out afresh. The
   mob now fell on the cathedral and drove the Catholics from it,
   and would not permit them to worship in it. They also invaded
   the Lutheran churches, and filled them with uproar. On the
   evening of January 28, 1534, the Anabaptists stretched chains
   across the streets, assembled in armed bands, closed the gates
   and placed sentinels in all directions. When day dawned there
   appeared suddenly two men dressed like Prophets, with long
   ragged beards and flowing mantles, staff in hand, who paced
   through the streets solemnly in the midst of the crowd, who
   bowed before them and saluted them as Enoch and Elias. These
   men were John Bockelson, the tailor, and one John Mattheson,
   head of the Anabaptists of Holland. Knipperdolling at once
   associated himself with them, and shortly the place was a
   scene of the wildest ecstacies. Men and women ran about the
   streets screaming and leaping, and crying out that they saw
   visions of angels with swords drawn urging them on to the
   extermination of Lutherans and Catholics alike. ... A great
   number of citizens were driven out, on a bitter day, when the
   land was covered with snow. Those who lagged were beaten;
   those who were sick were carried to the market-place and
   re-baptized by Rottmann. ... This was too much to be borne.
   The bishop raised an army and marched against the city. Thus
   began a siege which was to last sixteen months, during which a
   multitude of untrained fanatics, commanded by a Dutch tailor,
   held out against a numerous and well-armed force. Thenceforth
   the city was ruled by divine revelations, or rather, by the
   crazes of the diseased brains of the prophets. One day they
   declared that all the officers and magistrates were to be
   turned out of their offices, and men nominated by themselves
   were to take their places; another day Mattheson said it was
   revealed to him that every book in the town except the Bible
   was to be destroyed; accordingly all the archives and
   libraries were collected in the market-place and burnt. Then
   it was revealed to him that all the spires were to be pulled
   down; so the church towers were reduced to stumps, from which
   the enemy could be watched and whence cannon could play on
   them. One day he declared he had been ordered by Heaven to go
   forth, with promise of victory, against the besiegers. He
   dashed forth at the head of a large band, but was surrounded
   and he and his band slain. The death of Mattheson struck
   dismay into the hearts of the Anabaptists, but John Bockelson
   took advantage of the moment to establish himself as head. He
   declared that it was revealed to him that Mattheson had been
   killed because he had disobeyed the heavenly command, which
   was to go forth with few. Instead of that he had gone with many.
{112}
   Bockelson said he had been ordered in vision to marry
   Mattheson's widow and assume his place. It was further
   revealed to him that Münster was to be the heavenly Zion, the
   capital of the earth, and he was to be king over it. ... Then
   he had another revelation that every man was to have as many
   wives as he liked, and he gave himself sixteen wives. This was
   too outrageous for some to endure, and a plot was formed
   against him by a blacksmith and about 200 of the more
   respectable citizens, but it was frustrated and led to the
   seizure of the conspirators and the execution of a number of
   them. ... At last, on midsummer eve, 1536, after a siege of
   sixteen months, the city was taken. Several of the citizens,
   unable longer to endure the tyranny, cruelty and abominations
   committed by the king, helped the soldiers of the
   prince-bishop to climb the walls, open the gates, and surprise
   the city. A desperate hand-to-hand fight ensued; the streets
   ran with blood. John Bockelson, instead of leading his people,
   hid himself, but was caught. So was Knipperdolling. When the
   place was in his hands the prince-bishop entered. John of
   Leyden and Knipperdolling were cruelly tortured, their flesh
   plucked off with red-hot pincers, and then a dagger was thrust
   into their hearts. Finally, their bodies were hung in iron
   cages to the tower of a church in Münster. Thus ended this
   hideous drama, which produced an indescribable effect
   throughout Germany. Münster, after this, in spite of the
   desire of the prince-bishop to establish Lutheranism, reverted
   to Catholicism, and remains Catholic to this day."

      _S. Baring-Gould, The Story of Germany, chapter 36._

      ALSO IN the same,
      _Historic Oddities and Strange Events, 2d Series._

      _L. von Ranke, History of the Reformation in Germany,
      book 6, chapter 9 (volume 3)_.

      _C. Beard, The Reformation (Hibbert Lectures., 1883),
      lecture 6._

ANAHUAC.

   "The word Anahuac signifies 'near the water.' It was,
   probably, first applied to the country around the lakes in the
   Mexican Valley, and gradually extended to the remoter regions
   occupied by the Aztecs, and the other semi-civilized races.
   Or, possibly, the name may have been intended, as Veytia
   suggests (Historical Antiquities, lib. 1, cap. 1), to denote
   the land between the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific."

      _W. B. Prescott, Conquest of Mexico,
      book 1, chapter 1, note 11._

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1325-1502.

ANAKIM, The.

      See HORITES, and AMORITES.

ANAKTORIUM.

      See KORKYRA.

ANAPA: A. D. 1828.
   Siege and Capture.
   Cession to Russia.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1826-1829.

ANARCHISTS.

   "The anarchists are ... a small but determined band. ...
   Although their programme may be found almost word for word in
   Proudhon, they profess to follow more closely Bakounine, the
   Russian nihilist, who separated himself from Marx and the
   Internationals, and formed secret societies in Spain,
   Switzerland, France, and elsewhere, and thus propagated
   nihilistic views; for anarchy and nihilism are pretty much one
   and the same thing when nihilism is understood in the older,
   stricter sense, which does not include, as it does in a larger
   and more modern sense, those who are simply political and
   constitutional reformers. Like prince Krapotkine, Bakounine
   came of an old and prominent Russian family; like him, he
   revolted against the cruelties and injustices he saw about
   him; like him, he despaired of peaceful reform, and concluded
   that no great improvement could be expected until all our
   present political, economic, and social institutions were so
   thoroughly demolished that of the old structure not one stone
   should be left on another. Out of the ruins a regenerated
   world might arise. We must be purged as by fire. Like all
   anarchists and true nihilists, he was a thorough pessimist, as
   far as our present manner of life was concerned. Reaction
   against conservatism carried him very far. He wished to
   abolish private property, state, and inheritance. Equality is
   to be carried so far that all must wear the same kind of
   clothing, no difference being made even for sex. Religion is
   an aberration of the brain, and should be abolished. Fire,
   dynamite, and assassination are approved of by at least a
   large number of the party. They are brave men, and fight for
   their faith with the devotion of martyrs. Imprisonment and
   death are counted but as rewards. ... Forty-seven anarchists
   signed a declaration of principles, which was read by one of
   their number at their trial at Lyons. ... 'We wish liberty
   [they declared] and we believe its existence incompatible with
   the existence of any power whatsoever, whatever its origin and
   form--whether it be selected or imposed, monarchical or
   republican--whether inspired by divine right or by popular
   right, by anointment or universal suffrage. ... The best
   governments are the worst. The substitution, in a word, in
   human relations, of free contract perpetually revisable and
   dissoluble, is our ideal.'"

      _H. T. Ely, French and German Socialism in Modern Times,
      chapter 8._

   "In anarchism we have the extreme antithesis of socialism and
   communism. The socialist desires so to extend the sphere of
   the state that it shall embrace all the more important
   concerns of life. The communist, at least of the older school,
   would make the sway of authority and the routine which follows
   therefrom universal. The anarchist, on the other hand, would
   banish all forms of authority and have only a system of the
   most perfect liberty. The anarchist is an extreme
   individualist. ... Anarchism, as a social theory, was first
   elaborately formulated by Proudhon. In the first part of his
   work, 'What is Property?' he briefly stated the doctrine and
   gave it the name 'anarchy,' absence of a master or sovereign.
   ... About 12 years before Proudhon published his views, Josiah
   Warren reached similar conclusions in America."

      _H. L. Osgood, Scientific Anarchism
      (Political Science Quarterly,  March, 1889), pages 1-2._

      See, also, NIHILISM.

ANARCHISTS, The Chicago.

      See Chicago: A. D. 1886-1887.

ANASTASIUS I., Roman Emperor (Eastern.) A. D. 491-518.

ANASTASIUS II., A. D. 713-716.

ANASTASIUS III., Pope, A. D. 911-913

ANASTASIUS IV., Pope., A. D. 1153-1154.

ANATOLIA.

      See ASIA MINOR.

ANCALITES, The.

   A tribe of ancient Britons whose home was near the Thames.

ANCASTER, Origin of.

   See CAUSENNÆ.

{113}

ANCHORITES.--HERMITS.

   "The fertile and peaceable lowlands of England ... offered few
   spots sufficiently wild and lonely for the habitation of a
   hermit; those, therefore, who wished to retire from the world
   into a more strict and solitary life than that which the
   monastery afforded were in the habit of immuring themselves,
   as anchorites, or in old English 'Ankers,' in little cells of
   stone, built usually against the wall of a church. There is
   nothing new under the sun; and similar anchorites might have
   been seen in Egypt, 500 years before the time of St. Antony,
   immured in cells in the temples of Isis or Serapis. It is only
   recently that antiquaries have discovered how common this
   practice was in England, and how frequently the traces of
   these cells are to be found about our parish churches."

      _C. Kingsley, The Hermits, page 329._

   The term anchorites is applied, generally, to all religious
   ascetics who lived in solitary cells.

      _J. Bingham, Antiquity of the Christian Church,
      book 7, chapter 1, section 4._

   "The essential difference between an anker or anchorite and a
   hermit appears to have been that, whereas the former passed
   his whole life shut up in a cell, the latter, although leading
   indeed a solitary life, wandered about at liberty."

      _R. R. Sharpe, Introduction to "Calendar of Wills in the
	  Court of Husting, London," volume 2, page xxi._

ANCIENT REGIME.

   The political and social system in France that was destroyed
   by the Revolution of 1789 is commonly referred to as the
   "ancien régime." Some writers translate this in the literal
   English form--"the ancient regime;" others render it more
   appropriately, perhaps, the "old regime." Its special
   application is to the state of things described under FRANCE:
   A. D. 1789.

ANCIENTS, The Council of the.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1795(JUNE-SEPTEMBER).

ANCRUM, Battle of.

   A success obtained by the Scots over an English force making
   an incursion into the border districts of their country A. D.
   1544.

      _J. H. Burton, History of Scotland, chapter 35 (volume 3)._

ANDALUSIA:
   The name.

   "The Vandals, ... though they passed altogether out of Spain,
   have left their name to this day in its southern part, under
   the form of Andalusia, a name which, under the Saracen
   conquerors, spread itself over the whole peninsula."

      _E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 4, section 3._

      See, also: VANDALS: A. D. 428.

   Roughly speaking, Andalusia represents the country known to
   the ancients, first, as Tartessus, and, later, as Turdetania.

ANDAMAN ISLANDERS, The.

      See INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS.

ANDASTÉS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SUSQUEHANNAS.

ANDECAVI.
   The ancient name of the city of Angers, France, and of the
   tribe which occupied that region.

      See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

ANDERIDA.--ANDERIDA SYLVA.--ANDREDSWALD.

   A great forest which anciently stretched across Surrey, Sussex
   and into Kent (southeastern England) was called Anderida Sylva
   by the Romans and Andredswald by the Saxons. It coincided
   nearly with the tract of country called in modern times the
   Weald of Kent, to which it gave its name of the Wald or Weald.
   On the southern coast-border of the Anderida Sylva the Romans
   established the important fortress and port of Anderida, which
   has been identified with modern Pevensey. Here the
   Romano-Britons made an obstinate stand against the Saxons, in
   the fifth century, and Anderida was only taken by Ælle after a
   long siege. In the words of the Chronicle, the Saxons "slew
   all that were therein, nor was there henceforth one Briton
   left."

      _J. R. Green, The Making of England, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN
      _T. Wright, Celt, Roman, and Saxon, chapter 5._

ANDERSON, Major Robert.
   Defense of Fort Sumter.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1860 (DECEMBER); 1861
      (MARCH-APRIL).

ANDERSONVILLE PRISON--PENS.

      See PRISONS AND PRISON-PENS, CONFEDERATE.

ANDES, OR ANDI, OR ANDECAVI, The.

      See VENETI of WESTERN GAUL.

ANDESIANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES; ANDESIANS.

ANDRE, Major John, The Capture and execution of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

ANDREW I., King of Hungary, A. D. 1046-1060.
ANDREW II., King of Hungary, A. D. 1204-1235.
ANDREW III., King of Hungary, A. D. 1290-1301.

ANDRONICUS I., Emperor in the East (Byzantine or Greek), A. D.
1183-1185.

Andronicus II. (Palæologus), Greek Emperor of Constantinople, A.
D. 1282-1328.

Andronicus III. (Palæologus), A. D. 1328-1341.

ANDROS, Governor, New England and New York under.

      See
      NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1686;
      MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1671-1686;
      and 1686-1689;
      NEW YORK: A. D. 1688;
      and CONNECTICUT: A. D. 1685-1687.

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

      See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

ANGELIQUE, La Mère.

      See PORT ROYAL AND THE JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.

ANGERS, Origin of.

      See VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL.

ANGEVIN KINGS AND ANGEVIN EMPIRE.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189.

ANGHIARI, Battle of (1425).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

ANGLES AND JUTES, The.

   The mention of the Angles by Tacitus is in the following,
   passage: "Next [to the Langobardi] come the Reudigni, the
   Aviones, the Anglii, the Varini, the Eudoses, the Suardones,
   and Nuithones, who are fenced in by rivers or forests. None of
   these tribes have any noteworthy feature, except their common
   worship of Ertha, or mother-Earth, and their belief that she
   interposes in human affairs, and visits the nations in her
   car. In an island of the ocean there is a sacred grove, and
   within it a consecrated chariot, covered over with a garment.
   Only one priest is permitted to touch it. He can perceive the
   presence of the goddess in this sacred recess, and walks by
   her side with the utmost reverence as she is drawn along by
   heifers. It is a season of rejoicing, and festivity reigns
   wherever she deigns to go and be received. They do not go to
   battle or wear arms; every weapon is under lock; peace and
   quiet are welcomed only at these times, till the goddess,
   weary of human intercourse, is at length restored by the same
   priest to her temple. Afterwards the car, the vestments, and,
   if you like to believe it, the divinity herself, are purified
   in a secret lake. Slaves perform the rite, who are instantly
   swallowed up by its waters. Hence arises a mysterious terror
   and a pious ignorance concerning the nature of that which is
   seen only by men doomed to die.
{114}
   This branch indeed of the Suevi stretches into the
   remoter regions of Germany."

      _Tacitus, Germany; translated by Church and Brodribb,
      chapter 40._

   "In close neighbourhood with the Saxons in the middle of the
   fourth century were the Angli, a tribe whose origin is more
   uncertain and the application of whose name is still more a
   matter of question. If the name belongs, in the pages of the
   several geographers, to the same nation, it was situated in
   the time of Tacitus east of the Elbe; in the time of Ptolemy
   it was found on the middle Elbe, between the Thuringians to
   the south and the Varini to the north; and at a later period
   it was forced, perhaps by the growth of the Thuringian power,
   into the neck of the Cimbric peninsula. It may, however, be
   reasonably doubted whether this hypothesis is sound, and it is
   by no means clear whether, if it be so, the Angli were not
   connected more closely with the Thuringians than with the
   Saxons. To the north of the Angli, after they had reached
   their Schleswig home, were the Jutes, of whose early history
   we know nothing, except their claims to be regarded as kinsmen
   of the Goths and the close similarity between their
   descendants and the neighbour Frisians."

      _William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
      volume 1, chapter 3._

   "Important as are the Angles, it is not too much to say that
   they are only known through their relations to us of England,
   their descendants; indeed, without this paramount fact, they
   would be liable to be confused with the Frisians, with the Old
   Saxons, and with even Slavonians. This is chiefly because
   there is no satisfactory trace or fragment of the Angles of
   Germany within Germany; whilst the notices of the other
   writers of antiquity tell us as little as the one we find in
   Tacitus. And this notice is not only brief but complicated.
   ... I still think that the Angli of Tacitus were--1: The
   Angles of England; 2: Occupants of the northern parts of
   Hanover; 3: At least in the time of Tacitus; 4: And that to
   the exclusion of any territory in Holstein, which was Frisian
   to the west, and Slavonic to the east. Still the question is
   one of great magnitude and numerous complications."

      _R. G. Latham, The Germany of Tacitus; Epilegomena, section
      49._

      ALSO IN _J. M. Lappenberg, History of England under the
      Anglo-Saxon Kings, volume 1, pages 89-95._

      See, also, AVIONES, and SAXONS.

   The conquests and settlements of the Jutes and the Angles in
   Britain are described under ENGLAND: A. D. 449-473. and
   547-633.

ANGLESEA, Ancient.

      See MONA, MONAPIA, and NORMANS: 8TH-9TH CENTURIES.

ANGLO-SAXON.

   A term which may be considered as a compound of Angle and
   Saxon, the names of the two principal Teutonic tribes which
   took possession of Britain and formed the English nation by
   their ultimate union. As thus regarded and used to designate
   the race, the language and the institutions which resulted
   from that union, it is only objectionable, perhaps, as being
   superfluous, because English is the accepted name of the
   people of England and all pertaining to them. But the term
   Anglo-Saxon has also been more particularly employed to
   designate the Early English people and their language, before
   the Norman Conquest, as though they were Anglo-Saxon at that
   period and became English afterwards. Modern historians are
   protesting strongly against this use of the term. Mr. Freeman
   _(Norman Conquest, volume 1, note A)_, says: "The name by
   which our forefathers really knew themselves and by which they
   were known to other nations was English and no other. 'Angli,'
   'Engle,' 'Angel-cyn,' 'Englisc,' are the true names by which
   the Teutons of Britain knew themselves and their language. ...
   As a chronological term, Anglo-Saxon is equally objectionable
   with Saxon. The 'Anglo-Saxon period,' as far as there ever was
   one, is going on still. I speak therefore of our forefathers,
   not as 'Saxons,' or even as 'Anglo-Saxons,' but as they spoke
   of themselves, as Englishmen--'Angli,' 'Engle,'-'Angel-cyn.'"

      See, also, SAXONS, and ANGLES AND JUTES.

ANGLON, Battle of.

   Fought in Armenia. A. D. 543, between the Romans and the
   Persians, with disaster to the former.

      _G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy,
      chapter 20._

ANGORA, Battle of (1402).

      See TIMOUR
      also, TURKS: A. D. 1389-1403.

ANGOSTURA, OR BUENA VISTA, Battle of.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1846-1847.

ANGRIVARII, The.

   The Angrivarii were one of the tribes of ancient Germany. Their
   settlements "were to the west of the Weser (Visurgis) in the
   neighbourhood of Minden and Herford, and thus coincide to some
   extent with Westphalia. Their territory was the scene of
   Varus' defeat. It has been thought that the name of this tribe
   is preserved in that of the town Engern."

      _A. J. Church and W. J. Brodribb, Tacitus's Germany,
      notes._

      See, also, BRUCTERI.

ANI.
   Storming of the Turks (1064).

      See TURKS: A. D. 1063-1073.

ANILLEROS, The.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1814-1827.

ANJOU:
   Creation of the County.
   Origin of the Plantagenets.

   "It was the policy of this unfairly depreciated sovereign
   [Charles the Bald, grandson of Charlemagne, who received in
   the dismemberment of the Carlovingian Empire the Neustrian
   part, out of which was developed the modern kingdom of France,
   and who reigned from 840 to 877], to recruit the failing ranks
   of the false and degenerate Frankish aristocracy, by calling
   up to his peerage the wise, the able, the honest and the bold
   of ignoble birth. ... He sought to surround himself with new
   men, the men without ancestry; and the earliest historian of
   the House of Anjou both describes this system and affords the
   most splendid example of the theory adopted by the king.
   Pre-eminent amongst these parvenus was Torquatus or Tortulfus,
   an Armorican peasant, a very rustic, a backwoodsman, who lived
   by hunting and such like occupations, almost in solitude,
   cultivating his 'quillets,' his 'cueillettes,' of land, and
   driving his own oxen, harnessed to his plough. Torquatus
   entered or was invited into the service of Charles-le-Chauve,
   and rose high in his sovereign's confidence: a prudent, a
   bold, and a good man. Charles appointed him Forester of the
   forest called 'the Blackbird's Nest,' the 'nid du merle,' a
   pleasant name, not the less pleasant for its familiarity. This
   happened during the conflicts with the Northmen. Torquatus
   served Charles strenuously in the wars, and obtained great
   authority. Tertullus, son of Torquatus, inherited his father's
   energies, quick and acute, patient of fatigue, ambitious and
   aspiring; he became the liegeman of Charles; and his marriage
   with Petronilla the King's cousin, Count Hugh the Abbot's
   daughter, introduced him into the very circle of the royal
   family. Chateau Landon and other benefices in the Gastinois
   were acquired by him, possibly as the lady's dowry. Seneschal
   also was Tertullus of the same ample Gastinois territory.
   Ingelger, son of Tertullus and Petronilla, appears as the
   first hereditary Count of Anjou Outre-Maine,--Marquis, Consul
   or Count of Anjou,--for all these titles are assigned to him.
   Yet the ploughman Torquatus must be reckoned as the primary
   Plantagenet: the rustic Torquatus founded that brilliant
   family."

      _Sir F. Palgrave, History of Normandy and England, book 1,
      chapter 3._

      ALSO IN
      _K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings,
      volume 1, chapter 2._

{115}

ANJOU: A. D. 987-1129.
   The greatest of the old Counts.

   "Fulc Nerra, Fulc the Black [A. D. 987-1040] is the greatest
   of the Angevins, the first in whom we can trace that marked
   type of character which their house was to preserve with a
   fatal constancy through two hundred years. He was without
   natural affection. In his youth he burned a wife at the stake,
   and legend told how he led her to her doom decked out in his
   gayest attire. In his old age he waged his bitterest war
   against his son, and exacted from him when vanquished a
   humiliation which men reserved for the deadliest of their
   foes. 'You are conquered, you are conquered!' shouted the old
   man in fierce exultation, as Geoffry, bridled and saddled like
   a beast of burden, crawled for pardon to his father's feet.
   ... But neither the wrath of Heaven nor the curses of men
   broke with a single mishap the fifty years of his success. At
   his accession Anjou was the least important of the greater
   provinces of France. At his death it stood, if not in extent,
   at least in real power, first among them all. ... His
   overthrow of Brittany on the field of Conquereux was followed
   by the gradual absorption of Southern Touraine. ... His great
   victory at Pontlevoi crushed the rival house of Blois; the
   seizure of Saumur completed his conquests in the South, while
   Northern Touraine was won bit by bit till only Tours resisted
   the Angevin. The treacherous seizure of its Count, Herbert
   Wake-dog, left Maine at his mercy ere the old man bequeathed
   his unfinished work to his son. As a warrior, Geoffry Martel
   was hardly inferior to his father. A decisive overthrow
   wrested Tours from the Count of Blois; a second left Poitou at
   his mercy; and the seizure of Le Mans brought him to the
   Norman border. Here ... his advance was checked by the genius
   of William the Conqueror, and with his death the greatness of
   Anjou seemed for the time to have come to an end. Stripped of
   Maine by the Normans, and weakened by internal dissensions,
   the weak and profligate administration of Fulc Rechin left
   Anjou powerless against its rivals along the Seine. It woke to
   fresh energy with the accession of his son, Fulc of Jerusalem.
   ... Fulc was the one enemy whom Henry the First really feared.
   It was to disarm his restless hostility that the King yielded
   to his son, Geoffry the Handsome, the hand of his daughter
   Matilda."

      _J. R. Green, A Short History of the English People, chapter
      2, section 7._

      ALSO IN
      _K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings, volume 1, chapter
      2-4._

ANJOU: A. D. 1154.
   The Counts become Kings of England.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1154-1189.

ANJOU: A. D. 1204.
   Wrested from the English King John.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1180-1224.

ANJOU: A. D. 1206-1442.
   English attempts to recover the county.
   The Third and Fourth Houses of Anjou.
   Creation of the Dukedom.

   King John, of England, did not voluntarily submit to the
   sentence of the peers of France which pronounced his
   forfeiture of the fiefs of Anjou and Maine, "since he invaded
   and had possession of Angers again in 1206, when, Goth-like,
   he demolished its ancient walls. He lost it in the following
   year, and ... made no further attempt upon it until 1213. In
   that year, having collected a powerful army, he landed at
   Rochelle, and actually occupied Angers, without striking a
   blow. But ... the year 1214 beheld him once more in retreat
   from Anjou, never to reappear there, since he died on the 19th
   of October, 1216. In the person of King John ended what is
   called the 'Second House of Anjou.' In 1204, after the
   confiscations of John's French possessions, Philip Augustus
   established hereditary seneschals in that part of France, the
   first of whom was the tutor of the unfortunate Young Arthur
   [of Brittany], named William des Roches, who was in fact Count
   in all except the name, over Anjou, Maine, and Tourraine,
   owing allegiance only to the crown of France. The Seneschal,
   William des Roches, died in 1222. His son-in-law, Amaury de
   Craon, succeeded him," but was soon afterwards taken prisoner
   during a war in Brittany and incarcerated. Henry III. of
   England still claimed the title of Count of Anjou, and in 1230
   he "disembarked a considerable army at St. Malo, in the view
   of re-conquering Anjou, and the other forfeited possessions of
   his crown. Louis IX., then only fifteen years old ... advanced
   to the attack of the allies; but in the following year a peace
   was concluded, the province of Guienne having been ceded to
   the English crown. In 1241, Louis gave the counties of Poitou
   and Auvergne to his brother Alphonso; and, in the year 1246,
   he invested his brother Charles, Count of Provence, with the
   counties of Anjou and Maine, thereby annulling the rank and
   title of Seneschal, and instituting the Third House of Anjou.
   Charles I., the founder of the proud fortunes of this Third
   House, was ambitious in character, and events long favoured
   his ambition. Count of Provence, through the inheritance of
   his consort, had not long been invested with Anjou and Maine,
   ere he was invited to the conquest of Sicily [see ITALY
   (SOUTHERN): A. D. 1250-1268]." The Third House of Anjou ended
   in the person of John, who became King of France in 1350. In
   1356 he invested his son Louis with Anjou and Maine, and in
   1360 the latter was created the first Duke of Anjou. The
   Fourth House of Anjou, which began with this first Duke, came
   to an end two generations later with René, or Regnier,--the
   "good King René" of history and story, whose kingdom was for
   the most part a name, and who is best known to English
   readers, perhaps, as the father of Margaret of Anjou, the
   stout-hearted queen of Henry VI. On the death of his father,
   Louis, the second duke, René became by his father's will Count
   of Guise, his elder brother, Louis, inheriting the dukedom. In
   1434 the brother died without issue and René succeeded him in
   Anjou, Maine and Provence. He had already become Duke of Bar,
   as the adopted heir of his great-uncle, the cardinal-duke, and
   Duke of Lorraine (1430), by designation of the late Duke,
   whose daughter he had married. In 1435 he received from Queen
   Joanna of Naples the doubtful legacy of that distracted
   kingdom, which she had previously bequeathed first, to
   Alphonso of Aragon, and afterwards-revoking that testament--to
   René's brother, Louis of Anjou. King René enjoyed the title
   during his life-time, and the actual kingdom for a brief
   period; but in 1442 he was expelled from Naples by his
   competitor Alphonso (see ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447).

      _M. A. Hookham, Life and Times of Margaret of Anjou,
      introduction and chapter 1-2._

----------ANJOU: End----------

{116}

ANJOU, The English House of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1155-1189.

ANJOU, The Neapolitan House of: A. D. 1266.
   Conquest of the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1250-1268.

ANJOU: A. D. 1282.
   Loss of Sicily.
   Retention of Naples.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1282-1300.

ANJOU: A. D. 1310-1382.
   Possession of the Hungarian throne.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442.

ANJOU: A. D. 1370-1384.
   Acquisition and loss of the crown of Poland.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1333-1572.

ANJOU: A. D. 1381-1384.
   Claims of Louis of Anjou.
   His expedition to Italy and his death.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1343-1389.

ANJOU: A. D. 1386-1399.-
   Renewed contest for Naples.
   Defeat of Louis II. by Ladislas.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1386-1414.

ANJOU: A. D. 1423-1442.
   Renewed contest for the crown of Naples.
   Defeat by Alfonso of Aragon and Sicily.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

----------ANJOU, The Neapolitan House of: End----------

ANKENDORFF, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1807 (FEBRUARY-JUNE).

ANKERS.

      See ANCHORITES.

ANNA, Czarina of Russia, A. D. 1730-1740.

ANNALES MAXIMI, The.

      See FASTI.

ANNAM: A. D. 1882-1885.
   War with France.
   French protectorate accepted.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

ANNAPOLIS ROYAL, NOVA SCOTIA:
   Change of name from Port Royal (1710).

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

ANNATES, OR FIRST-FRUITS.

   "A practice had existed for some hundreds of years, in all the
   churches of Europe, that bishops and archbishops, on
   presentation to their sees, should transmit to the pope, on
   receiving their bulls of investment, one year's income from
   their new preferments. It was called the payment of Annates,
   or first-fruits, and had originated in the time of the
   crusades, as a means of providing a fund for the holy wars.
   Once established it had settled into custom, and was one of
   the chief resources of the papal revenue."

      _J. A. Froude, History of England, chapter 4._

   "The claim [by the pope] to the first-fruits of bishoprics and
   other promotions was apparently first made in England by
   Alexander IV. in 1256, for five years; it was renewed by
   Clement V. in 1306, to last for two years; and it was in a
   measure successful. By John XXII. it was claimed throughout
   Christendom for three years, and met with universal
   resistance. ... Stoutly contested as it was in the Council of
   Constance, and frequently made the subject of debate in
   parliament and council the demand must have been regularly
   complied with."

      _William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England,
      chapter 19, section 718._

      See, also, QUEEN ANNE'S BOUNTY.

ANNE, Queen of England, A. D. 1702-1714.

ANNE OF AUSTRIA, Queen-regent of France.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1642-1643, to 1651-1653.

ANNE BOLEYN, Marriage, trial and execution of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1527-1534, and 1536-1543.

ANSAR, The.

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

ANSIBARII, The.

      See FRANKS: ORIGIN, &c.

ANSPACH, Creation of the Margravate.

      See GERMANY: 13TH CENTURY.

   Separation from the Electorate of Brandenburg.

      See BRANDENBUHG: A. D. 1417-1640.

ANTALCIDAS, Peace of (B. C. 387).

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

ANTES, The.

      See SLAVONIC PEOPLES.

ANTESIGNANI, The.

   "In each cohort [of the Roman legion, in Cæsar's time] a
   certain number of the best men, probably about one-fourth of
   the whole detachment, was assigned as a guard to the standard,
   from whence they derived their name of Antesignani."

      _C. Menvale, History of the Romans, chapter 15._

ANTHEMIUS, Roman Emperor:(Western), A. D. 467-472.

ANTHESTERIA, The.

      See DIONYSIA AT ATHENS.

ANTI-CORN-LAW LEAGUE.

      See TARIFF LEGISLATION (ENGLAND): A. D. 1836-1839, and
      1845-1846.

ANTI-FEDERALISTS.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

ANTI-MASONIC PARTY, American.

      See NEW YORK: A. D. 1826-1832.

ANTI-MASONIC PARTY, Mexican.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1822-1828.

ANTI-RENTERS.--ANTI-RENT WAR.

      See LIVINGSTON MANOR.

ANTI-SLAVERY MOVEMENTS.

      See SLAVERY, NEGRO.

ANTIETAM, OR SHARPSBURG, Battle of.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (SEPTEMBER: MARYLAND).

ANTIGONEA.

      See MANTINEA: B. C. 222.

ANTIGONID KINGS, The.

      See GREECE: B. C. 307-197.

ANTIGONUS, and the wars of the Diadochi.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316; 315-310; 310-301.

ANTIGONUS GONATUS, The wars of.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.

ANTILLES.--ANTILIA.

   "Familiar as is the name of the Antilles, few are aware of the
   antiquity of the word; while its precise significance sets
   etymology at defiance. Common consent identified the Antilia
   of legend with the Isle of the Seven Cities. In the year 734,
   says the story, the Arabs having conquered most of the Spanish
   peninsula, a number of Christian emigrants, under the
   direction of seven holy bishops, among them the archbishop of
   Oporto, sailed westward with all that they had, and reached an
   island where they founded seven towns. Arab geographers speak
   of an Atlantic island called in Arabic El-tennyn, or Al-tin
   (Isle of Serpents), a name which may possibly have become by
   corruption Antilia. ... The seven bishops were believed in the
   16th century to be still represented by their successors, and
   to preside over a numerous and wealthy people. Most
   geographers of the 15th century believed in the existence of
   Antilia. It was represented as lying west of the Azores. ...
   As soon as it became known in Europe that Columbus had
   discovered a large island, Española was at once identified
   with Antilia, ... and the name ... has ever since been applied
   generally to the West Indian islands."

      _E. J. Payne, History of the New World called America, volume
      1, page 98._

      See, also, WEST INDIES.

{117}

ANTINOMIAN CONTROVERSY IN PURITAN MASSACHUSETTS.

      See MASSACHUSETTS: A. D. 1636-1638.

ANTIOCH:
   Founding of the City.

      See SELEUCIDÆ; and MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 310-301.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 36-400.
   The Christian Church.

      See CHRISTIANITY, EARLY.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 115.
   Great Earthquake.

   "Early in the year 115, according to the most exact
   chronology, ... the splendid capital of Syria was visited by
   an earthquake, one of the most disastrous apparently of all
   the similar inflictions from which that luckless city has
   periodically suffered. ... The calamity was enhanced by the
   presence of unusual crowds from all the cities of the east,
   assembled to pay homage to the Emperor [Trajan], or to take
   part in his expedition [of conquest in the east]. Among the
   victims were many Romans of distinction. ... Trajan, himself,
   only escaped by creeping through a window."

      _C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 65._

ANTIOCH: A. D. 260.
   Surprise, massacre and pillage by Sapor, King of Persia.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 526.
   Destruction by Earthquake.

   During the reign of Justinian (A. D. 518-565) the cities of
   the Roman Empire "were overwhelmed by earthquakes more
   frequent than at any other period of history. Antioch, the
   metropolis of Asia, was entirely destroyed, on the 20th of
   May, 526, at the very time when the inhabitants of the
   adjacent country were assembled to celebrate the festival of
   the Ascension; and it is affirmed that 250,000 persons were
   crushed by the fall of its sumptuous edifices."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter
      10._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 43.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 540.
   Stormed, pillaged and burned by Chosroes, the Persian King.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 638.
   Surrender to the Arabs.

   See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 632-639.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 969.
   Recapture by the Byzantines.

   After having remained 328 years in the possession of the
   Saracens, Antioch was retaken in the winter of A. D. 969 by
   the Byzantine Emperor, Nicephorus Phokas, and became again a
   Christian city. Three years later the Moslems made a great
   effort to recover the city, but were defeated. The Byzantine
   arms were at this time highly successful in the never ending
   Saracen war, and John Zimiskes, successor of Nicephorus
   Phokas, marched triumphantly to the Tigris and threatened even
   Bagdad. But most of the conquests thus made in Syria and
   Mesopotamia were not lasting.

      _G. Finlay, History of the Byzantine Empire, A. D.
      716-1007, book 2, chapter 2._

      See BYZANTINE EMPIRE, A. D. 963-1025.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 1097-1098.
   Siege and capture by the Crusaders.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 1099-1144.
   Principality.

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.

ANTIOCH: A. D. 1268.
   Extinction of the Latin Principality.
   Total destruction of the city.

   Antioch fell, before the arms of Bibars, the Sultan of Egypt
   and Syria, and the Latin principality was bloodily
   extinguished, in 1268. "The first seat of the Christian name
   was dispeopled by the slaughter of seventeen, and the
   captivity of one hundred, thousand of her inhabitants." This
   fate befell Antioch only twenty-three years before the last
   vestige of the conquests of the crusaders was obliterated at
   Acre.

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 59.

   "The sultan halted for several weeks in the plain, and
   permitted his soldiers to hold a large market, or fair, for
   the sale of their booty. This market was attended by Jews and
   pedlars from all parts of the East. ... 'It was,' says the
   Cadi Mohieddin, 'a fearful and heart-rending sight. Even the
   hard stones were softened with grief.' He tells us that the
   captives were so numerous that a fine hearty boy might be
   purchased for twelve pieces of silver, and a little girl for
   five. When the work of pillage had been completed, when all
   the ornaments and decorations had been carried away from the
   churches, and the lead torn from the roofs, Antioch was fired
   in different places, amid the loud thrilling shouts of 'Allah
   Acbar,' 'God is Victorious.' The great churches of St. Paul
   and St. Peter burnt with terrific fury for many days, and the
   vast and venerable city was left without a habitation and
   without an inhabitant."

      _C. G. Addison, The Knights Templars, chapter 6._

----------ANTIOCH: End----------

ANTIOCHUS SOTER, AND ANTIOCHUS THE GREAT.

      See SELEUCIDÆ, THE: B. C. 281-224, and 224-187.

ANTIPATER, and the wars of the Diadochi.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

ANTIUM.

   "Antium, once a flourishing city of the Volsci, and afterwards
   of the Romans, their conquerors, is at present reduced to a
   small number of inhabitants. Originally it was without a port;
   the harbour of the Antiates having been the neighbouring
   indentation in the coast of Ceno, now Nettuno, distant more
   than a mile to the eastward. ... The piracies of the ancient
   Antiates all proceeded from Ceno, or Cerio, where they had 22
   long ships. These Numicius took; ... some were taken to Rome
   and their rostra suspended in triumph in the Forum. ... It
   [Antium] was reckoned 260 stadia, or about 32 miles, from
   Ostia."

      _Sir W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1._

ANTIUM, Naval Battle of (1378).

      See VENICE: A. D. 1378-1379.

ANTIVESTÆUM.

      See BRITAIN, TRIBES OF CELTIC.

ANTOINE DE BOURBON, King of Navarre, A. D. 1555-1557.

ANTONINES, The.

      See ROME: A. D. 138-180.

ANTONINUS, Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor, A. D. 161-180.

ANTONINUS PIUS, Roman Emperor, A. D. 138-161.

ANTONY, Mark, and the Second Triumvirate.

   See ROME: B. C. 44 to 31.

ANTRUSTIONES.

   In the Salic law, of the Franks, there is no trace of any
   recognized order of nobility. "We meet, however, with
{118}
   several titles denoting temporary rank, derived from offices
   political and judicial, or from a position about the person of
   the king. Among these the Antrustiones, who were in constant
   attendance upon the king, played a conspicuous part. ...
   Antrustiones and Convivæ Regis [Romans who held the same
   position] are the predecessors of the Vassi Dominici of later
   times, and like these were bound to the king by an especial
   oath of personal and perpetual service. They formed part, as
   it were, of the king's family, and were expected to reside in
   the palace, where they superintended the various departments
   of the royal household."

      _W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 10._

ANTWERP:
   The name of the City.

   Its commercial greatness in the 16th century.--"The city was
   so ancient that its genealogists, with ridiculous gravity,
   ascended to a period two centuries before the Trojan war, and
   discovered a giant, rejoicing in the classic name of
   Antigonus, established on the Scheld. This patriarch exacted
   one half the merchandise of all navigators who passed his
   castle, and was accustomed to amputate and cast into the river
   the right hands of those who infringed this simple tariff.
   Thus 'Hand-werpen,' hand-throwing, became Antwerp, and hence,
   two hands, in the escutcheon of the city, were ever held 'up
   in heraldic attestation of the truth. The giant was, in his
   turn, thrown into the Scheld by a hero, named Brabo, from
   whose exploits Brabant derived its name. ... But for these
   antiquarian researches, a simpler derivation of the name would
   seem 'an t' werf,' 'on the wharf.' It had now [in the first
   half of the 16th century] become the principal entrepôt and
   exchange of Europe. ... the commercial capital of the world.
   ... Venice, Nuremburg, Augsburg, Bruges, were sinking, but
   Antwerp, with its deep and convenient river, stretched its arm
   to the ocean and caught the golden prize, as it fell from its
   sister cities' grasp. ... No city, except Paris, surpassed it
   in population, none approached it in commercial splendor."

      _J. L. Motley, The Rise of the Dutch Republic, Hist.
      Introduction, section 13._

ANTWERP: A. D. 1313.
   Made the Staple for English trade.

   See STAPLE.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1566.
   Riot of the Image-breakers in the Churches.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1566-1568.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1576.--The Spanish Fury.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1575-1577.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1577.
   Deliverance of the city from its Spanish garrison.
   Demolition of the Citadel.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1577-1581.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1583.
   Treacherous attempt of the Duke of Anjou.
   The French Fury.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1584-1585.
   Siege and reduction by Alexander Farnese, Duke of Parma.
   The downfall of prosperity.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1648.
   Sacrificed to Amsterdam in the Treaty of Münster.
   Closing of the Scheldt.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1646-1648.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1706.
   Surrendered to Marlborough and the Allies.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1706-1707.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1746-1748.
   Taken by the French and restored to Austria.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1746-1747;
      and AIX-LA-CHAPELLE: THE CONGRESS.

ANTWERP: A. D. 1832.
   Siege of the Citadel by the French.
   Expulsion of the Dutch garrison.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1830-1832.

----------ANTWERP: End----------

APACHES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APACHE GROUP, and ATHAPASCAN FAMILY.

APALACHES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: APALACHES.

APAMEA.

   Apamea, a city founded by Seleucus Nicator on the Euphrates,
   the site of which is occupied by the modern town of Bir, had
   become, in Strabo's time (near the beginning of the Christian
   Era) one of the principal centers of Asiatic trade, second
   only to Ephesus. Thapsacus, the former customary
   crossing-place of the Euphrates, had ceased to be so, and the
   passage was made at Apamea. A place on the opposite bank of
   the river was called Zeugma, or "the bridge." Bir "is still
   the usual place at which travellers proceeding from Antioch or
   Aleppo towards Bagdad cross the Euphrates."

      _E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 22, section 1 (volume 2, pages 298 and 317)_.

APANAGE.

      See APPANAGE.

APATURIA, The.

   An annual family festival of the Athenians, celebrated for
   three days in the early part of the month of October
   (Pyanepsion). "This was the characteristic festival of the
   Ionic race; handed down from a period anterior to the
   constitution of Kleisthenes, and to the ten new tribes each
   containing so many demes, and bringing together the citizens
   in their primitive unions of family, gens, phratry, etc., the
   aggregate of which had originally constituted the four Ionic
   tribes, now superannuated. At the Apaturia, the family
   ceremonies were gone through; marriages were enrolled, acts of
   adoption were promulgated and certified, the names of youthful
   citizens first entered on the gentile and phratric roll;
   sacrifices were jointly celebrated by these family assemblages
   to Zeus Phratrius, Athênê, and other deities, accompanied
   with much festivity and enjoyment."

      _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 64 (volume 7)._

APELLA, The.

      See SPARTA: THE CONSTITUTION. &c.

APELOUSAS, The.

      See TEXAS: THE ABORIGINAL, INHABITANTS.

APHEK, Battle of.

   A great victory won by Ahab, king of Israel over Benhadad,
   king of Damascus.

      _H. Ewald, History of Israel, book 4, section 1._

APODECTÆ, The.

   "When Aristotle speaks of the officers of government to whom
   the public revenues were delivered, who kept them and
   distributed them to the several administrative departments,
   these are called, he adds, apodectæ and treasurers. In Athens
   the apodectæ were ten in number, in accordance with the number
   of the tribes. They were appointed by lot. ... They had in
   their possession the lists of the debtors of the state,
   received the money which was paid in, registered an account of
   it and noted the amount in arrear, and in the council house in
   the presence of the council, erased the names of the debtors
   who had paid the demands against them from the list, and
   deposited this again in the archives. Finally, they, together
   with the council, apportioned the sums received."

      _A. Boeckh, Public Economy of Athens (translated by Lamb),
      book 2, chapter 4._

APOLLONIA IN ILLYRIA, The Founding of.

      See KORKYRA.

{119}

APOSTASION.

   See POLETÆ.

APOSTOLIC MAJESTY: Origin of the Title.

      See HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114.

APPANAGE.

   "The term appanage denotes the provision made for the younger
   children of a king of France. This always consisted of lands
   and feudal superiorities held of the crown by the tenure of
   peerage. It is evident that this usage, as it produced a new
   class of powerful feudataries, was hostile to the interests
   and policy of the sovereign, and retarded the subjugation of
   the ancient aristocracy. But an usage coeval with the monarchy
   was not to be abrogated, and the scarcity of money rendered it
   impossible to provide for the younger branches of the royal
   family by any other means. It was restrained however as far as
   circumstances would permit."

      _H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 1, part 2._

   "From the words 'ad' and 'panis,' meaning that it was to
   provide bread for the person who held it. A portion of
   appanage was now given to each of the king's younger sons,
   which descended to his direct heirs, but in default of them
   reverted to the crown."

      _T. Wright, History of France, volume 1, page 308, note._

APPIAN WAY, The.

   Appius Claudius, called the Blind, who was censor at Rome from
   312 to 308 B. C. [see ROME: B. C. 312], constructed during
   that time "the Appian road, the queen of roads, because the
   Latin road, passing by Tusculum, and through the country of
   the Hernicans, was so much endangered, and had not yet been
   quite recovered by the Romans: the Appian road, passing by
   Terracina, Fundi and Mola, to Capua, was intended to be a
   shorter and safer one. ... The Appian road, even if Appius did
   carry it as far as Capua, was not executed by him with that
   splendour for which we still admire it in those parts which
   have not been destroyed intentionally: the closely joined
   polygons of basalt, which thousands of years have not been
   able to displace, are of a somewhat later origin. Appius
   commenced the road because there was actual need for it; in
   the year A. U. 457 [B. C. 297] peperino, and some years later
   basalt (silex) was first used for paving roads, and, at the
   beginning, only on the small distance from the Porta Capena to
   the temple of Mars, as we are distinctly told by Livy. Roads
   constructed according to artistic principles had
previously existed."

      _B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on the History of Rome.
      lecture 45._

      ALSO IN:
      _Sir W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1._

      _H. G. Liddell, History of ROME, volume 1, page 251._

APPOMATTOX COURT HOUSE, Lee's Surrender at.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL, VIRGINIA).

APULEIAN LAW.

      See MAJESTAS.

APULIA: A. D. 1042-1127.
   Norman conquest and Dukedom.
   Union with Sicily.

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

APULIANS, The.

      See SABINES; also, SAMNITES.

AQUÆ SEXTIÆ.

      See SALYES.

AQUÆ SEXTIÆ, Battle of.

      See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.

AQUÆ SOLIS.

   The Roman name of the long famous watering-place known in
   modern England as the city of Bath. It was splendidly adorned
   in Roman times with temples and other edifices.

      _T. Wright, Celt, Roman and Saxon, chapter 5._

AQUIDAY, OR AQUETNET.
   The native name of Rhode Island.

      See RHODE ISLAND: A. D. 1638-1640.

AQUILA, Battle of (1424).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1412-1447.

AQUILEIA.

   Aquileia, at the time of the destruction of that city by the
   Huns, A. D. 452, was, "both as a fortress and a commercial
   emporium, second to none in Northern Italy. It was situated at
   the northernmost point of the gulf of Hadria, about twenty
   miles northwest of Trieste, and the place where it once stood
   is now in the Austrian dominions, just over the border which
   separates them from the kingdom of Italy. In the year 181 B.
   C. a Roman colony had been sent to this far corner of Italy to
   serve as an outpost against some intrusive tribes, called by
   the vague name of Gauls. ... Possessing a good harbour, with
   which it was connected by a navigable river, Aquileia
   gradually became the chief entrepôt for the commerce between
   Italy and what are now the Illyrian provinces of Austria."

      _T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 2, chapter 4._

AQUILEIA: A. D. 238.--Siege by Maximin.

      See ROME: A. D. 238.

AQUILEIA: A. D. 388.--Overthrow of Maximus by Theodosius.

      See ROME: A. D. 379-395.

AQUILEIA: A. D. 452.--Destruction by the Huns.

      See HUNS: A. D. 452;
      also, VENICE: A. D. 452.

----------AQUILEIA: End----------

AQUITAINE:
   The ancient tribes.

   The Roman conquest of Aquitania was achieved, B. C. 56, by one
   of Cæsar's lieutenants, the Younger Crassus, who first brought
   the people called the Sotiates to submission and then defeated
   their combined neighbors in a murderous battle, where
   three-fourths of them are said to have been slain. The tribes
   which then submitted "were the Tarbelli, Bigerriones,
   Preciani, Vocates, Tarusates, Elusates, Garites, Ausci,
   Garumni, Sibuzates and Cocosates. The Tarbelli were in the
   lower basin of the Adour. Their chief place was on the site of
   the hot springs of Dax. The Bigerriones appear in the name
   Bigorre. The chief place of the Elusates was Elusa, Eause; and
   the town of Auch on the river Gers preserves the name of the
   Ausci. The names Garites, if the name is genuine, and Garumni
   contain the same element, Gar, as the river Garumna [Garonne]
   and the Gers. It is stated by Walckenaer that the inhabitants
   of the southern part of Les Landes are still called Cousiots.
   Cocosa, Caussèque, is twenty-four miles from Dax on the road
   from Dax to Bordeaux."

      _G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 6._

   "Before the arrival of the brachycephalic Ligurian race, the
   Iberians ranged over the greater part of France. ... If, as
   seems probable, we may identify them with the Aquitani, one of
   the three races which occupied Gaul in the time of Cæsar, they
   must have retreated to the neighbourhood of the Pyrenees
   before the beginning of the historic period."

      _I. Taylor, Origin of the Aryans, chapter 2, section 5._

AQUITAINE: In Cæsar's time.

   See GAUL DESCRIBED BY CÆSAR.

AQUITAINE: Settlement of the Visigoths.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 410-419.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 567.--Divided between the Merovingian Kings.

      See FRANKS: A. D. 511-752.

{120}

AQUITAINE: A. D. 681-768.
   The independent Dukes and their subjugation.

   "The old Roman Aquitania, in the first division of the spoils
   of the Empire, had fallen to the Visigoths, who conquered it
   without much trouble. In the struggle between them and the
   Merovingians, it of course passed to the victorious party. But
   the quarrels, so fiercely contested between the different
   members of the Frank monarchy, prevented them from retaining a
   distant possession within their grasp; and at this period
   [681-718, when the Mayors of the Palace, Pepin and Carl, were
   gathering the reins of government over the three
   kingdoms--Austrasia, Neustria and Burgundy--into their hands].
   Eudo, the duke of Aquitaine, was really an independent prince.
   The population had never lost its Roman character; it was, in
   fact, by far the most Romanized in the whole of Gaul. But it
   had also received a new element in the Vascones or Gascons
   [see BASQUES], a tribe of Pyrenean mountaineers, who
   descending from their mountains, advanced towards the north
   until their progress was checked by the broad waters of the
   Garonne. At this time, however, they obeyed Eudo. "This duke
   of Aquitaine, Eudo, allied himself with the Neustrians against
   the ambitious Austrasian Mayor, Carl Martel, and shared with
   them the crushing defeat at Soissons, A. D. 718, which
   established the Hammerer's power. Eudo acknowledged allegiance
   and was allowed to retain his dukedom. But, half-a-century
   afterwards, Carl's son, Pepin, who had pushed the 'fainéant'
   Merovingians from the Frank throne and seated himself upon it,
   fought a nine years' war with the then duke of Aquitaine, to
   establish his sovereignty. "The war, which lasted nine years
   [760-768], was signalized by frightful ravages and destruction
   of life upon both sides, until, at last, the Franks became
   masters of Berri, Auvergne, and the Limousin, with their
   principal cities. The able and gallant Guaifer [or Waifer] was
   assassinated by his own subjects, and Pepin had the
   satisfaction of finally uniting the grand-duchy of Aquitaine
   to the monarchy of the Franks."

      _J. G. Sheppard, Fall of Rome, lecture 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _P. Godwin. History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      chapter 14-15_.

      _W. H. Perry, The Franks, chapter 5-6._

AQUITAINE: A. D. 732.
   Ravaged by the Moslems.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST: A. D. 715-732.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 781.
   Erected into a separate kingdom by Charlemagne.

   In the year 781 Charlemagne erected Italy and Aquitaine into
   separate kingdoms, placing his two infant sons, Pepin and
   Ludwig or Louis on their respective thrones. "The kingdom of
   Aquitaine embraced Vasconia [Gascony], Septimania, Aquitaine
   proper (that is, the country between the Garonne and the
   Loire) and the county, subsequently the duchy, of Toulouse.
   Nominally a kingdom, Aquitaine was in reality a province,
   entirely dependent on the central or personal government of
   Charles. ... The nominal designations of king and kingdom
   might gratify the feelings of the Aquitanians, but it was a
   scheme contrived for holding them in a state of absolute
   dependence and subordination."

      _J. I. Mombert, History of Charles the Great,
      book 2. chapter 11._

AQUITAINE: A. D. 843.
   In the division of Charlemagne's Empire.

      See FRANCE: A. D.843.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 884-1151.
   The end of the nominal kingdom.
   The disputed Ducal Title.

   "Carloman [who died 884], son of Louis the Stammerer, was the
   last of the Carlovingians who bore the title of king of
   Aquitaine. This vast state ceased from this time to constitute
   a kingdom. It had for a lengthened period been divided between
   powerful families, the most illustrious of which are those of
   the Counts of Toulouse, founded in the ninth century by
   Fredelon, the Counts of Poitiers, the Counts of Auvergne, the
   Marquises of Septimania or Gothia, and the Dukes of Gascony.
   King Eudes had given William the Pius, Count of Auvergne, the
   Investiture of the duchy of Aquitaine. On the extinction of
   that family in 928, the Counts of Toulouse and those of Poitou
   disputed the prerogatives and their quarrel stained the south
   with blood for a long time. At length the Counts of Poitou
   acquired the title of Dukes of Aquitaine or Guyenne [or
   Guienne,--supposed to be a corruption of the name of
   Aquitaine, which came into use during the Middle Ages], which
   remained in their house up to the marriage of Eleanor of
   Aquitaine with Henry Plantagenet I. [Henry II.], King of
   England (1151)."

      _E. De Bonnechose, History of France, book 2, chapter 3,
      foot-note._

   "The duchy Aquitaine, or Guyenne, as held by Eleanor's
   predecessors, consisted, roughly speaking, of the territory
   between the Loire and the Garonne. More exactly, it was
   bounded on the north by Anjou and Touraine, on the east by
   Berry and Auvergne, on the south-east by the Quercy or County
   of Cahors, and on the south-west by Gascony, which had been
   united with it for the last hundred years. The old Karolingian
   kingdom of Aquitania had been of far greater extent; it had,
   in fact, included the whole country between the Loire, the
   Pyrenees, the Rhone and the ocean. Over all this vast
   territory the Counts of Poitou asserted a theoretical claim of
   overlordship by virtue of their ducal title; they had,
   however, a formidable rival in the house of the Counts of
   Toulouse."

      _K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings,
      volume 1, chapter 10._

      See, also, TOULOUSE: 10TH AND 11TH CENTURIES.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 1137-1152.
   Transferred by marriage from the crown of France to the crown
   of England.

   In 1137, "the last of the old line of the dukes of
   Aquitaine--William IX., son of the gay crusader and troubadour
   whom the Red King had hoped to succeed--died on a pilgrimage
   at Compostella. His only son was already dead, and before
   setting out for his pilgrimage he did what a greater personage
   had done ten years before: with the consent of his barons, he
   left the whole of his dominions to his daughter. Moreover, he
   bequeathed the girl herself as wife to the young king Louis
   [VII.] of France. This marriage more than doubled the strength
   of the French crown. It gave to Louis absolute possession of
   all western Aquitaine, or Guyenne as it was now beginning to
   be called; that is the counties of Poitou and Gascony, with
   the immediate overlordship of the whole district lying between
   the Loire and the Pyrenees, the Rhone and the ocean:--a
   territory five or six times as large as his own royal domain
   and over which his predecessors had never been able to assert
   more than the merest shadow of a nominal superiority." In 1152
   Louis obtained a divorce from Eleanor, surrendering all the
   great territory which she had added to his dominions, rather
   than maintain an unhappy union. The same year the gay duchess
   was wedded to Henry Plantagenet, then Duke of Normandy,
   afterwards Henry II. King of England. By this marriage
   Aquitaine became joined to the crown of England and remained
   so for three hundred years.

      _K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings,
      volume 1, chapter 8._

{121}

AQUITAINE: 12th Century.
   The state of the southern parts.

      See PROVENCE: A. D. 1179-1207.

AQUITAINE: A. D. 1360-1453.
   Full sovereignty possessed by the English Kings.
   The final conquest and union with France.

   "By the Peace of Bretigny [see FRANCE: A. D. 1337-1360] Edward
   III. resigned his claims on the crown of France; but he was
   recognized in return as independent Prince of Aquitaine,
   without any homage or superiority being reserved to the French
   monarch. When Aquitaine therefore was conquered by France,
   partly in the 14th, fully in the 15th century [see FRANCE: A.
   D. 1431-1453], it was not the 'reunion' of a forfeited fief,
   but the absorption of a distinct and sovereign state. The
   feelings of Aquitaine itself seem to have been divided. The
   nobles to a great extent, though far from universally,
   preferred the French connexion. It better fell in with their
   notions of chivalry, feudal dependency, and the like; the
   privileges too which French law conferred on noble birth would
   make their real interests lie that way. But the great cities
   and, we have reason to believe, the mass of the people, also,
   clave faithfully to their ancient Dukes; and they had good
   reason to do so. The English Kings, both by habit and by
   interest, naturally protected the municipal liberties of
   Bourdeaux and Bayonne, and exposed no part of their subjects
   to the horrors of French taxation and general oppression."

      _E. A. Freeman, The Franks and the Gauls (Historical
      Essays, 1st Series, No.7)._

----------AQUITAINE: End----------

AQUITANI, The.

      See IBERIANS, THE WESTERN.

ARABIA.--ARABS:
   The Name.

   "There can be no doubt that the name of the Arabs was ...
   given from their living at the westernmost part of Asia; and
   their own word 'Gharb,' the 'West,' is another form of the
   original Semitic name Arab."

      _G. Rawlinson, Notes to Herodotus, volume 2, page 71._

ARABIA:
   The ancient succession and fusion of Races.

   "The population of Arabia, after long centuries, more
   especially after the propagation and triumph of Islamism,
   became uniform throughout the peninsula. ... But it was not
   always thus. It was very slowly and gradually that the
   inhabitants of the various parts of Arabia were fused into one
   race. ... Several distinct races successively immigrated into
   the peninsula and remained separate for many ages. Their
   distinctive characteristics, their manners and their
   civilisation prove that these nations were not all of one
   blood. Up to the time of Mahomet, several different languages
   were spoken in Arabia, and it was the introduction of Islamism
   alone that gave predominence to that one amongst them now
   called Arabic. The few Arabian historians deserving of the
   name, who have used any discernment in collecting the
   traditions of their country, Ibn Khaldoun, for example,
   distinguish three successive populations in the peninsula.
   They divide these primitive, secondary, and tertiary Arabs
   into three divisions, called Ariba, Motareba, and Mostareba.
   ... The Ariba were the first and most ancient inhabitants of
   Arabia. They consisted principally of two great nations, the
   Adites, sprung from Ham, and the Amalika of the race of Aram,
   descendants of Shem, mixed with nations of secondary
   importance, the Thamudites of the race of Ham, and the people
   of the Tasm, and Jadis, of the family of Aram. The Motareba
   were tribes sprung from Joktan, son of Eber, always in Arabian
   tradition called Kahtan. The Mostareba of more modern origin
   were Ismaelitish tribes. ... The Cushites, the first
   inhabitants of Arabia, are known in the national traditions by
   the name of Adites, from their progenitor, who is called Ad,
   the grandson of Ham. All the accounts given of them by Arab
   historians are but fanciful legends. ... In the midst of all
   the fabulous traits with which these legends abound, we may
   perceive the remembrance of a powerful empire founded by the
   Cushites in very early ages, apparently including the whole of
   Arabia Felix, and not only Yemen proper. We also find traces
   of a wealthy nation, constructors of great buildings, with an
   advanced civilisation analogous to that of Chaldæa, professing
   a religion similar to the Babylonian; a nation, in short, with
   whom material progress was allied to great moral depravity and
   obscene rites. ... It was about eighteen centuries before our
   era that the Joktanites entered Southern Arabia. ... According
   to all appearances, the invasion, like all events of a similar
   nature, was accomplished only by force. ... After this
   invasion, the Cushite element of the population, being still
   the most numerous, and possessing great superiority in
   knowledge and civilisation over the Joktanites, who were still
   almost in the nomadic state, soon recovered the moral and
   material supremacy, and political dominion. A new empire was
   formed in which the power still belonged to the Sabæans of the
   race of Cush. ... Little by little the new nation of Ad was
   formed. The centre of its power was the country of Sheba
   proper, where, according to the tenth chapter of Genesis,
   there was no primitive Joktanite tribe, although in all the
   neighbouring provinces they were already settled. ... It was
   during the first centuries of the second Adite empire that
   Yemen was temporarily subjected by the Egyptians, who called
   it the land of Pun. ... Conquered during the minority of
   Thothmes III., and the regency of the Princess Hatasu, Yemen
   appears to have been lost by the Egyptians in the troublous
   times at the close of the eighteenth dynasty. Ramses II.
   recovered it almost immediately after he ascended the throne,
   and it was not till the time of the effeminate kings of the
   twentieth dynasty, that this splendid ornament of Egyptian
   power was finally lost. ... The conquest of the land of Pun
   under Hatasu is related in the elegant bas-reliefs of the
   temple of Deir-el-Bahari, at Thebes, published by M.
   Duemichen. ... The bas-reliefs of the temple of Deir-el-Bahari
   afford undoubted proofs of the existence of commerce between
   India and Yemen at the time of the Egyptian expedition under
   Hatasu. It was this commerce, much more than the fertility of
   its own soil and its natural productions, that made Southern
   Arabia one of the richest countries in the world. ... For a
   long time it was carried on by land only, by means of caravans
   crossing Arabia; for the navigation of the Red Sea, much more
   difficult and dangerous than that of the Indian Ocean, was not
   attempted till some centuries later. ...
{122}
   The caravans of myrrh, incense, and balm crossing Arabia
   towards the land of Canaan are mentioned in the Bible, in the
   history of Joseph, which belongs to a period very near to the
   first establishment of the Canaanites in Syria. As soon as
   commercial towns arose in Phœnicia, we find, as the prophet
   Ezekiel said, 'The merchants of Sheba and Raamah, they were
   thy merchants: they occupied in thy fairs with chief of all
   spices, and with all precious stones and gold.' ... A great
   number of Phœnician merchants, attracted by this trade,
   established themselves in Yemen, Hadramaut, Oman, and Bahrein.
   Phœnician factories were also established at several places on
   the Persian Gulf, amongst others in the islands of Tylos and
   Arvad, formerly occupied by their ancestors. ... This
   commerce, extremely flourishing during the nineteenth dynasty,
   seems, together with the Egyptian dominion in Yemen, to have
   ceased under the feeble and inactive successors of Ramses III.
   ... Nearly two centuries passed away, when Hiram and Solomon
   despatched vessels down the Red Sea. ... The vessels of the
   two monarchs were not content with doing merely what had once
   before been done under the Egyptians of the nineteenth
   dynasty, namely, fetching from the ports of Yemen the
   merchandise collected there from India. They were much bolder,
   and their enterprise was rewarded with success. Profiting by
   the regularity of the monsoons, they fetched the products of
   India at first hand, from the very place of their shipment in
   the ports of the land of Ophir, or Abhira. These distant
   voyages were repeated with success as long as Solomon reigned.
   The vessels going to Ophir necessarily touched at the ports of
   Yemen to take in provisions and await favourable winds. Thus
   the renown of the two allied kings, particularly of the power
   of Solomon, was spread in the land of the Adites. This was the
   cause of the journey made by the queen of Sheba to Jerusalem
   to see Solomon. ... The sea voyages to Ophir, and even to
   Yemen, ceased at the death of Solomon. The separation of the
   ten tribes, and the revolutions that simultaneously took place
   at Tyre, rendered any such expeditions impracticable. ... The
   empire of the second Adites lasted ten centuries, during which
   the Joktanite tribes, multiplying in each generation, lived
   amongst the Cushite Sabæans. ... The assimilation of the
   Joktanites to the Cushites was so complete that the revolution
   which gave political supremacy to the descendants of Joktan
   over those of Cush produced no sensible change in the
   civilisation of Yemen. But although using the same language,
   the two elements of the population of Southern Arabia were
   still quite distinct from each other, and antagonistic in
   their interests. ... Both were called Sabæans, but the Bible
   always carefully distinguishes them by a different
   orthography. ... The majority of the Sabæan Cushites, however,
   especially the superior castes, refused to submit to the
   Joktanite yoke. A separation, therefore, took place, giving
   rise to the Arab proverb, 'divided as the Sabæans,' and the
   mass of the Adites emigrated to another country. According to
   M. Caussin de Perceval, the passage of the Sabæans into
   Abyssinia is to be attributed to the consequences of the
   revolution that established Joktanite supremacy in Yemen. ...
   The date of the passage of the Sabæans from Arabia into
   Abyssinia is much more difficult to prove than the fact of
   their having done so. ... Yarub, the conqueror of the Adites,
   and founder of the new monarchy of Joktanite Arabs, was
   succeeded on the throne by his son, Yashdjob, a weak and
   feeble prince, of whom nothing is recorded, but that he
   allowed the chiefs of the various provinces of his states to
   make themselves independent. Abd Shems, surnamed Sheba, son of
   Yashdjob, recovered the power his predecessors had lost. ...
   Abd Shems had several children, the most celebrated being
   Himyer and Kahlan, who left a numerous posterity. From these
   two personages were descended the greater part of the Yemenite
   tribes, who still existed at the time of the rise of Islamism.
   The Himyarites seem to have settled in the towns, whilst the
   Kahlanites inhabited the country and the deserts of Yemen. ...
   This is the substance of all the information given by the Arab
   historians."

      _F. Lenormant and E. Chevalier, Manual of Ancient History
      of the East, book 7, chapter 1-2 (volume 2)._

ARABIA:
   Sabæans, The.

   "For some time past it has been known that the Himyaritic
   inscriptions fall into two groups, distinguished from one
   another by phonological and grammatical differences. One of
   the dialects is philologically older than the other,
   containing fuller and more primitive grammatical forms. The
   inscriptions in this dialect belong to a kingdom the capital
   of which was at Ma'in, and which represents the country of the
   Minæans of the ancients. The inscriptions in the other dialect
   were engraved by the princes and people of Sabâ, the Sheba of
   the Old Testament, the Sabæans of classical geography. The
   Sabæan kingdom lasted to the time of Mohammed, when it was
   destroyed by the advancing forces of Islam. Its rulers for
   several generations had been converts to Judaism, and had been
   engaged in almost constant warfare with the Ethiopic kingdom
   of Axum, which was backed by the influence and subsidies of
   Rome and Byzantium. Dr. Glaser seeks to show that the founders
   of this Ethiopic kingdom were the Habâsa, or Abyssinians, who
   migrated from Himyar to Africa in the second or first century
   B. C.; when we first hear of them in the inscriptions they are
   still the inhabitants of Northern Yemen and Mahrah. More than
   once the Axumites made themselves masters of Southern Arabia.
   About A. D. 300, they occupied its ports and islands, and from
   350 to 378 even the Sabæan kingdom was tributary to them.
   Their last successes were gained in 525, when, with Byzantine
   help, they conquered the whole of Yemen. But the Sabæan
   kingdom, in spite of its temporary subjection to Ethiopia, had
   long been a formidable State. Jewish colonies settled in it,
   and one of its princes became a convert to the Jewish faith.
   His successors gradually extended their dominion as far as
   Ormuz, and after the successful revolt from Axum in 378,
   brought not only the whole of the southern coast under their
   sway, but the western coast as well, as far north as Mekka.
   Jewish influence made itself felt in the future birthplace of
   Mohammed, and thus introduced those ideas and beliefs which
   subsequently had so profound an effect upon the birth of
   Islam. The Byzantines and Axumites endeavoured to counteract
   the influence of Judaism by means of Christian colonies and
   proselytism. The result was a conflict between Sabâ and its
   assailants, which took the form of a conflict between the
   members of the two religions.
{123}
   A violent persecution was directed against the Christians of
   Yemen, avenged by the Ethiopian conquest of the country and
   the removal of its capital to San'a. The intervention of
   Persia in the struggle was soon followed by the appearance of
   Mohammedanism upon the scene, and Jew, Christian, and Parsi
   were alike overwhelmed by the flowing tide of the new creed.
   The epigraphic evidence makes it clear that the origin of the
   kingdom of Sabâ went back to a distant date. Dr. Glaser traces
   its history from the time when its princes were still but
   Makârib, or 'Priests,' like Jethro, the Priest of Midian,
   through the ages when they were 'kings of Sabâ,' and later
   still 'kings of Sabâ and Raidân,' to the days when they
   claimed imperial supremacy over all the principalities of
   Southern Arabia. It was in this later period that they dated
   their inscriptions by an era, which, as Halévy first
   discovered, corresponds to 115 B. C. One of the kings of Sabâ
   is mentioned in an inscription of the Assyrian king Sargon (B.
   C. 715), and Dr. Glaser believes that he has found his name in
   a 'Himyaritic' text. When the last priest, Samah'ali Darrahh,
   became king of Sabâ, we do not yet know, but the age must be
   sufficiently remote, if the kingdom of Sabâ already existed
   when the Queen of Sheba came from Ophir to visit Solomon. The
   visit need no longer cause astonishment, notwithstanding the
   long journey by land which lay between Palestine and the south
   of Arabia. ... As we have seen, the inscriptions of Ma'in set
   before us a dialect of more primitive character than that of
   Sabâ. Hitherto it had been supposed, however, that the two
   dialects were spoken contemporaneously, and that the Minæan
   and Sabæan kingdoms existed side by side. But geography
   offered difficulties in the way of such a belief, since the
   seats of Minæan power were embedded in the midst of the Sabæan
   kingdom, much as the fragments of Cromarty are embedded in the
   midst of other counties. Dr. Glaser has now made it clear that
   the old supposition was incorrect, and that the Minæan kingdom
   preceded the rise of Sabâ. We can now understand why it is
   that neither in the Old Testament nor in the Assyrian
   inscriptions do we hear of any princes of Ma'in, and that
   though the classical writers are acquainted with the Minæan
   people they know nothing of a Minæan kingdom. The Minæan
   kingdom, in fact, with its culture and monuments, the relics
   of which still survive, must have flourished in the grey dawn
   of history, at an epoch at which, as we have hitherto
   imagined, Arabia was the home only of nomad barbarism. And yet
   in this remote age alphabetic writing was already known and
   practised, the alphabet being a modification of the Phœnician
   written vertically and not horizontally. To what an early date
   are we referred for the origin of the Phœnician alphabet
   itself! The Minæan Kingdom must have had a long existence. The
   names of thirty-three of its kings are already known to us.
   ... A power which reached to the borders of Palestine must
   necessarily have come into contact with the great monarchies
   of the ancient world. The army of Ælius Gallus was doubtless
   not the first which had sought to gain possession of the
   cities and spice-gardens of the south. One such invasion is
   alluded to in an inscription which was copied by M. Halévy.
   ... But the epigraphy of ancient Arabia is still in its
   infancy. The inscriptions already known to us represent but a
   small proportion of those that are yet to be discovered. ...
   The dark past of the Arabian peninsula has been suddenly
   lighted up, and we find that long before the days of Mohammed
   it was a land of culture and literature, a seat of powerful
   kingdoms and wealthy commerce, which cannot fail to have
   exercised an influence upon the general history of the world."

      _A. H. Sayce, Ancient Arabia
      (Contemporary Review., December, 1889)._

ARABIA: 6th Century.
   Partial conquest by the Abyssinians.

      See ABYSSINIA: 6TH TO 16TH CENTURIES.

ARABIA: A. D. 609-632.
   Mahomet's conquest.

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

ARABIA: A. D. 1517.
   Brought under the Turkish sovereignty.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1481-1520.

----------ARABIA: End----------

ARABS, Conquests of the.

      See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST.

ARACAN, English acquisition of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

ARACHOTI, The.

   A people who dwelt anciently in the Valley of the Arghandab,
   or Urgundab, in eastern Afghanistan. Herodotus gave them the
   tribal name of "Pactyes," and the modern Afghans, who call
   themselves "Pashtun" and "Pakhtun," signifying "mountaineers,"
   are probably derived from them.

      _M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 7, chapter 1._

ARAGON: A. D. 1035-1258.
   Rise of the kingdom.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1035-1258.

ARAGON: A. D. 1133.
   Beginning of popular representation in the Cortes.
   The Monarchical constitution.

      See CORTES, THE EARLY SPANISH.

ARAGON: A. D. 1218-1238.
   The first oath of allegiance to the king.
   Conquest of Balearic Islands.
   Subjugation of Valencia.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1212-1238.

ARAGON: A. D. 1410-1475.
   The Castilian dynasty.
   Marriage of Ferdinand with Isabella of Castile.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1368-1479.

ARAGON: A. D. 1516.
   The crown united with that of Castile by Joanna,
   mother of Charles V.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 1496-1517.

----------ARAGON: End----------

ARAICU, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: GUCK OR COCO GROUP.

ARAM.--ARAM NAHARAIM.--ARAM--ZOBAH.--ARAMÆANS.

      See SEMITES;
      also, SEMITIC LANGUAGES.

ARAMBEC.

      See NORUMBEGA.

ARAPAHOES, The.

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

ARAR, The.
   The ancient name of the river Saone, in France.

ARARAT.--URARDA.

      See ALARODIANS.

ARATOS, and the Achaian League.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

ARAUCANIANS, The.

      See CHILE.

ARAUSIO.

   A Roman colony was founded by Augustus at Arausio, which is
   represented in name and site by the modern town of Orange, in
   the department of Vaucluse, France, 18 miles north of Avignon.

      _P. Goodwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 2, chapter 5._

ARAUSIO, Battle of (B. C. 105).

      See CIMBRI AND TEUTONES: B. C. 113-102.

{124}

ARAVISCI AND OSI, The.

   "Whether ... the Aravisci migrated into Pannonia from the Osi,
   a German race, or whether the Osi came from the Aravisci into
   Germany, as both nations still retain the same language,
   institutions and customs, is a doubtful matter."--"The
   locality of the Aravisci was the extreme north-eastern part of
   the province of Pannonia, and would thus stretch from Vienna
   (Vindobona), eastwards to Raab (Arrabo), taking in a portion
   of the south-west of Hungary. ... The Osi seem to have dwelt
   near the sources of the Oder and the Vistula. They would thus
   have occupied a part of Gallicia."

      _Tacitus, Germany, translated by Church and Brodribb, with
      geographical notes._

ARAWAKS, OR ARAUACAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS.

ARAXES, The.

   This name seems to have been applied to a number of Asiatic
   streams in ancient times, but is connected most prominently
   with an Armenian river, now called the Aras, which flows into
   the Caspian.

ARBAS, Battle of.

   One of the battles of the Romans with the Persians in which
   the former suffered defeat. Fought A. D. 581.

      _G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter
      22._

ARBELA, or GAUGAMELA, Battle of (B. C. 331).

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.

ARCADIA.

   The central district of Peloponnesus, the great southern
   peninsula of Greece--a district surrounded by a singular
   mountain circle. "From the circle of mountains which has been
   pointed out, all the rivers of any note take their rise, and
   from it all the mountainous ranges diverge, which form the
   many headlands and points of Peloponnesus. The interior part
   of the country, however, has only one opening towards the
   western sea, through which all its waters flow united in the
   Alpheus. The peculiar character of this inland tract is also
   increased by the circumstance of its being intersected by some
   lower secondary chains of hills, which compel the waters of
   the valleys nearest to the great chains either to form lakes,
   or to seek a vent by subterraneous passages. Hence it is that
   in the mountainous district in the northeast of Peloponnesus
   many streams disappear and again emerge from the earth. This
   region is Arcadia; a country consisting of ridges of hills and
   elevated plains, and of deep and narrow valleys, with streams
   flowing through channels formed by precipitous rocks; a
   country so manifestly separated by nature from the rest of
   Peloponnesus that, although not politically united, it was
   always considered in the light of a single community. Its
   climate was extremely cold; the atmosphere dense, particularly
   in the mountains to the north; the effect which this had on
   the character and dispositions of the inhabitants has been
   described in a masterly manner by Polybius, himself a native
   of Arcadia."

      _C. O. Müller, History and Antiquity of the Doric Race,
      book 1, chapter 4._

   "The later Roman poets were wont to speak of Arcadia as a
   smiling land, where grassy vales, watered by gentle and
   pellucid streams, were inhabited by a race of primitive and
   picturesque shepherds and shepherdesses, who divided their
   time between tending their flocks and making love to one
   another in the most tender and romantic fashion. This idyllic
   conception of the country and the people is not to be traced
   in the old Hellenic poets, who were better acquainted with the
   actual facts of the case. The Arcadians were sufficiently
   primitive, but there was very little that was graceful or
   picturesque about their land or their lives."

      _C. H. Hanson, The Land of Greece, pages 381-382._

ARCADIA: B. C. 371-362.
   The union of Arcadian towns.
   Restoration of Mantineia.
   Building of Megalopolis.
   Alliance with Thebes.
   Wars with Sparta and Elis.
   Disunion.
   Battle of Mantineia.

      See GREECE: B. C. 371, and 371-362.

ARCADIA: B. C. 338.
   Territories restored by Philip of Macedon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

ARCADIA: B. C. 243-146.
   In the Achaian League.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

----------ARCADIA: End----------

ARCADIUS, Roman Emperor (Eastern), A. D. 395-408.

ARCHIPELAGO, The Dukes of the.

      See NAXOS: THE MEDIÆVAL DUKEDOM.

ARCHON.

   See ATHENS: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO B. C. 683.

ARCIS-SUR-AUBE, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1814 (JANUARY-MARCH).

ARCOLA, Battle of (1796).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1796-1797 (OCTOBER-APRIL).

ARCOT: A. D. 1751.
   Capture and defence by Clive.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1743-1752.

ARCOT: A. D. 1780.
   Siege and capture by Hyder Ali.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1780-1783.

----------ARCOT: End----------

ARDEN, Forest of.

   The largest forest in early Britain, which covered the greater
   part of modern Warwickshire and "of which Shakespeare's Arden
   became the dwindled representative."

      _J. R. Green, The Making of England, chapter 7._

ARDENNES, Forest of.

   "In Cæsar's time there were in [Gaul] very extensive forests,
   the largest of which was the Arduenna (Ardennes), which
   extended from the banks of the lower Rhine probably as far as
   the shores of the North Sea."

      _G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic,
      volume 3, chapter 22._

   "Ardennes is the name of one of the northern French
   departments which contains a part of the forest Ardennes.
   Another part is in Luxemburg and Belgium. The old Celtic name
   exists in England in the Arden of Warwickshire."

      _G. Long, Decline of the Roman Republic, volume 4, chapter 14._

ARDRI, OR ARDRIGH, The.

      See TUATH.

ARDSHIR, OR ARTAXERXES,
   Founding of the Sassanian monarchy by.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.

ARECOMICI, The.

      See VOLCÆ.

ARECUNAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: CARIBS AND THEIR KINDRED.

AREIOS.

      See ARIA.

ARELATE:
   The ancient name of Arles.

   The territory covered by the old kingdom of Arles is sometimes
   called the Arelate.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1127-1378,
      and SALYES.

ARENGO, The.

      See SAN MARINO, THE REPUBLIC OF.

AREOPAGUS, The.

   "Whoever [in ancient Athens] was suspected of having blood
   upon his hands had to abstain from approaching the common
   altars of the land. Accordingly, for the purpose of judgments
   concerning the guilt of blood, choice had been made of the
   barren, rocky height which lies opposite the ascent to the
   citadel. It was dedicated to Ares, who was said to have been
   the first who was ever judged here for the guilt of blood; and
   to the Erinyes, the dark powers of the guilt-stained
   conscience. Here, instead of a single judge, a college of
   twelve men of proved integrity conducted the trial. If the
   accused had an equal number of votes for and against him, he
   was acquitted. The court on the hill of Ares is one of the
   most ancient institutions of Athens, and none achieved for the
   city an earlier or more widely-spread recognition."

      _E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 2._

{125}

   "The Areopagus, or, as it was interpreted by an ancient
   legend, Mars' Hill, was an eminence on the western side of the
   Acropolis, which from time immemorial had been the seat of a
   highly revered court of criminal justice. It took cognizance
   of charges of wilful murder, maiming, poisoning and arson. Its
   forms and modes of proceeding were peculiarly rigid and
   solemn. It was held in the open air, perhaps that the judges
   might not be polluted by sitting under the same roof with the
   criminals. ... The venerable character of the court seems to
   have determined Solon to apply it to another purpose; and,
   without making any change in its original jurisdiction, to
   erect it into a supreme council, invested with a
   superintending and controlling authority, which extended over
   every part of the social system. He constituted it the
   guardian of the public morals and religion, to keep watch over
   the education and conduct of the citizens, and to protect the
   State from the disgrace or pollution of wantonness and
   profaneness. He armed it with extraordinary powers of
   interfering in pressing emergencies, to avert any sudden and
   imminent danger which threatened the public safety. The nature
   of its functions rendered it scarcely possible precisely to
   define their limits; and Solon probably thought it best to let
   them remain in that obscurity which magnifies whatever is
   indistinct. ... It was filled with Archons who had discharged
   their office with approved fidelity, and they held their seats
   for life."

      _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, volume 1, chapter 11._

   These enlarged functions of the Areopagus were withdrawn from
   it in the time of Pericles, through the agency of Ephialtes,
   but were restored about B. C. 400, after the overthrow of the
   Thirty.--"Some of the writers of antiquity ascribed the first
   establishment of the senate of Areopagus to Solon. ... But
   there can be little doubt that this is a mistake, and that the
   senate of Areopagus is a primordial institution of immemorial
   antiquity, though its constitution as well as its functions
   underwent many changes. It stood at first alone as a permanent
   and collegiate authority, originally by the side of the kings
   and afterwards by the side of the archons: it would then of
   course be known by the title of The Boule,--the senate, or
   council; its distinctive title 'senate of Areopagus,' borrowed
   from the place where its sittings were held, would not be
   bestowed until the formation by Solon of the second senate, or
   council, from which there was need to discriminate it."

      _G. Grote, History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 10 (volume 3)._

      See, also, ATHENS: B. C. 477-462, and 466-454.

ARETHUSA, Fountain of.

      See SYRACUSE.

AREVACÆ, The.

   One of the tribes of the Celtiberians in ancient Spain. Their
   chief town. Numantia, was the stronghold of Celtiberian
   resistance to the Roman conquest.

      See NUMANTIAN WAR.

ARGADEIS, The.

      See PHYLÆ.

ARGAUM, Battle of (1803).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1798-1805.

ARGENTARIA, Battle of (A. D.378).

      See ALEMANNI: A. D. 378.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: Aboriginal inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TUPI.--GUARANI.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1515-1557.
   Discovery, exploration and early settlement on La Plata.
   First founding of Buenos Ayres.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1580-1777.
   The final founding of the City of Buenos Ayres.
   Conflicts of Spain and Portugal on the Plata.
   Creation of the Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres.

   "In the year 1580 the foundations of a lasting city were laid
   at Buenos Ayres by De Garay on the same situation as had twice
   previously been chosen--namely, by Mendoza, and by Cabeza de
   Vaca, respectively. The same leader had before this founded
   the settlement of Sante Fe on the Paraná. The site selected
   for the future capital of the Pampas is probably one of the
   worst ever chosen for a city ... has probably the worst
   harbour in the world for a large commercial town. ...
   Notwithstanding the inconvenience of its harbour, Buenos Ayres
   soon became the chief commercial entrepôt of the Valley of the
   Plata. The settlement was not effected without some severe
   fighting between De Garay's force and the Querandies. The
   latter, however, were effectually quelled. ... The Spaniards
   were now nominally masters of the Rio de La Plata, but they
   had still to apprehend hostilities on the part of the natives
   between their few and far-distant settlements [concerning
   which see PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557]. Of this liability De
   Garay himself was to form a lamentable example. On his passage
   back to Asuncion, having incautiously landed to sleep near the
   ruins of the old fort of San Espiritu, he was surprised by a
   party of natives and murdered, with all his companions. The
   death of this brave Biscayan was mourned as a great loss by
   the entire colony. The importance of the cities founded by him
   was soon apparent; and in 1620 all the settlements south of
   the confluence of the rivers Parana and Paraguay were formed
   into a separate, independent government, under the name of Rio
   de La Plata, of which Buenos Ayres was declared the capital.
   This city likewise became the seat of a bishopric. ... The
   merchants of Seville, who had obtained a monopoly of the
   supply of Mexico and Peru, regarded with much jealousy the
   prospect of a new opening for the South American trade by way
   of La Plata," and procured restrictions upon it which were
   relaxed in 1618 so far as to permit the sending of two vessels
   of 100 tons each every year to Spain, but subject to a duty of
   50 per cent. "Under this miserable commercial legislation
   Buenos Ayres continued to languish for the first century of
   its existence. In 1715, after the treaty of Utrecht, the
   English ... obtained the 'asiento' or contract for supplying
   Spanish colonies in America with African slaves, in virtue of
   which they had permission to form an establishment at Buenos
   Ayres, and to send thither annually four ships with 1,200
   negroes, the value of which they might export in produce of
   the country. They were strictly forbidden to introduce other
   goods than those necessary for their own establishments; but
   under the temptation of gain on the one side and of demand on
   the other, the asiento ships naturally became the means of
   transacting a considerable contraband trade. ...
{126}
   The English were not the only smugglers in the river Plate. By
   the treaty of Utrecht, the Portuguese had obtained the
   important settlement of Colonia [the first settlement of the
   Banda Oriental--or 'Eastern Border'--afterwards called
   Uruguay] directly facing Buenos Ayres. ... The Portuguese, ...
   not contented with the possession of Colonia ... commenced a
   more important settlement near Monte Video. From this place
   they were dislodged by Zavala [Governor of Buenos Ayres], who,
   by order of his government, proceeded to establish settlements
   at that place and at Maldonado. Under the above-detailed
   circumstances of contention ... was founded the healthy and
   agreeable city of Monte Video. ... The inevitable consequence
   of this state of things was fresh antagonism between the two
   countries, which it was sought to put an end to by a treaty
   between the two nations concluded in 1750. One of the articles
   stipulated that Portugal should cede to Spain all of her
   establishments on the eastern bank of the Plata; in return for
   which she was to receive the seven missionary towns [known as
   the 'Seven Reductions'] on the Uruguay. But ... the
   inhabitants of the Missions naturally rebelled against the
   idea of being handed over to a people known to them only by
   their slave-dealing atrocities. ... The result was that when
   2,000 natives had been slaughtered [in the war known as the
   War of the Seven Reductions] and their settlements reduced to
   ruins, the Portuguese repudiated the compact, as they could no
   longer receive their equivalent, and they still therefore
   retained Colonia. When hostilities were renewed in 1762, the
   governor of Buenos Ayres succeeded in possessing himself of
   Colonia; but in the following year it was restored to the
   Portuguese, who continued in possession until 1777, when it
   was definitely ceded to Spain. The continual encroachments of
   the Portuguese in the Rio de La Plata, and the impunity with
   which the contraband trade was carried on, together with the
   questions to which it constantly gave rise with foreign
   governments, had long shown the necessity for a change in the
   government of that colony; for it was still under the
   superintendence of the Viceroy of Peru, residing at Lima,
   3,000 miles distant. The Spanish authorities accordingly
   resolved to give fresh force to their representatives in the
   Rio de La Plata; and in 1776 they took the important
   resolution to sever the connection between the provinces of La
   Plata and the Viceroyalty of Peru. The former were now erected
   into a new Viceroyalty, the capital of which was Buenos Ayres.
   ... To this Viceroyalty was appointed Don Pedro Cevallos, a
   former governor of Buenos Ayres. ... The first act of Cevallos
   was to take possession of the island of St. Katherine, the
   most important Portuguese possession on the coast of Brazil.
   Proceeding thence to the Plate, he razed the fortifications of
   Colonia to the ground, and drove the Portuguese from the
   neighbourhood. In October of the following year, 1777, a
   treaty of peace was signed at St. Ildefonso, between Queen
   Maria of Portugal and Charles III. of Spain, by virtue of
   which St. Katherine's was restored to the latter country,
   whilst Portugal withdrew from the Banda Oriental or Uruguay,
   and relinquished all pretensions to the right of navigating
   the Rio de La Plata and its affluents beyond its own frontier
   line. ... The Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres was sub-divided into
   the provinces of--(1.) Buenos Ayres, the capital of which was
   the city of that name, and which comprised the Spanish
   possessions that now form the Republic of Uruguay, as well as
   the Argentine provinces of Buenos Ayres, Santa Fé, Entre Rios,
   and Corrientes; (2.) Paraguay, the capital of which was
   Asuncion, and which comprised what is now the Republic of
   Paraguay; (3.) Tucuman, the capital of which was St. Iago del
   Estero, and which included what are to-day the Argentine
   provinces of Cordova, Tucuman, St. Iago, Salta, Catamarca,
   Rioja, and Jujuy; (4.) Las Charcas or Potosi, the capital of
   which was La Plata, and which now forms the Republic of
   Bolivia; and (5.) Chiquito or Cuyo, the capital of which was
   Mendoza, and in which were comprehended the present Argentine
   provinces of St. Luiz, Mendoza, and St. Juan."

      _R. G. Watson, Spanish and Portuguese South America,
      volume 13-14._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 17._

      _S. H. Wilcocke, History of the Viceroyalty of Buenos
      Ayres._

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1806-1820.
   The English invasion.
   The Revolution.
   Independence achieved.
   Confederation of the Provinces of the Plate River and its
   dissolution.

   "The trade of the Plate River had enormously increased since
   the substitution of register ships for the annual flotilla,
   and the erection of Buenos Ayres into a viceroyalty in 1778;
   but it was not until the war of 1797 that the English became
   aware of its real extent. The British cruisers had enough to
   do to maintain the blockade: and when the English learned that
   millions of hides were rotting in the warehouses of Monte
   Video and Buenos Ayres, they concluded that the people would
   soon see that their interests would be best served by
   submission to the great naval power. The peace put an end to
   these ideas; but Pitt's favourite project for destroying
   Spanish influence in South America by the English arms was
   revived and put in execution soon after the opening of the
   second European war in 1803. In 1806 ... he sent a squadron to
   the Plate River, which offered the best point of attack to the
   British fleet, and the road to the most promising of the
   Spanish colonies. The English, under General Beresford, though
   few in number, soon took Buenos Ayres, for the Spaniards,
   terrified at the sight of British troops, surrendered without
   knowing how insignificant the invading force really was. When
   they found this out, they mustered courage to attack Beresford
   in the citadel; and the English commander was obliged to
   evacuate the place. The English soon afterwards took
   possession of Monte Video, on the other side of the river.
   Here they were joined by another squadron, who were under
   orders, after reducing Buenos Ayres, to sail round the Horn,
   to take Valparaiso, and establish posts across the continent
   connecting that city with Buenos Ayres, thus executing the
   long-cherished plan of Lord Anson. Buenos Ayres was therefore
   invested a second time. But the English land forces were too
   few for their task. The Spaniards spread all round the city
   strong breastworks of ox hides, and collected all their forces
   for its defence. Buenos Ayres was stormed by the English at
   two points on the 5th of July, 1807; but they were unable to
   hold their ground against the unceasing fire of the Spaniards,
   who were greatly superior in numbers, and the next day they
   capitulated, and agreed to evacuate the province within two
   months.
{127}
   The English had imagined that the colonists would readily
   flock to their standard, and throw off the yoke of Spain. This
   was a great mistake; and it needed the events of 1808 to lead
   the Spanish colonists to their independence. ... In 1810, when
   it came to be known that the French armies had crossed the
   Sierra Morena, and that Spain was a conquered country, the
   colonists would no longer submit to the shadowy authority of
   the colonial officers, and elected a junta of their own to
   carry on the Government. Most of the troops in the colony went
   over to the cause of independence, and easily overcame the
   feeble resistance that was made by those who remained faithful
   to the regency in the engagement of Las Piedras. The leaders
   of the revolution were the advocate Castelli and General
   Belgrano; and under their guidance scarcely any obstacle
   stopped its progress. They even sent their armies at once into
   Upper Peru and the Banda Oriental, and their privateers
   carried the Independent flag to the coasts of the Pacific; but
   these successes were accompanied by a total anarchy in the
   Argentine capital and provinces. The most intelligent and
   capable men had gone off to fight for liberty elsewhere; and
   even if they had remained it would have been no easy task to
   establish a new government over the scattered and
   half-civilized population of this vast country. ... The first
   result of independence was the formation of a not very
   intelligent party of country proprietors, who knew nothing of
   the mysteries of politics, and were not ill-content with the
   existing order of things. The business of the old viceroyal
   government was delegated to a supreme Director; but this
   functionary was little more than titular. How limited the
   aspirations of the Argentines at first were may be gathered
   from the instructions with which Belgrano and Rivadavia were
   sent to Europe in 1814. They were to go to England, and ask
   for an English protectorate; if possible under an English
   prince. They were next to try the same plan in France,
   Austria, and Russia, and lastly in Spain itself: and if Spain
   still refused, were to offer to renew the subjection of the
   colony, on condition of certain specified concessions being
   made. This was indeed a strange contrast to the lofty
   aspirations of the Colombians. On arriving at Rio, the
   Argentine delegates were assured by the English minister, Lord
   Strangford, that, as things were, no European power would do
   anything for them: nor did they succeed better in Spain
   itself. Meanwhile the government of the Buenos Ayres junta was
   powerless outside the town, and the country was fast lapsing
   into the utmost disorder and confusion. At length, when
   Government could hardly be said to exist at all, a general
   congress of the provinces of the Plate River assembled at
   Tucuman in 1816. It was resolved that all the states should
   unite in a confederation to be called the United Provinces of
   the Plate River: and a constitution was elaborated, in
   imitation of the famous one of the United States, providing
   for two legislative chambers and a president. ... The
   influence of the capital, of which all the other provinces
   were keenly jealous, predominated in the congress; and
   Puyrredon, an active Buenos Ayres politician, was made supreme
   Director of the Confederation. The people of Buenos Ayres
   thought their city destined to exercise over the rural
   provinces a similar influence to that which Athens, under
   similar circumstances, had exercised in Greece; and able
   Buenos Ayreans like Puyrredon, San Martin, and Rivadavia, now
   became the leaders of the unitary party. The powerful
   provincials, represented by such men as Lopez and Quiroga,
   soon found out that the Federal scheme meant the supremacy of
   Buenos Ayres, and a political change which would deprive them
   of most of their influence. The Federal system, therefore,
   could not be expected to last very long; and it did in fact
   collapse after four years. Artigas led the revolt in the Banda
   Oriental [now Uruguay], and the Riverene Provinces soon
   followed the example. For a long time the provinces were
   practically under the authority of their local chiefs, the
   only semblance of political life being confined to Buenos
   Ayres itself."

      _E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 17._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. G. Mulhall, The English in South America, chapter 10-13,
      and 16-18._

      _J. Miller, Memoirs of General Miller, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      _T. J. Page, La Plata, the Argentine Confederation and
      Paraguay, chapter 31._

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1819-1874.
   Anarchy, civil war, despotism.
   The long struggle for order and Confederation.

   "A new Congress met in 1819 and made a Constitution for the
   country, which was never adopted by all the Provinces.
   Pueyrredon resigned, and on June 10th, 1819, José Rondeau was
   elected, who, however, was in no condition to pacify the civil
   war which had broken out during the government of his
   predecessors. At the commencement of 1830, the last 'Director
   General' was overthrown; the municipality of the city of
   Buenos-Aires seized the government; the Confederation was
   declared dissolved, and each of its Provinces received liberty
   to organize itself as it pleased. This was anarchy officially
   proclaimed. After the fall in the same year of some military
   chiefs who had seized the power, Gen. Martin Rodriguez was
   named Governor of Buenos-Aires, and he succeeded in
   establishing some little order in this chaos. He chose M. J.
   Garcia and Bernardo Rivadavia--one of the most enlightened
   Argentines of his times--as his Ministers. This
   administration did a great deal of good by exchanging
   conventions of friendship and commerce, and entering into
   diplomatic relations with foreign nations. At the end of his
   term General Las Heras--9th May, 1824--took charge of the
   government, and called a Constituent Assembly of all the
   Provinces, which met at Buenos-Aires, December 16th, and
   elected Bernardo Rivadavia President of the newly Confederated
   Republic on the 7th February, 1825. This excellent Argentine,
   however, found no assistance in the Congress. No understanding
   could be come to on the form or the test of the Constitution, nor
   yet upon the place of residence for the national Government.
   Whilst Rivadavia desired a centralized Constitution--called
   here 'unintarian'--and that the city of Buenos-Aires should be
   declared capital of the Republic, the majority of Congress
   held a different opinion, and this divergence caused the
   resignation of the President on the 5th July, 1827. After this
   event, the attempt to establish a Confederation which would
   include all the Provinces was considered as defeated, and each
   Province went on its own way, whilst Buenos-Aires elected
   Manuel Dorrego, the chief of the federal party, for its
   Governor.
{128}
   He was inaugurated on the 13th August, 1827, and at once
   undertook to organize a new Confederation of the Provinces,
   opening relations to this end with the Government of Cordoba,
   the most important Province of the interior. He succeeded in
   reëstablishing repose in the interior, and was instrumental in
   preserving a general peace, even beyond the limits of his
   young country. The Emperor of Brazil did not wish to
   acknowledge the rights of the United Provinces over the
   Cisplatine province, or Banda Oriental [now Uruguay]. He
   wished to annex it to his empire, and declared war to the
   Argentine Republic on the 10th of December, 1826. An army was
   soon organized by the latter, under the command of General
   Alvear, which on the 20th of February, 1827, gained a complete
   victory over the Brazilian forces--twice their number--at the
   plains of Ituzaingó, in the Brazilian province of Rio Grande
   do Sul. The navy of the Argentines also triumphed on several
   occasions, so that when England offered her intervention,
   Brazil renounced all claim to the territory of Uruguay by the
   convention of the 27th August, 1828, and the two parties
   agreed to recognize and to maintain the neutrality and
   independence of that country. Dorrego, however, had but few
   sympathies in the army, and a short time after his return from
   Brazil, the soldiers under Lavalle rebelled and forced him to
   fly to the country on the 1st December of the same year. There
   he found aid from the Commander General of the country
   districts, Juan Manuel Rosas, and formed a small battalion
   with the intention of marching on the city of Buenos-Aires.
   But Lavalle triumphed, took him prisoner, and shot him without
   trial on the 13th December. ... Not only did the whole
   interior of the province of Buenos-Aires rise against Lavalle,
   under the direction of Rosas, but also a large part of other
   Provinces considered this event as a declaration of war, and
   the National Congress, then assembled at Santa-Fé, declared
   Lavalle's government illegal. The two parties fought with real
   fury, but in 1829, after an interview between Rosas and
   Lavalle, a temporary reconciliation was effected. ... The
   legislature of Buenos-Aires, which had been convoked on
   account of the reconciliation between Lavalle and Rosas,
   elected the latter as Governor of the Province, on December
   6th, 1829, and accorded to him extraordinary powers. ...
   During this the first period of his government he did not
   appear in his true nature, and at its conclusion he refused a
   re-election and retired to the country. General Juan R.
   Balcarce was then--17th December, 1832--named Governor, but
   could only maintain himself some eleven months: Viamont
   succeeded him, also for a short time only. Now the moment had
   come for Rosas. He accepted the almost unlimited Dictatorship
   which was offered to him on the 7th March, 1835, and reigned
   in a horrible manner, like a madman, until his fall. Several
   times the attempt was made to deliver Buenos-Aires from his
   terrible yoke, and above all the devoted and valiant efforts
   of General Lavalle deserve to be mentioned; but all was in
   vain; Rosas remained unshaken. Finally, General Justo José De
   Urquiza, Governor of the province of Entre-Rios, in alliance
   with the province of Corrientes and the Empire of Brazil, rose
   against the Dictator. He first delivered the Republic of
   Uruguay, and the city of Monte Video--the asylum of the
   adversaries of Rosas--from the army which besieged it, and
   thereafter passing the great river Parana, with a relatively
   large army, he completely defeated Rosas at Monte-Caseros,
   near Buenos-Aires, on the 3rd February, 1852. During the same
   day, Rosas sought and received the protection of an English
   war-vessel which was in the road of Buenos-Aires, in which he
   went to England, where he still [1876] resides. Meantime
   Urquiza took charge of the Government of the United Provinces,
   under the title of 'Provisional Director,' and called a
   general meeting of the Governors at San Nicolás, a frontier
   village on the north of the province of Buenos-Aires. This
   assemblage confirmed him in his temporary power, and called a
   National Congress which met at Santa-Fé and made a National
   Constitution under date of 25th May, 1853. By virtue of this
   Constitution the Congress met again the following year at
   Parana, a city of Entre-Rios, which had been made the capital,
   and on the 5th May, elected General Urquiza the first
   President of the Argentine Confederation. ... The important
   province of Buenos-Aires, however, had taken no part in the
   deliberations of the Congress. Previously, on the 11th
   September 1852, a revolution against Urquiza, or rather
   against the Provincial Government in alliance with him, had
   taken place and caused a temporary separation of the Province
   from the Republic. Several efforts to pacify the disputes
   utterly failed, and a battle took place at Cepeda in Santa-Fé,
   wherein Urquiza, who commanded the provincial troops, was
   victorious, although his success led to no definite result. A
   short time after, the two armies met again at Pavon--near the
   site of the former battle--and Buenos-Aires won the day. This
   secured the unity of the Republic of which the victorious
   General Bartolomé Mitre was elected President for six years
   from October, 1862. At the same time the National Government
   was transferred from Paraná to Buenos-Aires, and the latter
   was declared the temporary capital of the Nation. The Republic
   owes much to the Government of Mitre, and it is probable that
   he would have done more good, if war had not broken out with
   Paraguay, in 1865 [see PARAGUAY]. The Argentines took part in
   it as one of the three allied States against the Dictator of
   Paraguay, Francisco Solano Lopez. On the 12th October, 1868,
   Domingo Faustino Sarmiento succeeded Gen. Mitre in the
   Presidency. ... The 12th October, 1874, Dr. Nicolas Avellaneda
   succeeded him in the Government."

      _R. Napp, The Argentine Republic, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _D. F. Sarmiento, Life in the Argentine Republic in the
      Days of the Tyrants._

      _J. A. King, Twenty-four years in the Argentine
      Republic._

{129}

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1880-1891.
   The Constitution and its working.
   Governmental corruption.
   The Revolution of 1890, and the financial collapse.

   "The Argentine constitutional system in its outward form
   corresponds closely to that of the United States. ... But the
   inward grace of enlightened public opinion is lacking, and
   political practice falls below the level of a self-governing
   democracy. Congress enacts laws, but the President as
   commander-in-chief of the army, and as the head of a civil
   service dependent upon his will and caprice, possesses
   absolute authority in administration. The country is governed
   by executive decrees rather than by constitutional laws.
   Elections are carried by military pressure and manipulation of
   the civil service. ... President Roca [who succeeded
   Avellaneda in 1880] virtually nominated, and elected his
   brother-in-law, Juarez Célman, as his successor. President
   Juarez set his heart upon controlling the succession in the
   interest of one of his relatives, a prominent official; but
   was forced to retire before he could carry out his purpose.
   ... Nothing in the Argentine surprised me more than the
   boldness and freedom with which the press attacked the
   government of the day and exposed its corruption. ... The
   government paid no heed to these attacks. Ministers did not
   trouble themselves to repel charges affecting their integrity.
   ... This wholesome criticism from an independent press had one
   important effect. It gave direction to public opinion in the
   capital, and involved the organization of the Unión Cívica. If
   the country had not been on the verge of a financial
   revulsion, there might not have been the revolt against the
   Juarez administration in July, 1890; but with ruin and
   disaster confronting them, men turned against the President
   whose incompetence and venality would have been condoned if
   the times had been good. The Unión Cívica was founded when the
   government was charged with maladministration in sanctioning
   an illegal issue of $40,000,000 of paper money. ... The
   government was suddenly confronted with an armed coalition of
   the best battalions of the army, the entire navy, and the Unión
   Cívica. The manifesto issued by the Revolutionary Junta was a
   terrible arraignment of the political crimes of the Juarez
   Government. ... The revolution opened with every prospect of
   success. It failed from the incapacity of the leaders to
   co-operate harmoniously. On July 19, 1890, the defection of
   the army was discovered. On July 26 the revolt broke out. For
   four days there was bloodshed without definite plan or
   purpose. No determined attack was made upon the government
   palace. The fleet opened a fantastic bombardment upon the
   suburbs. There was inexplicable mismanagement of the insurgent
   forces, and on July 29 an ignominious surrender to the
   government with a proclamation of general amnesty. General
   Roca remained behind the scenes, apparently master of the
   situation, while President Juarez had fled to a place of
   refuge on the Rosario railway, and two factions of the army
   were playing at cross purposes, and the police and the
   volunteers of the Unión Cívica were shooting women and
   children in the streets. Another week of hopeless confusion
   passed, and General Roca announced the resignation of
   President Juarez and the succession of vice-President
   Pellegrini. Then the city was illuminated, and for three days
   there was a pandemonium of popular rejoicing over a victory
   which nobody except General Roca understood. ... In June,
   1891, the deplorable state of Argentine finance was revealed
   in a luminous statement made by President Pellegrini. ... All
   business interests were stagnant. Immigration had been
   diverted to Brazil. ... All industries were prostrated except
   politics, and the pernicious activity displayed by factions
   was an evil augury for the return of prosperity. ... During
   thirty years the country has trebled its population, its
   increase being relatively much more rapid than that of the
   United States during the same period. The estimate of the
   present population [1892] is 4,000,000 in place of 1,160,000
   in 1857. ... Disastrous as the results of political government
   and financial disorder have been in the Argentine, its
   ultimate recovery by slow stages is probable. It has a
   magnificent railway system, an industrious working population
   recruited from Europe, and nearly all the material appliances
   for progress."

      _I. N. Ford. Tropical America, chapter 6._

      See CONSTITUTION, ARGENTINE.

ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: A. D. 1892.
   Presidential Election.

   Dr. Luis Saenz-Pena, former Chief Justice of the Supreme
   Court, and reputed to be a man of great integrity and ability,
   was chosen President, and inaugurated October 12, 1892.

----------ARGENTINE REPUBLIC: End----------

ARGINUSAE, Battle of.

      See GREECE: B. C. 406.

ARGONAUTIC EXPEDITION, The.

   "The ship Argo was the theme of many songs during the oldest
   periods of the Grecian Epic, even earlier than the Odyssey.
   The king Æêtês, from whom she is departing, the hero Jason,
   who commands her, and the goddess Hêrê, who watches over him,
   enabling the Argo to traverse distances and to escape dangers
   which no ship had ever before encountered, are all
   circumstances briefly glanced at by Odysseus in his narrative
   to Alkinous. ... Jason, commanded by Pelias to depart in quest
   of the golden fleece belonging to the speaking ram which had
   carried away Phryxus and Hellé, was encouraged by the oracle
   to invite the noblest youth of Greece to his aid, and fifty of
   the most distinguished amongst them obeyed the call. Hêraklês,
   Thêseus, Telamôn and Pêleus, Kastor and Pollux, Idas and
   Lynkeus--Zêtês and Kalaïs, the winged sons of
   Boreas--Meleager, Amphiaraus, Kêpheus, Laertês, Autolykus,
   Menœtius, Aktor, Erginus, Euphêmus, Ankæus, Pœas,
   Periklymenus, Augeas, Eurytus, Admêtus, Akastus, Kæneus,
   Euryalus, Pêneleôs and Lêitus, Askalaphus and Ialmenus, were
   among them. ... Since so many able men have treated it as an
   undisputed reality, and even made it the pivot of systematic
   chronological calculations, I may here repeat the opinion long
   ago expressed by Heyne, and even indicated by Burmann, that
   the process of dissecting the story, in search of a basis of
   fact, is one altogether fruitless."

      _G. Grote, History of Greece, volume 1, part 1, chapter 13._

   "In the rich cluster of myths which surround the captain of
   the Argo and his fellows are preserved to us the whole life
   and doings of the Greek maritime tribes, which gradually
   united all the coasts with one another, and attracted Hellenes
   dwelling in the most different seats into the sphere of their
   activity. ... The Argo was said to have weighed anchor from a
   variety of ports--from Iplcus in Thessaly, from Anthedon and
   Siphæ in Bœotia: the home of Jason himself was on Mount Pelion
   by the sea, and again on Lemnos and in Corinth; a clear proof
   of how homogeneous were the influences running on various
   coasts. However, the myths of the Argo were developed in the
   greatest completeness on the Pagasean gulf, in the seats of
   the Minyi; and they are the first with whom a perceptible
   movement of the Pelasgian tribes beyond the sea--in other
   words, a Greek history in Europe--begins."

      _E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 2-3._

{130}

ARGOS.--ARGOLIS.--ARGIVES.

   "No district of Greece contains so dense a succession of
   powerful citadels in a narrow space as Argolis [the eastern
   peninsular projection of the Peloponnesus]. Lofty Larissa,
   apparently designed by nature as the centre of the district,
   is succeeded by Mycenæ, deep in the recess of the land; at the
   foot of the mountain lies Midea, at the brink of the sea-coast
   Tiryns; and lastly, at a farther distance of half an hour's
   march, Nauplia, with its harbour. This succession of ancient
   fastnesses, whose indestructible structure of stone we admire
   to this day [see Schliemann's 'Mycenæ' and 'Tiryns'] is clear
   evidence of mighty conflicts which agitated the earliest days
   of Argos; and proves that in this one plain of Inachus several
   principalities must have arisen by the side of one another,
   each putting its confidence in the walls of its citadel; some,
   according to their position, maintaining an intercourse with
   other lands by sea, others rather a connection with the inland
   country. The evidence preserved by these monuments is borne
   out by that of the myths, according to which the dominion of
   Danaus is divided among his successors. Exiled Prœtus is
   brought home to Argos by Lycian bands, with whose help he
   builds the coast-fortress of Tiryns, where he holds sway as
   the first and mightiest in the land. ... The other line of the
   Danaidæ is also intimately connected with Lycia; for Perseus.
   ... [who] on his return from the East founds Mycenæ, as the
   new regal seat of the united kingdom of Argos, is himself
   essentially a Lycian hero of light, belonging to the religion
   of Apollo. ... Finally, Heracles himself is connected with the
   family of the Perseidæ, as a prince born on the Tirynthian
   fastness. ... During these divisions in the house of Danaus,
   and the misfortunes befalling that of Prœtus, foreign families
   acquire influence and dominion in Argos: these are of the race
   of Æolus, and originally belong to the harbour-country of the
   western coast of Peloponnesus--the Amythaonidæ. ... While the
   dominion of the Argive land was thus sub-divided, and the
   native warrior nobility subsequently exhausted itself in
   savage internal feuds, a new royal house succeeded in grasping
   the supreme power and giving an entirely new importance to the
   country. This house was that of the Tantalidæ [or PELOPIDS,
   which see], united with the forces of Achæan population. ...
   The residue of fact is, that the ancient dynasty, connected by
   descent with Lycia, was overthrown by the house which derived
   its origin from Lydia. ... The poetic myths, abhorring long
   rows of names, mention three princes as ruling here in
   succession, one leaving the sceptre of Pelops to the other,
   viz., Atreus, Thyestes and Agamemnon. Mycenæ is the chief seat
   of their rule, which is not restricted to the district of
   Argos."

      _E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 1, chapter 3._

   After the Doric invasion of the Peloponnesus (see GREECE: THE
   MIGRATIONS; also, DORIANS AND IONIANS), Argos appears in Greek
   history as a Doric state, originally the foremost one in power
   and influence, but humiliated after long years of rivalry by
   her Spartan neighbours. "Argos never forgot that she had once
   been the chief power in the peninsula, and her feeling towards
   Sparta was that of a jealous but impotent competitor. By what
   steps the decline of her power had taken place, we are unable
   to make out, nor can we trace the succession of her kings
   subsequent to Pheidon [8th century B. C.]. ... The title [of
   king] existed (though probably with very limited functions) at
   the time of the Persian War [B. C. 490-479]. ... There is some
   ground for presuming that the king of Argos was even at that
   time a Herakleid--since the Spartans offered to him a third
   part of the command of the Hellenic force, conjointly with
   their own two kings. The conquest of Thyreates by the Spartans
   [about 547 B. C.] deprived the Argeians of a valuable portion
   of their Periœkis, or dependent territory. But Orneæ and the
   remaining portion of Kynuria still continued to belong to
   them: the plain round their city was very productive; and,
   except Sparta, there was no other power in Peloponnesus
   superior to them. Mykenæ and Tiryns, nevertheless, seem both
   to have been independent states at the time of the Persian
   War, since both sent contingents to the battle of Platæa, at a
   time when Argos held aloof and rather favoured the Persians."

      _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 8 (volume 2)._

ARGOS: B. C. 496-421.
   Calamitous War with Sparta.
   Non-action in the Persian War.
   Slow recovery of the crippled State.

   "One of the heaviest blows which Argos ever sustained at the
   hand of her traditional foe befell her about 496 B. C., six
   years before the first Persian invasion of Greece. A war with
   Sparta having broken out, Cleomenes, the Lacedæmonian king,
   succeeded in landing a large army, in vessels he had extorted
   from the Æginetans, at Nauplia, and ravaged the Argive
   territory. The Argeians mustered all their forces to resist
   him, and the two armies encamp cd opposite each other near
   Tiryns. Cleomenes, however, contrived to attack the Argeians
   at a moment when they were unprepared, making use, if
   Herodotus is to be credited, of a stratagem which proves the
   extreme incapacity of the opposing generals, and completely
   routed them. The Argeians took refuge in a sacred grove, to
   which the remorseless Spartans set fire, and so destroyed
   almost the whole of them. No fewer than 6,000 of the citizens
   of Argos perished on this disastrous day. Cleomenes might have
   captured the city itself; but he was, or affected to be,
   hindered by unfavourable omens, and drew off his troops. The
   loss sustained by Argos was so severe as to reduce her for
   some years to a condition of great weakness; but this was at
   the time a fortunate circumstance for the Hellenic cause,
   inasmuch as it enabled the Lacedæmonians to devote their whole
   energies to the work of resistance to the Persian invasion
   without fear of enemies at home. In this great work Argos took
   no part, on the occasion of either the first or second attempt
   of the Persian kings to bring Hellas under their dominion.
   Indeed, the city was strongly suspected of 'medising'
   tendencies. In the period following the final overthrow of the
   Persians, while Athens was pursuing the splendid career of
   aggrandisement and conquest that made her the foremost state
   in Greece, and while the Lacedæmonians were paralyzed by the
   revolt of the Messenians, Argos regained strength and
   influence, which she at once employed and increased by the
   harsh policy ... of depopulating Mycenæ and Tiryns, while she
   compelled several other semi-independent places in the Argolid
   to acknowledge her supremacy. During the first eleven years of
   the Peloponnesian war, down to the peace of Nicias (421 B.
   C.), Argos held aloof from all participation in the struggle,
   adding to her wealth and perfecting her military organization.
   As to her domestic conditions and political system, little is
   known; but it is certain that the government, unlike that of
   other Dorian states, was democratic in its character, though
   there was in the city a strong oligarchic and philo-Laconian
   party, which was destined to exercise a decisive influence at
   an important crisis."

      _C. H. Hanson, The Land of Greece, chapter 10._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 36 (volume 4)._

{131}

ARGOS: B. C. 421-418.
   League formed against Sparta.
   Outbreak of War.
   Defeat at Mantinea.
   Revolution in the Oligarchical and Spartan interest.

      See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

ARGOS: B. C. 395-387.
   Confederacy against Sparta.
   The Corinthian War.
   Peace of Antalcidas.

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

ARGOS: B. C. 371.
   Mob outbreak and massacre of chief citizens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

ARGOS: B. C. 338.
   Territories restored by Philip of Macedon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

ARGOS: B. C. 271.
   Repulse and death of Pyrrhus, king of Epirus.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 277-244.

ARGOS: B. C. 229.
   Liberated from Macedonian control.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

ARGOS: A. D. 267.--Ravaged by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

ARGOS: A. D. 395.--Plundered by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 395.

ARGOS: A. D. 1463.
   Taken by the Turks, retaken by the Venetians.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

ARGOS: A. D. 1686.--Taken by the Venetians.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

----------ARGOS: End----------

ARGYRASPIDES, The.

   "He [Alexander the Great] then marched into India, that he
   might have his empire bounded by the ocean, and the extreme
   parts of the East. That the equipments of his army might be
   suitable to the glory of the Expedition, he mounted the
   trappings of the horses and the arms of the soldiers with
   silver, and called a body of his men, from having silver
   shields, Argyraspides."

      _Justin, History (translated by J. S. Watson),
      book 12, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 58._

      See, also, MACEDONIA: B. C. 323-316.

ARGYRE.

      See CHRYSE.

ARIA.--AREIOS.--AREIANS.

   The name by which the Herirud and its valley, the district of
   modern Herat, was known to the ancient Greeks. Its inhabitants
   were known as the Areians.

      _M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 7, chapter 1._

ARIANA.

   "Strabo uses the name Ariana for the land of all the nations
   of Iran, except that of the Medes and Persians, i. e., for the
   whole eastern half of Iran."--Afghanistan and Beloochistan.

      _M. Duncker, History of Antiquity,
      volume 5, book 7, chapter 1._

ARIANISM.--ARIANS.

   From the second century of its existence, the Christian church
   was divided by bitter controversies touching the mystery of
   the Trinity. "The word Trinity is found neither in the Holy
   Scriptures nor in the writings of the first Christians; but it
   had been employed from the beginning of the second century,
   when a more metaphysical turn had been given to the minds of
   men, and theologians had begun to attempt to explain the
   divine nature. ... The Founder of the new religion, the Being
   who had brought upon earth a divine light, was he God, was he
   man, was he of an intermediate nature, and, though superior to
   all other created beings, yet himself created? This latter
   opinion was held by Arius, an Alexandrian priest, who
   maintained it in a series of learned controversial works
   between the years 318 and 325. As soon as the discussion had
   quitted the walls of the schools, and been taken up by the
   people, mutual accusations of the gravest kind took the place
   of metaphysical subtleties. The orthodox party reproached the
   Arians with blaspheming the deity himself, by refusing to
   acknowledge him in the person of Christ. The Arians accused
   the orthodox of violating the fundamental law of religion; by
   rendering to the creature the worship due only to the Creator.
   ... It was difficult to decide which numbered the largest body
   of followers; but the ardent enthusiastic spirits, the
   populace in all the great cities (and especially at
   Alexandria) the women, and the newly-founded order of the
   monks of the desert ... were almost without exception
   partisans of the faith which has since been declared orthodox.
   ... Constantine thought this question of dogma might be
   decided by an assembly of the whole church. In the year 325,
   he convoked the council of Nice [see NICÆA, COUNCIL OF], at
   which 300 bishops pronounced in favour of the equality of the
   Son with the Father, or the doctrine generally regarded as
   orthodox, and condemned the Arians to exile and their books to
   the flames."

      _J. C. L. de Sismondi, Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 4._

   "The victorious faction [at the Council of Nice] ... anxiously
   sought for some irreconcilable mark of distinction, the
   rejection of which might involve the Arians in the guilt and
   consequences of heresy. A letter was publicly read and
   ignominiously torn, in which their patron, Eusebius of
   Nicomedia, ingeniously confessed that the admission of the
   homoousion, or consubstantial, a word already familiar to the
   Platonists, was incompatible with the principles of their
   theological system. The fortunate opportunity was eagerly
   embraced. ... The consubstantiality of the Father and the Son
   was established by the Council of Nice, and has been
   unanimously received as a fundamental article of the Christian
   faith by the consent of the Greek, the Latin, the Oriental and
   the Protestant churches." Notwithstanding the decision of the
   Council of Nice against it, the heresy of Arius continued to
   gain ground in the East. Even the Emperor Constantine became
   friendly to it, and the sons of Constantine, with some of the
   later emperors who followed them on the eastern throne, were
   ardent Arians in belief. The Homoousians, or orthodox, were
   subjected to persecution, which was directed with special
   bitterness against their great leader, Athanasius, the famous
   bishop of Alexandria. But Arianism was weakened by
   hair-splitting distinctions, which resulted in many diverging
   creeds. "The sect which asserted the doctrine of a 'similar
   substance' was the most numerous, at least in the provinces of
   Asia. ... The Greek word which was chosen to express this
   mysterious resemblance bears so close an affinity to the
   orthodox symbol, that the profane of every age have derided
   the furious contests which the difference of a single
   diphthong excited between the Homoousians and the
   Homoiousians."
{132}
   The Latin churches of the West, with Rome at their head,
   remained generally firm in the orthodoxy of the Homoousian
   creed. But the Goths, who had received their Christianity from
   the East, tinctured with Arianism, carried that heresy
   westward, and spread it among their barbarian neighbors--
   Vandals, Burgundians and Sueves--through the influence of the
   Gothic Bible of Ulfilas, which he and his missionary
   successors bore to the Teutonic peoples. "The Vandals and
   Ostrogoths persevered in the profession of Arianism till the
   final ruin [A. D. 533 and 553] of the kingdoms which they had
   founded in Africa and Italy. The barbarians of Gaul submitted
   [A. D. 507] to the orthodox dominion of the Franks: and Spain
   was restored to the Catholic Church by the voluntary
   conversion of the Visigoths [A. D. 589]."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
	  chapters 21 and 37.

   Theodosius formally proclaimed his adhesion to Trinitarian
   orthodoxy by his celebrated edict of A. D. 380, and commanded
   its acceptance in the Eastern Empire.

      See ROME: A. D. 379-395.

      _A. Neander, General History of Christian. Religion
      and Church, translated by Torry, volume 2, section 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. Alzog, Manual of Univ. Ch. History, section 110-114._

      _W. G. T. Shedd, History of Christian Doctrine, book 3._

      _J. H. Newman, Arians of the Fourth Century._

      _A. P. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the
      Eastern Church, lectures 3-7._

      _J. A. Dorner, History of the Development of the Doctrine
      of the Person of Christ, division 1 (volume 2)._

      See, also,
      GOTHS: A. D. 341-381;
      FRANKS: A. D. 481-511;
      also, GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 507-509.

ARICA, Battle of (1880).

      See CHILE: A. D. 1833-1884.

ARICIA, Battle of.

   A victory won by the Romans over the Auruncians, B. C. 497,
   which summarily ended a war that the latter had declared
   against the former.

      _Livy, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 26._

ARICIAN GROVE, The.

   The sacred grove at Aricia (one of the towns of old Latium,
   near Alba Longa) was the center and meeting-place of an early
   league among the Latin peoples, about which little is known.

      _W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 2, chapter 3._

      _Sir. W. Gell, Topography of Rome, volume 1._

   "On the northern shore of the lake [of Nemi] right under the
   precipitous cliffs on which the modern village of Nemi is
   perched, stood the sacred grove and sanctuary of Diana
   Nemorensis, or Diana of the Wood. ... The site was excavated
   in 1885 by Sir John Saville Lumley, English ambassador at
   Rome. For a general description of the site and excavations,
   see the _Athenæum_, 10th October, 1885. For details of
   the finds see _'Bulletino dell' Instituto di Corrispondenza
   Archeologica,' 1885_.--The lake and the grove were
   sometimes known as the lake and grove of Aricia. But the town
   of Aricia (the modern La Riccia) was situated about three
   miles off, at the foot of the Alban Mount. ... According to
   one story, the worship of Diana at Nemi was instituted by
   Orestes, who, after killing Thoas, King of the Tauric
   Chersonese (the Crimea), fled with his sister to Italy,
   bringing with him the image of the Tauric Diana. ... Within
   the sanctuary at Nemi grew a certain tree, of which no branch
   might be broken. Only a runaway slave was allowed to break
   off, if he could, one of its boughs. Success in the attempt
   entitled him to fight the priest in single combat, and if he
   slew him he reigned in his stead with the title of King of the
   Wood (Rex Nemorensis). Tradition averred that the fateful
   branch was that Golden Bough which, at the Sibyl's bidding,
   Æneas plucked before he essayed the perilous journey to the
   world of the dead. ... This rule of succession by the sword
   was observed down to imperial times; for amongst his other
   freaks Caligula, thinking that the priest of Nemi had held
   office too long, hired a more stalwart ruffian to slay him."

      _J. G. Frazer, The Golden Bough, chapter 1, section 1._

ARICONIUM.
   A town of Roman Britain which appears to have been the
   principal mart of the iron manufacturing industry in the
   Forest of Dean.

      _T. Wright, The Celt, the Roman and the Saxon,
      page 161._


ARII, The.

      See LYGIANS.

ARIKARAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PAWNEE (CADDOAN) FAMILY.

ARIMINUM.

   The Roman colony, planted in the third century B. C., which
   grew into the modern city of Rimini. See ROME: B. C.
   295-191.--When Cæsar entered Italy as an invader, crossing the
   frontier of Cisalpine Gaul--the Rubicon--his first movement
   was to occupy Ariminum. He halted there for two or three
   weeks, making his preparations for the civil war which he had
   now entered upon and waiting for the two legions that he had
   ordered from Gaul.

      _C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 14._

ARIOVALDUS, King of the Lombards, A. D. 626-638.

ARISTEIDES, Ascendancy of.

      See ATHENS: B. C. 477-462.

ARISTOCRACY.--OLIGARCHY.

   "Aristocracy signifies the rule of the best men. If, however,
   this epithet is referred to an absolute ideal standard of
   excellence, it is manifest that an aristocratical government
   is a mere abstract notion, which has nothing in history, or in
   nature, to correspond to it. But if we content ourselves with
   taking the same terms in a relative sense, ... aristocracy ...
   will be that form of government in which the ruling few are
   distinguished from the multitude by illustrious birth,
   hereditary wealth, and personal merit. ... Whenever such a
   change took place in the character or the relative position of
   the ruling body, that it no longer commanded the respect of
   its subjects, but found itself opposed to them, and compelled
   to direct its measures chiefly to the preservation of its
   power, it ceased to be, in the Greek sense an aristocracy; it
   became a faction, an oligarchy."

      _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 10._

ARISTOMNEAN WAR.

      See MESSENIAN WARS, FIRST AND SECOND.

ARIZONA: The Name.

   "Arizona, probably Arizonac in its original form, was the
   native and probably Pima name of the place of a hill, valley,
   stream, or some other local feature--just south of the modern
   boundary, in the mountains still so called, on the head waters
   of the stream flowing past Saric, where the famous Planchas de
   Plata mine was discovered in the middle of the 18th century,
   the name being first known to Spaniards in that connection and
   being applied to the mining camp or real de minas. The
   aboriginal meaning of the term is not known, though from the
   common occurrence in this region of the prefix 'ari,' the root
   'son,' and the termination 'ac,' the derivation ought not to
   escape the research of a competent student. Such guesses as
   are extant, founded on the native tongues, offer only the
   barest possibility of a partial and accidental accuracy; while
   similar derivations from the Spanish are extremely absurd. ...
   The name should properly be written and pronounced Arisona, as
   our English sound of the z does not occur in Spanish."

      _H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States,
      volume 12, page 520._

{133}

ARIZONA:
   Aboriginal Inhabitants.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: PUEBLOS, APACHE GROUP, SHOSHONEAN
      FAMILY, AND UTAHS.

ARIZONA: A. D. 1848.
   Partial acquisition from Mexico.

      See MEXICO: A. D. 1848.

ARIZONA: A. D. 1853.
   Purchase by the United States of the southern part from Mexico.
   The Gadsden Treaty.

   "On December 30, 1853, James Gadsden, United States minister
   to Mexico, concluded a treaty by which the boundary line was
   moved southward so as to give the United States, for a
   monetary consideration of $10,000,000, all of modern Arizona
   south of the Gila, an effort so to fix the line as to include
   a port on the gulf being unsuccessful. ... On the face of the
   matter this Gadsden treaty was a tolerably satisfactory
   settlement of a boundary dispute, and a purchase by the United
   States of a route for a southern railroad to California."

      _H. H. Bancroft, History of the Pacific States, volume 12,
      chapter 20._

----------ARIZONA: End----------

ARKANSAS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1542
   Entered by Hernando de Soto.

      See FLORIDA: A. D. 1528-1542.

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1803.
   Embraced in the Louisiana Purchase.

      See LOUISIANA: A. D. 1798-1803.

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1819-1836.
   Detached from Missouri.
   Organized as a Territory.
   Admitted as a State.

   "Preparatory to the assumption of state government, the limits
   of the Missouri Territory were restricted on the south by the
   parallel of 36° 30' North. The restriction was made by an act
   of Congress, approved March 3, 1819, entitled an 'Act
   establishing a separate territorial government in the southern
   portion of the Missouri Territory.' The portion thus separated
   was subsequently organized into the second grade of territorial
   government, and Colonel James Miller, a meritorious and
   distinguished officer of the Northwestern army, was appointed
   first governor. This territory was known as the Arkansas
   Territory, and, at the period of its first organization,
   contained an aggregate of nearly 14,000 inhabitants. Its
   limits comprised all the territory on the west side of the
   Mississippi between the parallels 33° and 36° 30', or between
   the northern limit of Louisiana and the southern boundary of
   the State of Missouri. On the west it extended indefinitely to
   the Mexican territories, at least 550 miles. The Post of
   Arkansas was made the seat of the new government. The
   population of this extensive territory for several years was
   comprised chiefly in the settlements upon the tributaries of
   White River and the St. Francis; upon the Mississippi, between
   New Madrid and Point Chicot; and upon both sides of the
   Arkansas River, within 100 miles of its mouth, but especially
   in the vicinity of the Post of Arkansas. ... So feeble was the
   attraction in this remote region for the active, industrious,
   and well-disposed portion of the western pioneers, that the
   Arkansas Territory, in 1830, ten years after its organization,
   had acquired an aggregate of only 30,388 souls, including
   4,576 slaves. ... The western half of the territory had been
   erected, in 1824, into a separate district, to be reserved for
   the future residence of the Indian tribes, and to be known as
   the Indian Territory. From this time the tide of emigration
   began to set more actively into Arkansas, as well as into
   other portions of the southwest. ... The territory increased
   rapidly for several years, and the census of 1835 gave the
   whole number of inhabitants at 58,134 souls, including 9,630
   slaves. Thus the Arkansas Territory in the last five years had
   doubled its population. ... The people, through the General
   Assembly, made application to Congress for authority to
   establish a regular form of state government. The assent of
   Congress was not withheld, and a Convention was authorized to
   meet at Little Rock on the first day of January, 1836, for the
   purpose of forming and adopting a State Constitution. The same
   was approved by Congress, and on the 13th of June following
   the State of Arkansas was admitted into the Federal Union as
   an independent state, and was, in point of time and order, the
   twenty-fifth in the confederacy. ... Like the Missouri
   Territory, Arkansas had been a slaveholding country from the
   earliest French colonies. Of course, the institution of negro
   slavery, with proper checks and limits, was sustained by the
   new Constitution."

      _J. W. Monette, Discovery and Settlement of the Valley of
      the Mississippi, book 5, chapter 17 (volume 2)._

      See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1818-1821.

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1861 (March).
   Secession voted down.

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

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1861 (April).
   Governor Rector's reply to President Lincoln's call for
   troops.

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

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1862 (January-March).
   Advance of National forces into the State.
   Battle of Pea Ridge.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1862
      (JANUARY-MARCH: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1862 (July-September).
   Progress of the Civil War.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1862 (JULY-SEPTEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

ARKANSAS: A. D.1862(December).
   The Battle of Prairie Grove.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
      1862 (SEPTEMBER-DECEMBER: MISSOURI-ARKANSAS).

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (January).
   The capture of Arkansas Post from the Confederates.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863 (JANUARY: ARKANSAS).

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (July).
   The defence of Helena.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
      (JULY: ON THE MISSISSIPPI).

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1863 (August-October).
   The breaking of Confederate authority.
   Occupation of Little Rock by National forces.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863
      (AUGUST-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-Missouri).

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1864 (March-October).
   Last important operations of the War.
   Price's Raid.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (MARCH-OCTOBER: ARKANSAS-MISSOURI).

{134}

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1864.
   First steps toward Reconstruction.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1863-1864 (DECEMBER-JULY).

ARKANSAS: A. D. 1865-1868.
   Reconstruction completed.

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

----------ARKANSAS: End----------

ARKITES, The.

   A Canaanite tribe who occupied the plain north of Lebanon.

ARKWRIGHT'S SPINNING MACHINE, OR WATER-FRAME, The invention of.

      See COTTON MANUFACTURE.

ARLES: Origin.

      See SALVES.

ARLES: A. D. 411.--Double siege.

      See BRITAIN: A. D. 407.

ARLES: A. D. 425.--Besieged by the Goths.

      See GOTHS (VISIGOTHS): A. D. 419-451.

ARLES: A. D. 508-510.
   Siege by the Franks.

   After the overthrow of the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse, A.
   D. 507, by the victory of Clovis, king of the Franks, at
   Voclad, near Poitiers, "the great city of Aries, once the
   Roman capital of Gaul, maintained a gallant defence against
   the united Franks and Burgundians, and saved for generations
   the Visigothic rule in Provence and southern Languedoc. Of the
   siege, which lasted apparently from 508 to 510, we have some
   graphic details in the life of St. Cæsarius, Bishop of Aries,
   written by his disciples." The city was relieved in 510 by an
   Ostrogothic army, sent by king Theodoric of Italy, after a
   great battle in which 30,000 Franks were reported to be slain.
   "The result of the battle of Aries was to put Theodoric in
   secure possession of all Provence and of so much of Languedoc
   as was needful to ensure his access to Spain"--where the
   Ostrogothic king, as guardian of his infant grandson,
   Amalaric, was taking care of the Visigothic kingdom.

      _T. Hodgkin, Italy and Her Invaders, book 4, chapter 9._

ARLES: A. D. 933.
   Formation of the kingdom.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 843-933.

ARLES: A. D. 1032-1378.
   The breaking up of the kingdom and its gradual absorption in
   France.

      See BURGUNDY: A. D. 1032, and 1127-1378.

ARLES: 1092-1207.
   The gay court of Provence.

      See PROVENCE: A. D. 943-1092, and 1179-1207.

----------ARLES: End----------

ARMADA, The Spanish.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1588.

ARMAGEDDON.

      See MEGIDDO.

ARMAGH, St. Patrick's School at.

      See IRELAND: 5th to 8th CENTURIES.

ARMAGNAC, The counts of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1327.

ARMAGNACS.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415, and 1415-1419.

ARMENIA:

   "Almost immediately to the west of the Caspian there rises a
   high table-land diversified by mountains, which stretches
   eastward for more than eighteen degrees, between the 37th and
   41st parallels. This highland may properly be regarded as a
   continuation of the great Iranean plateau, with which it is
   connected at its southeastern corner. It comprises a portion
   of the modern Persia, the whole of Armenia, and most of Asia
   Minor. Its principal mountain ranges are latitudinal, or from
   west to east, only the minor ones taking the opposite or
   longitudinal direction. ... The heart of the mountain-region,
   the tract extending from the district of Erivan on the east to
   the upper course of the Kizil·Irmak river and the vicinity of
   Sivas upon the west, was, as it still is, Armenia. Amidst
   these natural fastnesses, in a country of lofty ridges, deep
   and narrow valleys, numerous and copious streams, and
   occasional broad plains--a country of rich pasture grounds,
   productive orchards, and abundant harvests--this interesting
   people has maintained itself almost unchanged from the time of
   the early Persian kings to the present day. Armenia was one of
   the most valuable portions of the Persian empire, furnishing,
   as it did, besides stone and timber, and several most
   important minerals, an annual supply of 20,000 excellent
   horses to the stud of the Persian king."

      _G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Persia, chapter 1._

   Before the Persians established their sovereignty over the
   country, "it seems certain that from one quarter or another
   Armenia had been Arianized; the old Turanian character had
   passed away from it; immigrants had flocked in and a new
   people had been formed--the real Armenians of later times,
   and indeed of the present day." Submitting to Alexander, on
   the overthrow of the Persian monarchy, Armenia fell afterwards
   under the yoke of the Seleucidæ, but gained independence about
   190 B. C., or earlier. Under the influence of Parthia, a
   branch of the Parthian royal family, the Arsacids, was
   subsequently placed on the throne and a dynasty established
   which reigned for nearly six hundred years. The fourth of
   these kings, Tigranes, who occupied the throne in the earlier
   part of the last century B. C., placed Armenia in the front
   rank of Asiatic kingdoms and in powerful rivalry with Parthia.
   Its subsequent history is one of many wars and invasions and
   much buffeting between Romans, Parthians, Persians, and their
   successors in the conflicts of the eastern world. The part of
   Armenia west of the Euphrates was called by the Romans Armenia
   Minor. For a short period after the revolt from the Seleucid
   monarchy, it formed a distinct kingdom called Sophene.

      _G. Rawlinson, Sixth and Seventh Great Oriental
      Monarchies._

ARMENIA: B. C. 69-68.
   War with the Romans.
   Great defeat at Tigranocerta
   Submission to Rome.

      See ROME: B. C. 78-68, and 69-63.

ARMENIA: A. D. 115-117.

   Annexed to the Roman Empire by Trajan and restored to
   independence by Hadrian.

      See ROME: A. D. 96-138.

ARMENIA: A. D. 422 (?).
   Persian Conquest.
   Becomes the satrapy of Persarmenia.

      See PERSIA: A. D. 226-627.

ARMENIA: A. D. 1016-1073.
   Conquest and devastation by the Seljuk Turks.

      See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1004-1063, and 1063-1073.

ARMENIA: 12th-14th Centuries.
   The Mediæval Christian Kingdom.

   "The last decade of the 12th century saw the establishment of
   two small Christian kingdoms in the Levant, which long
   outlived all other relics of the Crusades except the military
   orders; and which, with very little help from the West,
   sustained a hazardous existence in complete contrast with
   almost everything around them. The kingdoms of Cyprus and
   Armenia have a history very closely intertwined, but their
   origin and most of their circumstances were very different. By
   Armenia as a kingdom is meant little more than the ancient
   Cilicia, the land between Taurus and the sea, from the
   frontier of the principality of Antioch, eastward, to
   Kelenderis or Palæopolis, a little beyond Seleucia; this
   territory, which was computed to contain 16 days' journey in
   length, measured from four miles of Antioch, by two in
   breadth, was separated from the Greater Armenia, which before
   the period on which we are now employed had fallen under the
   sway of the Seljuks, by the ridges of Taurus.
{135}
   The population was composed largely of the sweepings of Asia
   Minor, Christian tribes which had taken refuge in the
   mountains. Their religion was partly Greek, partly Armenian.
   ... Their rulers were princes descended from the house of the
   Bagratidæ, who had governed the Greater Armenia as kings from
   the year 885 to the reign of Constantine of Monomachus, and
   had then merged their hazardous independence in the mass of
   the Greek Empire. After the seizure of Asia Minor by the
   Seljuks, the few of the Bagratidæ who had retained possession
   of the mountain fastnesses of Cilicia or the strongholds of
   Mesopotamia, acted as independent lords, showing little
   respect for Byzantium save where there was something to be
   gained. ... Rupin of the Mountain was prince [of Cilicia] at
   the time of the capture of Jerusalem by Saladin; he died in
   1189, and his successor, Leo, or Livon, after having
   successfully courted the favour of pope and emperor, was
   recognised as king of Armenia by the emperor Henry VI., and
   was crowned by Conrad of Wittelsbach, Archbishop of Mainz, in
   1198." The dynasty ended with Leo IV., whose "whole reign was
   a continued struggle against the Moslems," and who was
   assassinated about 1342. "The five remaining kings of Armenia
   sprang from a branch of the Cypriot house of Lusignan [see
   CYPRUS: A. D. 1192-1489] and were little more than Latin
   exiles in the midst of several strange populations all alike
   hostile."

      _William Stubbs, Lectures on the Study of Mediæval and Modern
      History, lecture 8._

ARMENIA: A. D. 1623-1635.
   Subjugated by Persia and regained by the Turks,

      See TURKS: A. D. 1623-1640.

----------ARMENIA: End----------

ARMENIAN CHURCH, The.

   The church of the Armenians is "the oldest of all national
   churches. They were converted by St. Gregory, called 'The
   Illuminator,' who was a relative of Dertad or Tiridates, their
   prince, and had been forced to leave the country at the same
   time with him, and settled at Cæsareia in Cappadocia, where he
   was initiated into the Christian faith. When they returned,
   both prince and people embraced the Gospel through the
   preaching of Gregory, A. D. 276, and thus presented the first
   instance of an entire nation becoming Christian. ... By an
   accident they were unrepresented at [the Council of] Chalcedon
   [A. D. 451], and, owing to the poverty of their language in
   words serviceable for the purposes of theology, they had at
   that time but one word for Nature and Person, in consequence
   of which they misunderstood the decision of that council [that
   Christ possessed two natures, divine and human, in one Person]
   with sufficient clearness. ... It was not until eighty-four
   years had elapsed that they finally adopted Eutychianism [the
   doctrine that the divinity is the sole nature in Christ], and
   an anathema was pronounced on the Chalcedonian decrees (536)."

      _H. F. Tozer, The Church and the Eastern Empire, chapter 5._

   "The religion of Armenia could not derive much glory from the
   learning or the power of its inhabitants. The royalty expired
   with the origin of their schism; and their Christian kings,
   who arose and fell in the 13th century on the confines of
   Cilicia, were the clients of the Latins and the vassals of the
   Turkish sultan of Iconium, The helpless nation has seldom been
   permitted to enjoy the tranquility of servitude. From the
   earliest period to the present hour, Armenia has been the
   theatre of perpetual war; the lands between Tauris and Erivan
   were dispeopled by the cruel policy of the Sophis; and myriads
   of Christian families were transplanted, to perish or to
   propagate in the distant provinces of Persia. Under the rod of
   oppression, the zeal of the Armenians is fervent and intrepid;
   they have often preferred the crown of martyrdom to the white
   turban of Mahomet; they devoutly hate the error and idolatry
   of the Greeks."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 47.

ARMINIANISM.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1603-1619.

ARMINIUS, The Deliverance of Germany by.

      See GERMANY: B. C. 8--A. D. 11.

ARMORIAL BEARINGS, Origin of.

   "As to armorial bearings, there is no doubt that emblems
   somewhat similar have been immemorially used both in war and
   peace. The shields of ancient warriors, and devices upon coins
   or seals, bear no distant resemblance to modern blazonry. But
   the general introduction of such bearings, as hereditary
   distinctions, has been sometimes attributed to tournaments,
   wherein the champions were distinguished by fanciful devices;
   sometimes to the crusades, where a multitude of all nations
   and languages stood in need of some visible token to denote
   the banners of their respective chiefs. In fact, the peculiar
   symbols of heraldry point to both these sources and have been
   borrowed in part from each. Hereditary arms were perhaps
   scarcely used by private families before the beginning of the
   thirteenth century. From that time, however, they became very
   general."

      _H. Hallam, The Middle Ages, chapter 2, part 2._

ARMORICA.

   The peninsular projection of the coast of Gaul between the
   mouths of the Seine and the Loire, embracing modern Brittany,
   and a great part of Normandy, was known to the Romans as
   Armorica. The most important of the Armorican tribes in
   Cæsar's time was that of the Veneti. "In the fourth and fifth
   centuries, the northern coast from the Loire to the frontier
   of the Netherlands was called 'Tractus Aremoricus,' or
   Aremorica, which in Celtic signifies 'maritime country.' The
   commotions of the third century, which continued to increase
   during the fourth and fifth, repeatedly drove the Romans from
   that country. French antiquaries imagine that it was a
   regularly constituted Gallic republic, of which Chlovis had
   the protectorate, but this is wrong."

      _B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient Ethnography and
      Geography, volume 2, page 318._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
      volume 2, page 235._

      See, also, VENETI OF WESTERN GAUL, and IBERIANS, THE WESTERN.

ARMSTRONG, General John, and the Newburgh Addresses.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1782-1783.

ARMSTRONG, General John: Secretary of War.
   Plan of descent on Montreal.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER).

ARMY, The Legal Creation of the British.

      See MUTINY ACTS.

ARMY PURCHASE, Abolition of.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1871.

ARNÆANS, The.

      See GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS.

{136}

ARNAULD, Jacqueline Marie, and the Monastery of Port Royal.

      See PORT ROYAL and the JANSENISTS: A. D. 1602-1660.

ARNAUTS, The.

      See ALBANIANS, MEDIÆVAL.

ARNAY-LE-DUC, Battle of (1570).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1563-1570.

ARNOLD, Benedict, and the American Revolution.

      See CANADA: A. D. 1775-1776;
      and UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775 (MAY);
      1777 (JULY-OCTOBER); 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER);
      1780-1781; 1781 (JANUARY-MAY); 1781 (MAY-OCTOBER).

ARNOLD OF BRESCIA, The Republic of.

      See ROME: A. D. 1145-1155.

ARNOLD VON WINKELRIED, at the Battle of Sempach.

      See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

ARNULF,
   King of the East Franks (Germany), A. D. 888-899;
   King of Italy and Emperor, A. D. 894-899.

AROGI, Battle of (1868).

      See ABYSSINIA: A. D. 1854-1889.

ARPAD, Dynasty of.

      See HUNGARIANS: RAVAGES IN EUROPE;
      and HUNGARY: A. D. 972-1114; 1114-1301.

ARPAD, Siege of.

   Conducted by the Assyrian Conqueror Tiglath-Pileser, beginning
   B. C. 742 and lasting two years. The fall of the city brought
   with it the submission of all northern Syria.

      _A. H. Sayce, Assyria, chapter 2._

ARQUES, Battles at (1589).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1589-1590.

ARRABIATI, The.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1490-1498.

ARRAPACHITIS.

      See JEWS: THE EARLY HEBREW HISTORY.

ARRAPAHOES, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ALGONQUIAN FAMILY.

ARRAS: Origin.

      See BELGÆ.

ARRAS: A.. D. 1583.
   Submission to Spain.

      See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1584-1585.

ARRAS: A. D. 1654.
   Unsuccessful Siege by the Spaniards under Condé.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1653-1656.

----------ARRAS: End----------

ARRAS, Treaties of (1415 and 1435).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1380-1415, and 1431-1453.

ARRETIUM, Battle of (B. C. 285).

      See ROME: B. C. 295-191.

ARROW HEADED WRITING.

      See CUNEIFORM WRITING.

ARSACIDÆ, The.

   The dynasty of Parthian kings were so called, from the founder
   of the line, Arsaces, who led the revolt of Parthia from the
   rule of the Syrian Seleucidæ and raised himself to the throne.
   According to some ancient writers Arsaces was a Bactrian;
   according to others a Scythian.

      _G. Rawlinson, Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 3._

ARSEN.

   In one of the earlier raids of the Seljukian Turks into
   Armenia, in the eleventh century the city of Arsen was
   destroyed. "It had long been the great city of Eastern Asia
   Minor, the centre of Asiatic trade, the depot for merchandise
   transmitted overland from Persia and India to the Eastern
   Empire and Europe generally. It was full of warehouses
   belonging to Armenians and Syrians and is said to have
   contained 800 churches and 300,000 people. Having failed to
   capture the city, Togrul's general succeeded in burning it.
   The destruction of so much wealth struck a fatal blow at
   Armenian commerce."

      _E. Pears, The Fall of Constantinople, chapter 2._

ARSENE, Lake.

   An ancient name of the Lake of Van, which is also called
   Thopitis by Strabo.

      _E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 22. section 1._

ARTABA, The.

      See EPHAH.

ARTAXATA.

   The ancient capital of Armenia, said to have been built under
   the superintendence of Hannibal, while a refugee in Armenia.
   At a later time it was called Neronia, in honor of the Roman
   Emperor Nero.

ARTAXERXES LONGIMANUS, King of Persia, B. C. 465-425.
ARTAXERXES MNEMON, King of Persia, B. C. 405-359.
ARTAXERXES OCHUS, King of Persia, B. C. 359-338.
ARTAXERXES, or ARDSHIR, Founder of the Sassanian monarchy.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 150-A. D. 226.

ARTEMISIUM, Sea fights at.

      See GREECE: B. C. 480.

ARTEMITA.

      See DASTAGERD.

ARTEVELD, Jacques and Philip Van:
   Their rise and fall in Ghent.

      See FLANDERS: A. D. 1335-1337, to 1382.

ARTHUR, King, and the Knights of the Round Table.

   "On the difficult question, whether there was a historical
   Arthur or not, ... a word or two must now be devoted; ... and
   here one has to notice in the first place that Welsh
   literature never calls Arthur a gwledig or prince but emperor,
   and it may be inferred that his historical position, in case
   he had such a position, was that of one filling, after the
   departure of the Romans, the office which under them was that
   of the Comes Britanniæ or Count of Britain. The officer so
   called had a roving commission to defend the Province wherever
   his presence might be called for. The other military captains
   here were the Dux Britanniarum, who had charge of the forces
   in the north and especially on the Wall, and the Comes
   Littoris Saxonici [Count of the Saxon Shore], who was
   entrusted with the defence of the south-eastern coast of the
   island. The successors of both these captains seem to have
   been called in Welsh gwledigs or princes. So Arthur's
   suggested position as Comes Britanniæ would be in a sense
   superior to theirs, which harmonizes with his being called
   emperor and not gwledig. The Welsh have borrowed the Latin
   title of imperator, 'emperor,' and made it into 'amherawdyr,'
   later 'amherawdwr,' so it is not impossible, that when the
   Roman imperator ceased to have anything more to say to this
   country, the title was given to the highest officer in the
   island, namely the Comes Britanniæ, and that in the words 'Yr
   Amherawdyr Arthur,' 'the Emperor Arthur,' we have a remnant of
   our insular history. If this view be correct, it might be
   regarded as something more than an accident that Arthur's
   position relatively to that of the other Brythonic princes of
   his time is exactly given by Nennius, or whoever it was that
   wrote the _Historia Brittonum_ ascribed to him: there
   Arthur is represented fighting in company with the kings of
   the Brythons in defence of their common country, he being
   their leader in war. If, as has sometimes been argued, the
   uncle of Maglocunus or Maelgwn, whom the latter is accused by
   Gilda of having slain and superseded, was no other than
   Arthur, it would supply one reason why that writer called
   Maelgwn 'insularis draco,' 'the dragon or war-captain of the
   island,' and why the latter and his successors after him were
   called by the Welsh not gwledigs but kings, though their great
   ancestor Cuneda was only a gwledig.
{137}
   On the other hand the way in which Gildas alludes to the uncle
   of Maelgwn without even giving his name, would seem to suggest
   that in his estimation at least he was no more illustrious
   than his predecessors in the position which he held, whatever
   that may have been. How then did Arthur become famous above
   them, and how came he to be the subject of so much story and
   romance? The answer, in short, which one has to give to this
   hard question must be to the effect, that besides a historic
   Arthur there was a Brythonic divinity named Arthur, after whom
   the man may have been called, or with whose name his, in case
   it was of a different origin, may have become identical in
   sound owing to an accident of speech; for both explanations
   are possible, as we shall attempt to show later. Leaving aside
   for a while the man Arthur, and assuming the existence of a
   god of that name, let us see what could be made of him.
   Mythologically speaking he would probably have to be regarded
   as a Culture Hero; for, a model king and the institutor of the
   Knighthood of the Round Table, he is represented as the leader
   of expeditions to the isles of Hades, and as one who stood in
   somewhat the same kind of relation to Gwalchmei as Gwydion did
   to ILeu. It is needless here to dwell on the character usually
   given to Arthur as a ruler: he with his knights around him may
   be compared to Conehobar, in the midst of the Champions of
   Emain Macha, or Woden among the Anses at Valhalla, while
   Arthur's Knights are called those of the Round Table, around
   which they are described sitting; and it would be interesting
   to understand the signification of the term Round Table. On
   the whole it is the table, probably, and not its roundness
   that is the fact to which to call attention, as it possibly
   means that Arthur's court was the first early court where
   those present sat at a table at all in Britain. No such thing
   as a common table figures at Conchobar's court or any other
   described in the old legends of Ireland, and the same applies,
   we believe, to those of the old Norsemen. The attribution to
   Arthur of the first use of a common table would fit in well
   with the character of a Culture Hero which we have ventured to
   ascribe to him, and it derives countenance from the pretended
   history of the Round Table; for the Arthurian legend traces it
   back to Arthur's father, Uthr Bendragon, in whom we have under
   one of his many names the king of Hades, the realm whence all
   culture was fabled to have been derived. In a wider sense the
   Round Table possibly signified plenty or abundance, and might
   be compared with the table of the Ethiopians, at which Zeus
   and the other gods of Greek mythology used to feast from time
   to time."

      _J. Rhys, Studies in the Arthurian Legend, chapter 1._

      See, also CUMBRIA.

ARTHUR, Chester A.
   Election to Vice-Presidency.
   Succession to the Presidency.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1880 and 1881.

ARTI OF FLORENCE.

      See FLORENCE: A. D. 1250-1293.

ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION (American).

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1777-1781, and 1783-1787.

ARTICLES OF HENRY, The.

      See POLAND: A. D. 1573.

ARTOIS, The House of.

      See BOURBON, THE HOUSE OF.

ARTOIS: A. D. 1529.
   Pretensions of the King of France to Suzerainty resigned.

      See ITALY: A. D. 1527-1529.

ARTYNI.

      See DEMIURGI.

ARVADITES, The.

   The Canaanite inhabitants of the island of Aradus, or Arvad,
   and who also held territory on the main land.

      _F. Lenormant, Manual of Ancient History,
      book 6, chapter 1._

ARVERNI, The.

      See ÆDUI;
      also, GAULS, and ALLOBROGES.

ARX, The.

      See CAPITOLINE HILL;
      also GENS, ROMAN.

ARXAMUS, Battle of.

   One of the defeats sustained by the Romans in their wars with
   the Persians. Battle fought A. D. 603.

      _G. Rawlinson, Seventh Great Oriental Monarchy, chapter 24._

ARYANS.--ARYAS.

   "This family (which is sometimes called Japhetic, or
   descendants of Japhet) includes the Hindus and Persians among
   Asiatic nations, and almost all the peoples of Europe. It may
   seem strange that we English should be related not only to the
   Germans and Dutch and Scandinavians, but to the Russians,
   French, Spanish, Romans and Greeks as well; stranger still
   that we can claim kinship with such distant peoples as the
   Persians and Hindus. ... What seems actually to have been the
   case is this: In distant ages, somewhere about the rivers Oxus
   and Jaxartes, and on the north of that mountainous range
   called the Hindoo-Koosh, dwelt the ancestors of all the
   nations we have enumerated, forming at this time a single and
   united people, simple and primitive in their way of life, but
   yet having enough of a common national life to preserve a
   common language. They called themselves Aryas or Aryans, a
   word which, in its very earliest sense, seems to have meant
   those who move upwards, or straight; and hence, probably, came
   to stand for the noble race as compared with other races on
   whom, of course, they would look down. ... As their numbers
   increased, the space wherein they dwelt became too small for
   them who had out of one formed many different peoples. Then
   began a series of migrations, in which the collection of
   tribes who spoke one language and formed one people started
   off to seek their fortune in new lands. ... First among them,
   in all probability, started the Kelts or Celts, who,
   travelling perhaps to the South of the Caspian and the North
   of the Black Sea, found their way to Europe and spread far on
   to the extreme West. ... Another of the great families who
   left the Aryan home was the Pelasgic or the Græco-Italic.
   These, journeying along first Southwards and then to the West,
   passed through Asia Minor, on to the countries of Greece and
   Italy, and in time separated into those two great peoples, the
   Greeks (or Hellenes, as they came to call themselves), and the
   Romans. ... Next we come to two other great families of
   nations who seem to have taken the same route at first, and
   perhaps began their travels together as the Greeks and Romans
   did. These are the Teutons and the Slaves. ... The word Slave
   comes from Slowan, which in old Slavonian meant to speak, and
   was given by the Slavonians to themselves as the people who
   could speak in opposition to other nations whom, as they were
   not able to understand them, they were pleased to consider as
   dumb. The Greek word barbaroi (whence our barbarians) arose in
   obedience to a like prejudice, only from an imitation of
   babbling such as is made by saying 'bar-bar-bar.'"

      _C. F. Keary, Dawn of History, chapter 4._

{138}

   The above passage sets forth the older theory of an Aryan
   family of nations as well as of languages in its unqualified
   form. Its later modifications are indicated in the following:
   "The discovery of Sanscrit and the further discovery to which
   it led, that the languages now variously known as Aryan,
   Aryanic, Indo-European, Indo-Germanic, Indo-Celtic and
   Japhetic are closely akin to one another, spread a spell over
   the world of thought which cannot be said to have yet wholly
   passed away. It was hastily argued from the kinship of their
   languages to the kinship of the nations that spoke them. ...
   The question then arises as to the home of the 'holethnos,' or
   parent tribe, before its dispersion and during the proethnic
   period, at a time when as yet there was neither Greek nor
   Hindoo, neither Celt nor Teuton, but only an undifferentiated
   Aryan. Of course, the answer at first was--where could it have
   been but in the East. And at length the glottologist found it
   necessary to shift the cradle of the Aryan race to the
   neighbourhood of the Oxus and the Jaxartes, so as to place it
   somewhere between the Caspian Sea and the Himalayas. Then
   Doctor Latham boldly raised his voice against the Asiatic
   theory altogether, and stated that he regarded the attempt to
   deduce the Aryans from Asia as resembling an attempt to derive
   the reptiles of this country from those of Ireland. Afterwards
   Benfey argued, from the presence in the vocabulary common to
   the Aryan languages of words for bear and wolf, for birch and
   beech, and the absence of certain others, such as those for
   lion, tiger and palm, that the original home of the Aryans
   must have been within the temperate zone in Europe. ... As
   might be expected in the case of such a difficult question,
   those who are inclined to believe in the European origin of
   the Aryans are by no means agreed among themselves as to the
   spot to be fixed upon. Latham placed it east, or south-east of
   Lithuania, in Podolia, or Volhynia; Benfey had in view a
   district above the Black Sea and not far from the Caspian;
   Peschel fixed on the slopes of the Caucasus; Cuno on the great
   plain of Central Europe; Fligier on the southern part of
   Russia; Pösche on the tract between the Niemen and the
   Dnieper; L. Geiger on central and western Germany; and Penka
   on Scandinavia."

      _J. Rhys, Race Theories
      (in New Princeton Review, January, 1888)._

   "Aryan, in scientific language, is utterly inapplicable to
   race. It means language, and nothing but language; and, if we
   speak of Aryan race at all, we should know that it means no
   more than X + Aryan speech. ... I have declared again and
   again that if I say Aryas, I mean neither blood nor bones, nor
   hair nor skull; I mean simply those who speak an Aryan
   language. The same applies to Hindus, Greeks, Romans, Germans,
   Celts and Slaves. ... In that sense, and in that sense only,
   do I say that even the blackest Hindus represent an earlier
   stage of Aryan speech and thought than the fairest
   Scandinavians. ... If an answer must be given as to the place
   where our Aryan ancestors dwelt before their separation,
   whether in large swarms of millions, or in a few scattered
   tents and huts, I should still say, as I said forty years ago,
   'Somewhere in Asia,' and no more."

      _F. Max Müller, Biog. of Words and Home of the Aryas,
      chapter 6._

   The theories which dispute the Asiatic origin of the Aryans
   are strongly presented by Canon Taylor in _The Origin of the
   Aryans_, by G. H. Rendall, in _The Cradle of the
   Aryans_, and by Dr. O. Schrader in _Prehistoric
   Antiquities of the Aryan Peoples._

      See, also, INDIA: THE ABORIGINAL INHABITANTS,
      and THE IMMIGRATION AND CONQUESTS OF THE ARYAS.

AS.--LIBRA.--DENARIUS.--SESTERTIUS.

   "The term _As_ [among the Romans] and the words which
   denote its divisions, were not confined to weight alone, but
   were applied to measures of length and capacity also, and in
   general to any object which could be regarded as consisting of
   twelve equal parts. Thus they were commonly used to denote
   shares into which an inheritance was divided." As a unit of
   weight the _As_, or Libra, "occupied the same position in
   the Roman system as the pound does in our own. According to
   the most accurate researches, the _As_ was equal to about
   11.8 oz. avoirdupois, or .7375 of an avoirdupois pound." It
   "was divided into 12 equal parts called unciæ, and the unciæ
   was divided into 24 equal parts called scrupula." "The
   _As_, regarded as a coin [of copper] originally weighed,
   as the name implies, one pound, and the smaller copper coins
   those fractions of the pound denoted by their names. By
   degrees; however, the weight of the _As_, regarded as a
   coin, was greatly diminished. We are told that, about the
   commencement of the first Punic war, it had fallen from 12
   ounces to 2 ounces; in the early part of the second Punic war
   (B. C. 217), it was reduced to one ounce; and not long
   afterwards, by a Lex Papiria, it was fixed at half-an-ounce,
   which remained the standard ever after." The silver coins of
   Rome were the Denarius, equivalent (after 217 B. C.) to 16
   Asses; the Quinarius and the Sestertius, which became,
   respectively, one half and one fourth of the Denarius in
   value. The Sestertius, at the close of the Republic, is.
   estimated to have been equivalent in value to two pence
   sterling of English money. The coinage was debased under the
   Empire. The principal gold coin of the Empire was the Denarius
   Aureus, which passed for 25 silver Denarii.

      _W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity, chapter 13._

ASCALON, Battle of (A. D. 1099).

      See JERUSALEM: A. D. 1099-1144.

ASCANIENS, The.

      See BRANDENBURG: A. D. 928-1142.

ASCULUM, Battle of (B. C. 279).

      See ROME: B. C. 282-275.

ASCULUM, Massacre at.

      See ROME: B. C. 90-88.

ASHANTEE WAR, The (1874).

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1873-1880

ASHBURTON TREATY, The.

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

ASHDOD.

      See PHILISTINES.

ASHRAF, Shah of Persia, A. D. 1725-1730.

ASHTI, Battle of (1818).

      See INDIA: A. D. 1816-1819.

{139}

ASIA: The Name.

   "There are grounds for believing Europe and Asia to have
   originally signified 'the west' and 'the east' respectively.
   Both are Semitic terms, and probably passed to the Greeks from
   the Phœnicians. ... The Greeks first applied the title [Asia]
   to that portion of the eastern continent which lay nearest to
   them, and with which they became first acquainted--the coast
   of Asia Minor opposite the Cyclades; whence they extended it
   as their knowledge grew. Still it had always a special
   application to the country about Ephesus."

      _G. Rawlinson, Notes to Herodotus, volume 3, page 33._

ASIA:
   The Roman Province (so called).

   "As originally constituted, it corresponded to the dominions
   of the kings of Pergamus ... left by the will of Attalus III.
   to the Roman people (B. C. 133). ... It included the whole of
   Mysia and Lydia, with Æolis, Ionia and Caria, except a small
   part which was subject to Rhodes, and the greater part, if not
   the whole, of Phrygia. A portion of the last region, however,
   was detached from it."

      _E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 20, section 1._

ASIA: Central.
   Mongol Conquest.

      See MONGOLS.

ASIA:
   Turkish Conquest.

      See TURKS.

ASIA:
   Russian Conquests.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1859-1876, and 1869-1881.

ASIA MINOR:

   "The name of Asia Minor, so familiar to the student of ancient
   geography, was not in use either among Greek or Roman writers
   until a very late period. Orosius, who wrote in the fifth
   century after the Christian era, is the first extant writer
   who employs the term in its modern sense."

      _E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography.,
      chapter 7, section 2._

   The name Anatolia, which is of Greek origin, synonymous with
   "The Levant," signifying "The Sunrise," came into use among
   the Byzantines, about the 10th century, and was adopted by
   their successors, the Turks.

ASIA MINOR:
   Earlier Kingdoms and People.

      See
      PHRYGIANS and MYSIANS.
      LYDIANS.
      CARIANS.
      LYCIANS.
      BITHYNIANS.
      PONTUS (CAPPADOCIA).
      PAPHLAGONIANS.
      TROJA.

ASIA MINOR:
   The Greek Colonies.

   "The tumult which had been caused by the irruption of the
   Thesprotians into Thessaly and the displacement of the
   population of Greece [see GREECE: THE MIGRATION, &c.] did not
   subside within the limits of the peninsula. From the north and
   the south those inhabitants who were unable to maintain their
   ground against the incursions of the Thessalians, Arnaeans, or
   Dorians, and preferred exile to submission, sought new homes
   in the islands of the Aegean and on the western coast of Asia
   Minor. The migrations continued for several generations. When
   at length they came to an end, and the Anatolian coast from
   Mount Ida to the Triopian headland, with the adjacent islands,
   was in the possession of the Greeks, three great divisions or
   tribes were distinguished in the new settlements: Dorians,
   Ionians, and Aeolians. In spite of the presence of some alien
   elements, the Dorians and Ionians of Asia Minor were the same
   tribes as the Dorians and Ionians of Greece. The Aeolians, on
   the other hand, were a composite tribe, as their name implies.
   ... Of these three divisions the Aeolians lay farthest to the
   north. The precise limits of their territory were differently
   fixed by different authorities. ... The Aeolic cities fell
   into two groups: a northern, of which Lesbos was the centre,
   and a southern, composed of the cities in the immediate
   neighbourhood of the Hermus, and founded from Cyme.--The
   northern group included the islands of Tenedos and Lesbos. In
   the latter there were originally six cities: Methymna,
   Mytilene, Pyrrha, Eresus, Arisba, and Antissa, but Arisba was
   subsequently conquered and enslaved by Mytilene. ... The
   second great stream of migration proceeded from Athens [after
   the death of Codrus--see ATHENS: FROM THE DORIAN MIGRATION TO
   B. C. 683--according to Greek tradition, the younger sons of
   Codrus leading these Ionian colonists across the Aegean, first
   to the Carian city of Miletus--see MILETUS,--which they
   captured, and then to the conquest of Ephesus and the island
   of Samos]. ... The colonies spread until a dodecapolis was
   established, similar to the union which the Ionians had
   founded in their old settlements on the northern shore of
   Peloponnesus. In some cities the Ionian population formed a
   minority. ... The colonisation of Ionia was undoubtedly, in
   the main, an achievement of emigrants from Attica, but it was
   not accomplished by a single family, or in the space of one
   life-time. ... The two most famous of the Ionian cities were
   Miletus and Ephesus. The first was a Carian city previously
   known as Anactoria. ... Ephesus was originally in the hands of
   the Leleges and the Lydians, who were driven out by the
   Ionians under Androclus. The ancient sanctuary of the tutelary
   goddess of the place was transformed by the Greeks into a
   temple of Artemis, who was here worshipped as the goddess of
   birth and productivity in accordance with Oriental rather than
   Hellenic ideas." The remaining Ionic cities and islands were
   Myus (named from the mosquitoes which infested it, and which
   finally drove the colony to abandon it), Priene, Erythrae,
   Clazomenæ, Teos, Phocaea, Colophon, Lebedus, Samos and Chios.
   "Chios was first inhabited by Cretans ... and subsequently by
   Carians. ... Of the manner in which Chios became connected
   with the Ionians the Chians could give no clear account. ...
   The southern part of the Anatolian coast, and the
   southern-most islands in the Aegean were colonised by the
   Dorians, who wrested them from the Phoenician or Carian
   occupants. Of the islands, Crete is the most important. ...
   Crete was one of the oldest centres of civilisation in the
   Aegean [see CRETE]. ... The Dorian colony in Rhodes, like that
   in Crete, was ascribed to the band which left Argos under the
   command of Althaemenes. ... Other islands colonised by the
   Dorians were Thera, ... Melos, ... Carpathus, Calydnae,
   Nisyrus, and Cos. ... From the islands, the Dorians spread to
   the mainland. The peninsula of Cnidus was perhaps the first
   settlement. ... Halicarnassus was founded from Troezen, and
   the Ionian element must have been considerable. ... Of the
   Dorian cities, six united in the common worship of Apollo on
   the headland of Triopium. These were Lindus, Ialysus, and
   Camirus in Rhodes, Cos, and, on the mainland, Halicarnassus
   and Cnidus. . . . The territory which the Aeolians acquired is
   described by Herodotus as more fertile than that occupied by
   the Ionians, but of a less excellent climate. It was inhabited
   by a number of tribes, among which the Troes or Teucri were
   the chief. ... In Homer the inhabitants of the city of the
   Troad are Dardani or Troes, and the name Teucri does not
   occur. In historical times the Gergithes, who dwelt in the
   town of the same name ... near Lampsacus, and also formed the
   subject population of Miletus, were the only remnants of this
   once famous nation.
{140}
   But their former greatness was attested by the Homeric poems,
   and the occurrence of the name Gergithians at various places
   in the Troad [see TROJA]. To this tribe belonged the Troy of
   the Grecian epic, the site of which, so far as it represents
   any historical city, is fixed at Hissarlik. In the Iliad the
   Trojan empire extends from the Aesepus to the Caicus; it was
   divided--or, at least, later historians speak of it as
   divided--into principalities which recognised Priam as their
   chief. But the Homeric descriptions of the city and its
   eminence are not to be taken as historically true. Whatever
   the power and civilisation of the ancient stronghold exhumed
   by Dr. Schliemann may have been, it was necessary for the epic
   poet to represent Priam and his nation as a dangerous rival in
   wealth and arms to the great kings of Mycenae and Sparta. ...
   The traditional dates fix these colonies [of the Greeks in
   Asia Minor] in the generations which followed the Trojan war.
   ... We may suppose that the colonisation of the Aegean and of
   Asia Minor by the Greeks was coincident with the expulsion of
   the Phoenicians. The greatest extension of the Phoenician
   power in the Aegean seems to fall in the 15th century B. C.
   From the 13th it was gradually on the decline, and the Greeks
   were enabled to secure the trade for themselves. ... By 1100
   B. C. Asia Minor may have been in the hands of the Greeks,
   though the Phoenicians still maintained themselves in Rhodes
   and Cyprus. But all attempts at chronology are illusory."

      _E. Abbott, History of Greece, chapter 4 (volume 1)_.

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Curtius, History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 3 (volume 1)._

      _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapters 13-15._

      _J. A. Cramer, Geography and History Description of Asia
      Minor, section 6 (volume 1)._

      See, also, MILETUS, PHOCÆANS.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 724-539.
   Prosperity of the Greek Colonies.
   Their Submission to Crœsus, King of Lydia, and their conquest
   and annexation to the Persian Empire.

   "The Grecian colonies on the coast of Asia early rose to
   wealth by means of trade and manufactures. Though we have not
   the means of tracing their commerce, we know that it was
   considerable, with the mother country, with Italy, and at
   length Spain, with Phœnicia and the interior of Asia, whence
   the productions of India passed to Greece. The Milesians, who
   had fine woolen manufactures, extended their commerce to the
   Euxine, on all sides of which they founded factories, and
   exchanged their manufactures and other goods with the
   Scythians and the neighbouring peoples, for slaves, wool, raw
   hides, bees-wax, flax, hemp, pitch, etc. There is even reason
   to suppose that, by means of caravans, their traders bartered
   their wares not far from the confines of China [see MILETUS].
   ... But while they were advancing in wealth and prosperity, a
   powerful monarchy formed itself in Lydia, of which the capital
   was Sardes, a city at the foot of Mount Tmolus." Gyges, the
   first of the Mermnad dynasty of Lydian kings (see LYDIANS),
   whose reign is supposed to have begun about B. C. 724, "turned
   his arms against the Ionian cities on the coast. During a
   century and a half the efforts of the Lydian monarchs to
   reduce these states were unavailing. At length (Ol. 55) [B. C.
   568] the celebrated Crœsus mounted the throne of Lydia, and he
   made all Asia this side of the River Halys (Lycia and Cilicia
   excepted) acknowledge his dominion. The Aeolian, Ionian and
   Dorian cities of the coast all paid him tribute; but,
   according to the usual rule of eastern conquerors, he meddled
   not with their political institutions, and they might deem
   themselves fortunate in being insured against war by the
   payment of an annual sum of money. Crœsus, moreover,
   cultivated the friendship of the European Greeks." But Crœsus
   was overthrown, B. C. 554, by the conquering Cyrus and his
   kingdom of Lydia was swallowed up in the great Persian empire
   then taking form [see PERSIA: B. C. 549-521]. Cyrus, during
   his war with Crœsus, had tried to entice the Ionians away from
   the latter and win them to an alliance with himself. But they
   incurred his resentment by refusing. "They and the Æolians now
   sent ambassadors, praying to be received to submission on the
   same terms as those on which they had obeyed the Lydian
   monarch; but the Milesians alone found favour: the rest had to
   prepare for war. They repaired the walls of their towns, and
   sent to Sparta for aid. Aid, however, was refused; but Cyrus,
   being called away by the war with Babylon, neglected them for
   the present. Three years afterwards (Ol. 59, 2), Harpagus, who
   had saved Cyrus in his infancy from his grandfather, Astyages,
   came as governor of Lydia. He instantly prepared to reduce the
   cities of the coast. Town after town submitted. The Teians
   abandoned theirs, and retired to Abdera in Thrace; the
   Phocæans, getting on shipboard, and vowing never to return,
   sailed for Corsica, and being there harassed by the
   Carthagenians and Tyrrhenians, they went to Rhegion in Italy,
   and at length founded Massalia (Marseilles) on the coast of
   Gaul. The Grecian colonies thus became a part of the Persian
   empire."

      _T. Keightley, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 9._

      ALSO IN:
      _Herodotus, History, translated and edited by G. Rawlinson,
      book 1, and appendix_

      _M. Duncker, History of Antiquity,
      book 8, chapter 6-7 (volume 6)._

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 501-493.
   The Ionian revolt and its suppression.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 521-493.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 479.
   Athens assumes the protection of Ionia.

      See ATHENS: B. C.479-478.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 477.
   Formation of Confederacy of Delos.

      See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 413.
   Tribute again demanded from the Greeks by the Persian King.
   Conspiracy against Athens.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 413-412.
   Revolt of the Greek cities from Athens.
   Intrigues of Alcibiades.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 412.
   Re-submission to Persia.

      See PERSIA: B. C. 486-405.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 401-400.
   Expedition of Cyrus the Younger, and Retreat of the Ten
   Thousand.

      See PERSIA: B. C.401-400.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 399-387.
   Spartan war with Persia in behalf of the Greek cities.
   Their abandonment by the Peace of Antalcidas.

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 334.
   Conquest by Alexander the Great.

      See MACEDONIA: B. C. 334-330.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 301.
   Mostly annexed to the Thracian Kingdom of Lysimachus.

      See MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 310-301.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 281-224.
   Battle-ground of the warring monarchies of Syria and Egypt.
   Changes of masters.

      See SELEUCIDÆ.

{141}

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 191.
   First Entrance of the Romans.
   Their defeat of Antiochus the Great.
   Their expansion of the kingdom of Pergamum and the Republic of
   Rhodes.

      See SELEUCIDÆ B. C. 224-187.

ASIA MINOR: B. C. 120-65.
   Mithridates and his kingdom.
   Massacre of Italians.
   Futile revolt from Rome.
   Complete Roman Conquest.

      See MITHRIDATIC WARS;
      also ROME: B. C.78-68. and 69-63.

ASIA MINOR: A. D. 292.
   Diocletian's seat of Empire established at Nicomedia.

      See ROME: A. D. 284-305.

ASIA MINOR: A. D. 602-628.
   Persian invasions.
   Deliverance by Heraclius.

      See ROME: A. D. 565-628.

ASIA MINOR: A. D. 1063-1092.
   Conquest and ruin by the Seljuk Turks.

   See TURKS (SELJUKS): A. D. 1063-1073; and 1073-1092.

ASIA MINOR: A. D. 1097-1149.
   Wars of the Crusaders.

      See CRUSADES: A. D. 1096-1099; and 1147-1149.

ASIA MINOR: A. D. 1204-1261.
   The Empire of Nicæa and the Empire of Trebizond.

      See GREEK EMPIRE OF NICÆA.

----------ASIA MINOR: End----------

ASIENTO, OR ASSIENTO, The.

      See
      SLAVERY: A. D. 1698-1776;
      UTRECHT: A. D. 1712-1714;
      AIX-LA-CHAPELLE, THE CONGRESS OF; ENGLAND: A. D. 1739-1741;
      and GEORGIA: A. D. 1738-1743.

ASKELON.

      See PHILISTINES.

ASKLEPIADS.

   "Throughout all the historical ages [of Greece] the
   descendants of Asklêpius [or Esculapius] were numerous and
   widely diffused. The many families or gentes called
   Asklêpiads, who devoted themselves to the study and practice
   of medicine, and who principally dwelt near the temples of
   Asklêpius, whither sick and suffering men came to obtain
   relief--all recognized the god, not merely as the object of
   their common worship, but also as their actual progenitor."

      _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 9._

ASMONEANS, The.

      See JEWS: B. C. 166-40.

ASOPIA.

      See SICYON.

ASOV.

      See AZOF.

ASPADAN.

   The ancient name of which that of Ispahan is a corrupted form.

      _G. Rawlinson. Five Great Monarchies: Media, chapter 1._

ASPERN--ESSLINGEN (OR THE MARCHFELD), Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1809 (JANUARY-JUNE).

ASPIS, The.

      See PHALANX.

ASPROMONTE, Defeat of Garibaldi at (1862).

      See ITALY: A. D. 1862-1866.

ASSAM, English Acquisition of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1823-1833.

ASSANDUN, Battle of.

   The sixth and last battle, A. D. 1016, between Edmund
   Ironsides, the English King, and his Danish rival, Cnut, or
   Canute, for the Crown of England. The English were terribly
   defeated and the flower of their nobility perished on the
   field. The result was a division of the kingdom; but Edmund
   soon died, or was killed. Ashington, in Essex, was the
   battle-ground.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 979-1016.

ASSASSINATIONS, Notable.
  Abbas, Pasha of Egypt.
     See EGYPT: A. D. 1840-1869.

  Alexander II. of Russia.
     See RUSSIA: A. D. 1879-1881.

  Beatoun, Cardinal.
     See SCOTLAND: A, D. 1546.

  Becket, Thomas.
     See ENGLAND: A. D.1162-1170,

  Buckingham.
     See ENGLAND: A. D. 1628.

  Cæsar.
     See ROME; B. C. 44.

  Capo d'Istrea, Count, President of Greece.
    See GREECE: A. D. 1830-1862.

  Cavendish, Lord Frederick, and Burke, Mr.
    See IRELAND: A. D. 1882.

  Concini.
     See FRANCE: A. D. 1610-1619.

  Danilo, Prince of Montenegro (1860).
     See MONTENEGRO.

  Darnley.
     See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

  Francis of Guise.
     See FRANCE: A. D. 1560-1563.

  Garfield, President.
     See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1881.

  Gustavus III. of Sweden.
     See SCANDINAVIAN STATES (SWEDEN): A. D. 1720-1792.

  Henry of Guise.
     See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

  Henry III. of France.
     See FRANCE; A. D. 1584-1589.

  Henry IV. of France.
     See FRANCE: A. D. 1599-1600.

  Hipparchus.
     See ATHENS: B. C, 560-510.

  John, Duke of Burgundy.
     See FRANCE: A. D. 1415-1419.

  Kleber, General.
     See FRANCE; A. D. 1800 (JANUARY-JUNE).

  Kotzebue.
     See GERMANY; A. D. 1817-1820.

  Lincoln, President.
     See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1865 (APRIL 14TH).

  Marat.
     See FRANCE: A. D. 1793 (JULY).

  Mayo, Lord.
     See INDIA; A. D. 1862-1876.

  Murray, The Regent.
     See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

  Omar, Caliph.
     See MAHOMETAN CONQUEST, &c.: A. D. 661.

  Paul, Czar of Russia.
     See RUSSIA: A. D. 1801.

  Perceval, Spencer.
     See ENGLAND; A. D. 1806-1812.

  Peter III.
     See RUSSIA: A. D. 1761-1762.

  Philip of Macedon.
     See GREECE: B. C. 357-336.

  Prim, General (1870).
     See SPAIN. A. D. 1866-1843.

  Rizzio.
     See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1561-1568.

  Rossi, Count.
     See ITALY: A. D. 1848-1849.

  Wallenstein (1634).
     See GERMANY: A. D. 1632-1634.

  William the Silent.
     See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1581-1584.

  Witt, John and Cornelius de.
     See NETHERLANDS: A. D. 1672-1674.

ASSASSINS, The.

   "I must here speak with the brevity which my limits prescribe
   of that wonderful brotherhood of the Assassins, which during
   the 12th and 13th centuries spread such terror through all
   Asia, Mussulman and Christian. Their deeds should be studied
   in Von Hammer's history of their order, of which however
   there is an excellent analysis in Taylor's _History of
   Mohammedanism._ The word Assassin, it must be remembered,
   in its ordinary signification, is derived from this order, and
   not the reverse. The Assassins were not so called because they
   were murderers, but murderers are called assassins because the
   Assassins were murderers. The origin of the word Assassin has
   been much disputed by oriental scholars; but its application
   is sufficiently written upon the Asiatic history of the 12th
   century. The Assassins were not, strictly speaking, a dynasty,
   but rather an order, like the Templars; only the office of
   Grand-Master, like the Caliphate, became hereditary. They were
   originally a branch of the Egyptian Ishmaelites [see MAHOMETAN
   CONQUEST: A. D. 908-1171] and at first professed the
   principles of that sect. But there can be no doubt that their
   inner doctrine became at last a mere negation of all religion
   and all morality. 'To believe nothing and to dare everything'
   was the summary of their teaching. Their exoteric principle,
   addressed to the non-initiated members of the order, was
   simple blind obedience to the will of their superiors. If the
   Assassin was ordered to take off a Caliph or a Sultan by the
   dagger or the bowl, the deed was done; if he was ordered to
   throw himself from the ramparts, the deed was done likewise.
   ... Their founder was Hassan Sabah, who, in 1090, shortly
   before the death of Malek Shah, seized the castle of
   Alamout--the Vulture's nest--in northern Persia, whence they
   extended their possessions over a whole chain of mountain
   fortresses in that country and in Syria. The Grand-Master was
   the Sheikh-al-Jebal, the famous Old Man of the Mountain, at
   whose name Europe and Asia shuddered."

      _E. A. Freeman, History and Conquests of the, Saracens,
      lecture 4._

{142}

   "In the Fatimide Khalif of Egypt, they [the Assassins, or
   Ismailiens of Syria and Persia] beheld an incarnate deity. To
   kill his enemies, in whatever way they best could, was an
   action, the merit of which could not be disputed, and the
   reward for which was certain." Hasan Sabah, the founder of the
   Order, died at Alamout A. D. 1124. "From the day he entered
   Alamut until that of his death--a period of thirty-five
   years--he never emerged, but upon two occasions, from the
   seclusion of his house. Pitiless and inscrutable as Destiny,
   he watched the troubled world of Oriental politics, himself
   invisible, and whenever he perceived a formidable foe, caused
   a dagger to be driven into his heart." It was not until more
   than a century after the death of its founder that the fearful
   organization of the Assassins was extinguished (A. D. 1257) by
   the same flood of Mongol invasion which swept Bagdad and the
   Caliphate out of existence.

      _R. D. Osborn, Islam under the Khalifs of Bagdad,
      part 3, chapter 3._

      _W. C. Taylor, History of Mohammedanism and its Sects,
      chapter 9._

   The Assassins were rooted out from all their strongholds in
   Kuhistan and the neighboring region, and were practically
   exterminated, in 1257, by the Mongols under Khulagu, or
   Houlagou, brother of Mongu Khan, the great sovereign of the
   Mongol Empire, then reigning. Alamut, the Vulture's Nest, was
   demolished.

      _H. H. Howorth, History of the Mongols, part 1, page 193;
      and part 3, pages 91-108_.

      See BAGDAD; A. D. 1258.

ASSAYE, Battle of (1803).

      See INDIA; A. D. 1798-1803.

ASSEMBLY OF THE NOTABLES IN FRANCE (1787).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1774-1788.

ASSENISIPIA, The proposed State of.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
	  A. D. 1784.

ASSIDEANS, The.

      See CHASIDM, THE.

ASSIENTO, The.

      See ASIENTO.

ASSIGNATS.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1789-1791; 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL);
      1795 (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

ASSINARUS, Athenian defeat and surrender at the.

      See SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

ASSINIBOIA.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

ASSINIBOINS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: SIOUAN FAMILY.

ASSIZE, The Bloody.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1685 (SEPTEMBER).

ASSIZE OF BREAD AND ALE.

   The Assize of Bread and Ale was an English ordinance or
   enactment, dating back to the time of Henry III. in the 13th
   century, which fixed the price of those commodities by a scale
   regulated according to the market prices of wheat, barley and
   oats. "The Assize of bread was re-enacted so lately as the
   beginning of the last century and was only abolished in London
   and its neighbourhood about thirty years ago"--that is, early
   in the present century.

      _G. L. Craik, History of British Commerce,
      volume 1, page 137._

ASSIZE OF CLARENDON, The.

      See ENGLAND: A. D. 1162-1170.

ASSIZE OF JERUSALEM, The.

   "No sooner had Godfrey of Bouillon [elected King of Jerusalem,
   after the taking of the Holy City by the Crusaders, A. D.
   1099] accepted the office of supreme magistrate than he
   solicited the public and private advice of the Latin pilgrims
   who were the best skilled in the statutes and customs of
   Europe. From these materials, with the counsel and approbation
   of the Patriarch and barons, of the clergy and laity, Godfrey
   composed the Assise of Jerusalem, a precious monument of
   feudal jurisprudence. The new code, attested by the seals of
   the King, the Patriarch, and the Viscount of Jerusalem, was
   deposited in the holy sepulchre, enriched with the
   improvements of succeeding times, and respectfully consulted
   as often as any doubtful question arose in the tribunals of
   Palestine. With the kingdom and city all was lost; the
   fragments of the written law were preserved by jealous
   tradition and variable practice till the middle of the
   thirteenth century. The code was restored by the pen of John
   d'Ibelin, Count of Jaffa, one of the principal feudatories;
   and the final revision was accomplished in the year thirteen
   hundred and sixty-nine, for the use of the Latin kingdom of
   Cyprus."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 58.

ASSIZES.

   "The formal edicts known under the name of Assizes, the
   Assizes of Clarendon and Northampton, the Assize of Arms, the
   Assize of the Forest, and the Assizes of Measures, are the
   only relics of the legislative work of the period [reign of
   Henry II. in England]. These edicts are chiefly composed of
   new regulations for the enforcement of royal justice, ... In
   this respect they strongly resemble the capitularies of the
   Frank Kings, or, to go farther back, the edicts of the Roman
   prætors. ... The term Assize, which comes into use in this
   meaning about the middle of the twelfth century, both on the
   continent and in England, appears to be the proper Norman name
   for such edicts. ... In the 'Assize of Jerusalem' it simply
   means a law; and the same in Henry's legislation. Secondarily,
   it means a form of trial established by the particular law, as
   the Great Assize, the Assize of Mort d' Ancester; and thirdly
   the court held to hold such trials, in which sense it is
   commonly used at the present day."

      _William Stubbs, Constitutional History of England, chapter 13._

ASSUR.

      See ASSYRIA.

ASSYRIA.

   For matter relating to Assyrian history, the reader is
   referred to the caption SEMITES, under which it will be given.
   The subject is deferred to that part of this work which will
   go later into print, for the reason that every month is adding
   to the knowledge of the students of ancient oriental history
   and clearing away disputed questions. It is quite possible
   that the time between the publication of our first volume and
   our fourth or fifth may make important additions to the scanty
   literature of the subject in English. Modern excavation on the
   sites of the ancient cities in the East, bringing to light
   large library collections of inscribed clay tablets,--sacred
   and historical writings, official records, business contracts
   and many varieties of inscriptions,--have almost
   revolutionized the study of ancient history and the views of
   antiquity derived from it.
{143}
   "M. Botta, who was appointed French consul at Mosul in 1842,
   was the first to commence excavations on the sites of the
   buried cities of Assyria, and to him is due the honour of the
   first discovery of her long lost palaces. M. Botta commenced
   his labours at Kouyunjik, the large mound opposite Mosul, but
   he found here very little to compensate for his labours. New
   at the time to excavations, he does not appear to have worked
   in the best manner; M. Botta at Kouyunjik contented himself
   with sinking pits in the mound, and on these proving
   unproductive abandoning them. While M. Botta was excavating at
   Kouyunjik, his attention was called to the mounds of Khorsabad
   by a native of the village on that site; and he sent a party
   of workmen to the spot to commence excavation. In a few days
   his perseverance was rewarded by the discovery of some
   sculptures, after which, abandoning the work at Kouyunjik, he
   transferred his establishment to Khorsabad and thoroughly
   explored that site. ... The palace which M. Botta had
   discovered ... is one of the most perfect Assyrian buildings
   yet explored, and forms an excellent example of Assyrian
   architecture. Beside the palace on the mound of Khorsabad, M.
   Botta also opened the remains of a temple, and a grand porch
   decorated by six winged bulls. ... The operations of M. Botta
   were brought to a close in 1845, and a splendid collection of
   sculptures and other antiquities, the fruits of his labours,
   arrived in Paris in 1846 and was deposited in the Louvre.
   Afterwards the French Government appointed M. Place consul at
   Mosul, and he continued some of the excavations of his
   predecessor. ... Mr. Layard, whose attention was early turned
   in this direction, visited the country in 1840, and afterwards
   took a great interest in the excavations of M. Botta. At
   length, in 1845, Layard was enabled through the assistance of
   Sir Stratford Canning to commence excavations in Assyria
   himself. On the 8th of November he started from Mosul, and
   descended the Tigris to Nimroud. ... Mr. Layard has described
   in his works with great minuteness his successive excavations,
   and the remarkable and interesting discoveries he made. ...
   After making these discoveries in Assyria, Mr. Layard visited
   Babylonia, and opened trenches in several of the mounds there.
   On the return of Mr. Layard to England, excavations were
   continued in the Euphrates valley under the superintendence of
   Colonel (now Sir Henry) Rawlinson. Under his directions, Mr.
   Hormuzd Rassam, Mr. Loftus, and Mr. Taylor excavated various
   sites and made numerous discoveries, the British Museum
   receiving the best of the monuments. The materials collected
   in the national museums of France and England, and the
   numerous inscriptions published, attracted the attention of
   the learned, and very soon considerable light was thrown on
   the history, language, manners, and customs of ancient Assyria
   and Babylonia."

      _G. Smith, Assyrian Discoveries, chapter 1._

   "One of the most important results of Sir A. H. Layard's
   explorations at Nineveh was the discovery of the ruined
   library of the ancient city, now buried under the mounds of
   Kouyunjik. The broken clay tablets belonging to this library
   not only furnished the student with an immense mass of
   literary matter, but also with direct aids towards a knowledge
   of the Assyrian syllabary and language. Among the literature
   represented in the library of Kouyunjik were lists of
   characters, with their various phonetic and ideographic
   meanings, tables of synonymes, and catalogues of the names of
   plants and animals. This, however, was not all. The inventors
   of the cuneiform system of writing had been a people who
   preceded the Semites in the occupation of Babylonia, and who
   spoke an agglutinative language utterly different from that of
   their Semitic successors. These Accadians, as they are usually
   termed, left behind them a considerable amount of literature,
   which was highly prized by the Semitic Babylonians and
   Assyrians. A large portion of the Ninevite tablets,
   accordingly, consists of interlinear or parallel translations
   from Accadian into Assyrian, as well as of reading books,
   dictionaries, and grammars, in which the Accadian original is
   placed by the side of its Assyrian equivalent. ... The
   bilingual texts have not only enabled scholars to recover the
   long-forgotten Accadian language; they have also been of the
   greatest possible assistance to them in their reconstruction
   of the Assyrian dictionary itself. The three expeditions
   conducted by Mr. George Smith [1873-1876], as well as the
   later ones of Mr. Hormuzd Rassam, have added largely to the
   stock of tablets from Kouyunjik originally acquired for the
   British Museum by Sir A. H. Layard, and have also brought to
   light a few other tablets from the libraries of Babylonia."

      _A. H. Sayce, Fresh Light from the Ancient Monuments, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies:
      The Second Monarchy, chapter 9._

      _Mr. Duncker, History of Antiquity, books 3-4._

      _George Smith, Ancient History from the Monuments:
      Assyria._

      See, also, BABYLONIA and SEMITES.

ASSYRIA, Eponym Canon of.

   "Just as there were archons at Athens and consuls at Rome who
   were elected annually, so among the Assyrians there was a
   custom of electing one man to be over the year, whom they
   called 'limu,' or 'eponym.' ... Babylonian and Assyrian
   documents were more generally dated by the names of these
   eponyms than by that of the reigning King. ... In 1862 Sir
   Henry Rawlinson discovered the fragment of the eponym canon of
   Assyria. It was one of the grandest and most important
   discoveries ever made, for it has decided definitely a great
   many points which otherwise could never have been cleared up.
   Fragments of seven copies of this canon were found, and from
   these the chronology of Assyria has been definitely settled
   from B. C. 1330 to about B. C. 620."

      _E. A. W. Budge, Babylonian Life and History, chapter 3._

ASTOLF, King of the Lombards, A. D. 749-759.

ASTRAKHAN:
   The Khanate.

      See MONGOLS: A. D. 1238-1391.

ASTRAKHAN: A. D. 1569.
   Russian repulse of the Turks.

      See RUSSIA: A. D. 1569-1571.

ASTURIANS, The.

      See CANTABRIANS.

ASTURIAS:
   Resistance to the Moorish Conquest.

      See SPAIN: A. D. 713-737.

ASTY, OR ASTU, The.

   The ancient city of Athens proper, as distinguished from its
   connected harbors, was called the Asty, or Astu.

      _J. A. St. John, The Hellenes, book 1, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, section 10._

      See also, ATHENS: AREA, &c.


  A Logical Outline of Athenian and Greek History

[Red  ]  Physical or material.
[Blue ]  Ethnological.
[Green]  Social and political.
[Brown]  Intellectual, moral and religious.
[Black]  Foreign.

  In which the dominant conditions and influences
  are distinguished by colors.

  The Land

The most capable people of early times, placed in the most
favorable environment that the world in those times could offer
them, worked out a civilization--perfect in all refinements
except the moral--which has been the admiration and the marvel of
later days.

Under modern conditions, the country of the Greeks gives no
marked advantage to its inhabitants; but in the age of fiercer
struggles, when war among men was tribal, universal, and hand to
hand, and when the larger possibilities of pacific intercourse
were bounded by one small sea, its intersecting mountains, its
separated valleys and plains, its penetrating gulfs and bays, its
clustered peninsulas in peninsulas, were helpful beyond measure
to their social and political advance. In no other region of
Europe could the independent city-states of ancient Hellas have
grown up in shelter so safe, under skies so kindly, amid
influences from the outer world so urgent and so strong.

It is reasonable to say that these happy conditions had
much to do with the shaping of the character and career of the
Greek people as a whole. But they differed very greatly from one
another in their various political groups, and by differences
that cannot be traced to varied surroundings of earth, or air, or
sea, or human neighborhood. When every circumstance which
distinguishes Athens in situation from Sparta, or from Corinth,
or from Argos, has been weighed and reckoned,  the Athenian
is still parted from the Spartan, from the Corinthian and from
the Argive, by a distinction which we name and do not explain by
calling it family or race.


    Ionians and Dorians.

At some time in the unknown past, there had been a parting of
kindred among the ancestors of the Greeks, and the current of
descent ran, for many centuries, perhaps, in two clearly divided
streams, which acquired (in what manner, who can guess?) very
different characteristics and qualities in their course. Then, in
time, the great migrations, which are at the beginning of the
traditions of the Greeks, brought these two branches of the race
(the Doric and the Ionic, as they are named), into contact
again, and associated them in a common career. In the inherited
nature of the Ionian Greeks there was something which made them
more sensitive to the finer delights of the mind, and prepared
them to be more easily moved by every impulse toward philosophy
and art, from the civilizations that were older than their own.
In the Dorians there was less of this. They shared in equal
measure, perhaps, the keen, clear Greek intellect, but they
narrowed it to commoner aims.


    Achaians.--Mycenæ.

It is possible that all which the Athenians came to be, their
elder kindred, the Achaians, might have been. Their peninsula of
Argolis is the peninsula of Attica in duplicate,--washed by the
same waves, and reaching out to the same eastern world. They were
first to touch hands with Phœnicia and with Egypt, and first to
borrow arts and ideas from Memphis and Tyre. But their
civilization, which they had raised to the height which Homer
portrays, was overwhelmed by the Doric conquest; and the fact
that these invaders, succeeding to the same vantage ground,
remained as poor in culture as the Argives and their final
masters, the Spartans, appear to have been, gives evidence of the
strange difference that was rooted in the constitution of the two
branches of the race.


    Sparta.-Athens.

By force of this difference, the Spartans formed their state upon
the grim lines of a military camp, and took leadership among the
Greeks in practical affairs; the Athenians adorned a free city
with great and beautiful works, made it hospitable to all genius
and all the knowledge of the time, and created a capital for the
civilization of the ancient world.

In all the Greek communities there was a primitive stage in which
kings ruled over therm in a patriarchal way. In most of them the
kingship surrendered to an oligarchy,--the oligarchy in time, was
overthrown by some bold adventurer, who led a rising of the
people and snatched power in the turmoil to make himself a
"tyrant,"--and the tyrant in his turn fell after no long reign.
In Athens that course of revolution was run; but it did not end
as with the rest. The Athenian tyranny gave way to the purest
democracy that has ever had trial in the world.


  Æthel democracy.

That this Athenian democracy was wise in itself may be open to
doubt; but it produced wise men, and, for the century of its
great career, it was wonderfully led. How far that came to it
from superiority of race, and how far as the fruitage of free
institutions, no man can say; but the succession of statesmen who
raised Athens to her pitch of greatness, without shattering the
government of the people by the people, has no parallel in the
annals of so small a state.

Sparta, not Athens, was the military head of Greece; but when a
great emergency came upon the whole Greek world, it was the
larger intelligence and higher spirit of the Attic state which
inspired and guided the defence of the land and drove the
Persians back.


  B.C. 498-479.  The Persian War.
  B.C. 477. Confederacy of Delos.
  B.C. 445-429. Age of Pericles.

Making prompt use of the ascendancy she had won in the Persian
War, Athens rose rapidly in power and wealth. Under the guise of
a federation of the Ionian cities of the islands and of Asia
Minor, she created an empire subject to her rule. She commanded
the sea with superior fleets, and became first in commerce, as
she was first in knowledge, in politics and in arts. Her coffers
overran with the riches poured into them by her tribute-gatherers
and her men of trade, and she employed them with a noble
prodigality upon her temples and the buildings of the state. Her
abounding genius yielded fruits, in learning, letters, and art,
which surpass the whole experience of the world, before and
since, when measured against the smallness of the numbers from
which they came.


  B. C. 431-404.  Peloponnesian War.

But the power attained by the Athenian democracy was arrogantly
and harshly used; its sovereignty was exercised without
generosity or restraint. It provoked the hatred of its subjects,
and the bitter jealousy of rival states. Hence war in due time
was inevitable, and Athens, alone in the war, was thrown down
from her high estate. The last of the great leaders of her golden
age died when her need of him was greatest, and her citizens were
given over to demagogues who beguiled them to the ruin of the
republic.


  B.C. 404-379--Sparta
  B.C. 379-362--Thebes

Sparta regained the supremacy in Greece, and her rude domination,
imposed upon all, was harder to bear than the superiority of
Athens had been. Under the lead of Epaminondas of Thebes--the
most high-souled statesman who ever swayed the Hellenic race--the
Spartan yoke was broken.


  B.C. 338--Macedonian supremacy.

But, in breaking it, all unity in Hellas was destroyed, and all
hope of resistance to any common foe. The foe who first appeared
was the half-Greek Macedonian, King Philip, who subdued the whole
peninsula with ease, and found none to defend it so heroically as
the orator Demosthenes.


  B. C. 384-328.
  Alexander's conquests.
  Hellenization of the East.

But the subjugated Greeks were not yet at the end of their
career. With Philip's great son they went forth to a new and
higher destiny than the building of petty states. Unwittingly he
made conquest of an empire for them, and not for himself. They
Hellenized it from the Euxine to the Nile. In Egypt, in Syria,
and in Asia Minor, they entered and took possession of every
field of activity, an put their impress on every movement of
thought. Their philosophy and their literature fed all the
intellectual hunger of the age; their energy was its civilizing
force.


 B. C. 197-146.--Roman conquest.

Then the Romans came, to conquer and be conquered by the spirit
of Athenian Greece, and to do for Europe, in the West, what the
Macedonians had done in the East. They effaced Greece from
history, in the political sense; but they kneeled to her
teaching, and became the servants of her civilization, to carry
it wherever the Roman eagles went.


   Christianity.

A little later, when that civilization was changed by the
transforming spirit of the Gospel of Christ, it did not cease to
be essentially Greek; for Hellenism and Hebraism were fused in
the theology of the rising Christian Church, and Greek thought
ruled mankind again in an altered phase.


  A. D. 476-1458.--The Eastern Empire.

At last, when Roman imperialism was driven from the West, Greece
drew it to herself, and reigned in the great name of Rome, and
fought gloriously with barbarians and with infidels for a
thousand added years, defending the Christian world till it grew
strong and stood in peril no more.

{144}

ASTYNOMI.

   Certain police officials in ancient Athens, ten in number.
   "They were charged with all that belongs to street
   supervision, e. g., the cleansing of the streets, for which
   purpose the coprologi, or street-sweepers, were under their
   orders; the securing of morality and decent behaviour in the
   streets."

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

ASUNCION: A. D. 1537.
   The founding of the city.

      See PARAGUAY: A. D. 1515-1557.

ATABEGS, ATTABEGS, OR ATTABECKS.

   "From the decline of the dynasty of Seljook to the conquest of
   Persia by Hulakoo Khan, the son of Chenghis, a period of more
   than a century, that country was distracted by the contests of
   petty princes, or governors, called Attabegs; who, taking
   advantage of the weakness of the last Seljookian monarchs, and
   of the distractions which followed their final extinction,
   established their authority over some of the finest provinces
   of the Empire. Many of these petty dynasties acquired such a
   local fame as, to this day, gives an importance to their
   memory with the inhabitants of the countries over which they
   ruled. ... The word Attabeg is Turkish: it is a compound word
   of 'atta,' master, or tutor, and 'beg,' lord; and signifies a
   governor, or tutor, of a lord or prince."

      _Sir J. Malcolm, History of Persia, volume 1; chapter 9._

   "It is true that the Atabeks appear but a short space as
   actors on the stage of Eastern history; but these 'tutors of
   princes' occupy a position neither insignificant nor
   unimportant in the course of events which occurred in Syria
   and Persia at the time they flourished."-

      _W. H. Morley, Preface to Mirkhond's History of the
      Atabeks._

      See, also, SALADIN, THE EMPIRE OF.

ATAHUALPA, The Inca.

      See PERU: A. D. 1581-1533.

ATELIERS NATIONAUX OF 1848, AT PARIS.

      See FRANCE; A. D. 1848 (FEBRUARY-MAY),
      and (APRIL-DECEMBER).

ATHABASCA, The District of.

      See NORTHWEST TERRITORIES OF CANADA.

ATHABASCANS, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATHABASCAN FAMILY.

ATHALAYAS.

      See SARDINIA, THE ISLAND: NAME AND EARLY HISTORY.

ATHEL.--ATHELING.--ATHELBONDE,

      See ADEL.

ATHENRY, Battle of.

   The most desperate battle fought by the Irish in resisting the
   English conquest of Ireland. They were terribly slaughtered
   and the chivalry of Connaught was crushed. The battle occurred
   Aug. 10, A. D. 1316.

      M. Haverty, _History of Ireland, p, 282._

----------ATHENRY: End----------

ATHENS:

ATHENS:
   The Preëminence of Athens.

   "When we speak of Greece we think first of Athens. ... To
   citizens and to strangers by means of epic recitations and
   dramatic spectacles, she presented an idealised image of life
   itself. She was the home of new ideas, the mother-city from
   which poetry, eloquence, and philosophy spread to distant
   lands. While the chief dialects of Greece survive, each not as
   a mere dialect but as the language of literature,--a thing
   unknown in the history of any other people,--the Attic idiom,
   in which the characteristic elements of other dialects met and
   were blended, has become to us, as it did to the ancients, the
   very type of Hellenic speech. Athens was not only the 'capital
   of Greece,' the 'school of Greece;' it deserves the name
   applied to it in an epitaph on Euripides: 'his country is
   Athens, Greece of Greece.' The rays of the Greek genius here
   found a centre and a focus."

      _S. H. Butcher, Some Aspects of the Greek Genius, pages 38-39._

   "Our interest in ancient history, it may be said, lies not in
   details but in large masses. It matters little how early the
   Arcadians acquired a political unity or what Nabis did to
   Mycenæ; that which interests us is the constitution of Athens,
   the repulse of Persia, the brief bloom of Thebes. Life is not
   so long that we can spend our days over the unimportant fates
   of uninteresting tribes and towns."

ATHENS:
   Area and Population.

   "The entire circuit of the Asty [the lower city, or Athens
   proper], Long Walls and maritime city, taken as one inclosure,
   is equal to about 17 English miles, or 148 stades. This is
   very different from the 200 stades which Dion Chrysostom
   states to have been the circumference of the same walls, an
   estimate exceeding by more than 20 stades even the sum of the
   peripheries of the Asty and Peimic towns, according to the
   numbers of Thucydides. ... Rome was circular, Syracuse
   triangular, and Athens consisted of two circular cities,
   joined by a street of four miles in length,--a figure, the
   superficies of which was not more than the fourth part of that
   of a city of an equal circumference, in a circular form.
   Hence, when to Rome within the walls were added suburbs of
   equal extent, its population was greater than that of all
   Attica. That of Athens, although the most populous city in
   Greece, was probably never greater than 200,000."

      _W. M. Leake, Topography of Athens, section 10._

Ionian Origin.

      See DORIANS AND IONIANS.

ATHENS:
   The Beginning of the city-state.
   How Attica was absorbed in its capital.

   "In the days of Cecrops and the first kings [see ATTICA] down
   to the reign of Theseus, Attica was divided into communes,
   having their own town-halls and magistrates. Except in case of
   alarm the whole people did not assemble in council under the
   king, but administered their own affairs, and advised together
   in their several townships. Some of them at times even went to
   war with him, as the Eleusinians under Eumolpus with
   Erectheus. But when Theseus came to the throne, he, being a
   powerful as well as a wise ruler, among other improvements in
   the administration of the country, dissolved the councils and
   separate governments, and united all the inhabitants of Attica
   in the present city, establishing one council and town-hall.
   They continued to live on their own lands, but he compelled
   them to resort to Athens as their metropolis, and henceforward
   they were all inscribed in the roll of her citizens. A great
   city thus arose which was handed down by Theseus to his
   descendants, and from his day to this the Athenians have
   regularly celebrated the national festival of the Synoecia, or
   'union of the communes' in honour of the goddess Athenè.
   Before his time, what is now the Acropolis and the ground
   lying under it to the south was the city. Many reasons may be
   urged in proof of this statement."

      _Thucydides, History (Jowett's  translation), book 2,
      section 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _M. Duncker, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 7 (volume 2)_.

{145}

[Image: Map]

PLAN OF ATHENS.

From "Mythology and Monuments of Ancient Athens,"
by Jane E. Harrison and Margaret de G. Verrall.


[Image: Map]

HARBORS OF ATHENS.


{146}

ATHENS:
   From the Dorian Migration to B. C. 683.
   End of kingship and institution of the Archons.

   At the epoch of the Boeotian and Dorian migrations (see
   GREECE: THE MIGRATIONS), Attica was flooded by fugitives, both
   from the north and from the Peloponnesus. "But the bulk of the
   refugees passed on to Asia, and built up the cities of Ionia.
   ... When the swarms of emigrants cleared off, and Athens is
   again discernable, the crown has passed from the old royal
   house of the Cecropidæ to a family of exiles from
   Peloponnesus. ... A generation later the Dorian invasion,
   which had overwhelmed Corinth and torn away Megara from the
   Attic dominion, swept up to the very gates of Athens. An
   oracle declared that the city would never fall if its ruler
   perished by the hand of the invaders; therefore King Codrus
   disguised himself as a peasant, set out for the Dorian camp,
   struck down the first man he met, and was himself slain by the
   second. The invasion failed, and the Athenians, to perpetuate
   the memory of their monarch's patriotism, would not allow the
   title of 'king' to be borne by the descendants who succeeded
   him on the throne, but changed the name to 'archon,' or
   'ruler.' ... These legends evidently cover some obscure
   changes in the internal history of Attica."

      _C. W. C. Oman, History of Greece, chapter 11._

   "After the death of Codrus the nobles, taking advantage,
   perhaps, of the opportunity afforded by the dispute between
   his sons, are said to have abolished the title of king, and to
   have substituted for it that of Archon. This change, however,
   seems to have been important, rather as it indicated the new,
   precarious tenure by which the royal power was held, than as
   it immediately affected the nature of the office. It was,
   indeed, still held for life; and Medon, the son of Codrus,
   transmitted it to his posterity. ... After twelve reigns,
   ending with that of Alcmæon [B. C. 752], the duration of the
   office was limited to ten years; and through the guilt or
   calamity of Hippomenes, the fourth decennial archon, the house
   of Medon was deprived of its privilege, and the supreme
   magistracy was thrown open to the whole body of nobles. This
   change was speedily followed by one much more important. ...
   The duration of the archonship was again reduced to a single
   year [B. C. 683]; and, at the same time, its branches were
   severed and distributed among nine new magistrates. Among
   these, the first in rank retained the distinguishing title of
   the Archon, and the year was marked by his name. He
   represented the majesty of the state, and exercised a peculiar
   jurisdiction--that which had belonged to the king as the
   common parent of his people, the protector of families, the
   guardian of orphans and heiresses, and of the general rights
   of inheritance. For the second archon the title of king
   [basileus], if it had been laid aside, was revived, as the
   functions assigned to him were those most associated with
   ancient recollections. He represented the king as the
   high-priest of his people; he regulated the celebration of the
   mysteries and the most solemn festivals; decided all causes
   which affected the interests of religion. ... The third archon
   bore the title of Polemarch, and filled the place of the king
   as the leader of his people in war, and the guardian who
   watched over its security in time of peace. ... The remaining
   six archons received the common title of thesmothetes, which
   literally signifies legislators, and was probably applied to
   them as the judges who determined the great variety of causes
   which did not fall under the cognizance of their colleagues;
   because, in the absence of a written code, those who declare
   and interpret the laws may be properly said to make them."

      _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 11._

   "We are in no condition to determine the civil classification
   and political constitution of Attica, even at the period of
   the Archonship of Kreon, 683 B. C., when authentic Athenian
   chronology first commences, much less can we pretend to any
   knowledge of the anterior centuries. ... All the information
   which we possess respecting that old polity is derived from
   authors who lived after all or most of these great changes [by
   Solon, and later]--and who, finding no records, nor anything
   better than current legends, explained the foretime as well as
   they could by guesses more or less ingenious, generally
   attached to the dominant legendary names."

      _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 10._

      ALSO IN: _G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece:
      The State, part 3, chapter 3._

ATHENS: B. C. 624.
   Under the Draconian Legislation.

   "Drako was the first thesmothet, who was called upon to set
   down his thesmoi [ordinances and decisions] in writing, and
   thus to invest them essentially with a character of more or
   less generality. In the later and better-known times of
   Athenian law, we find these archons deprived in great measure
   of their powers of judging and deciding, and restricted to the
   task of first hearing of parties and collecting the evidence,
   next, of introducing the matter for trial into the appropriate
   dikastery, over which they presided. Originally, there was no
   separation of powers; the archons both judged and
   administered.... All of these functionaries belonged to the
   Eupatrids, and all of them doubtless acted more or less in the
   narrow interest of their order; moreover, there was ample room
   for favouritism in the way of connivance as well as antipathy
   on the part of the archons. That such was decidedly the case,
   and that discontent began to be serious, we may infer from the
   duty imposed on the thesmothet Drako, B. C. 624, to put in
   writing the thesmoi or ordinances, so that they might be
   'shown publicly' and known beforehand. He did not meddle with
   the political constitution, and in his ordinances Aristotle
   finds little worthy of remark except the extreme severity of
   the punishments awarded: petty thefts, or even proved idleness
   of life, being visited with death or disfranchisement. But we
   are not to construe this remark as demonstrating any special
   inhumanity in the character of Drako, who was not invested
   with the large power which Solon afterwards enjoyed, and
   cannot be imagined to have imposed upon the community severe
   laws of his own invention. ... The general spirit of penal
   legislation had become so much milder, during the two
   centuries which followed, that these old ordinances appeared
   to Aristotle intolerably rigorous."

      _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 10 (volume 3)._

{147}

ATHENS: B. C. 612-595.
   Conspiracy of Cylon.
   Banishment of the Alcmæonids.

   The first attempt at Athens to overturn the oligarchical
   government and establish a personal tyranny was made, B. C.
   612, by Cylon (Kylon), a patrician, son-in-law of the tyrant
   of Megara, who was encouraged and helped in his undertaking by
   the latter. The conspiracy failed miserably. The partisans of
   Cylon, blockaded in the acropolis, were forced to surrender;
   but they placed themselves under the protection of the goddess
   Minerva and were promised their lives. More effectually to
   retain the protection of the goddess until their escape was
   effected, they attached a cord to her altar and held it in
   their hands as they passed out through the midst of their
   enemies. Unhappily the cord broke, and the archon Megacles at
   once declared that the safeguard of Minerva was withdrawn from
   them, whereupon they were massacred without mercy, even though
   they fled to the neighboring altars and clung to them. The
   treachery and bad faith of this cruel deed does not seem to
   have disturbed the Athenian people, but the sacrilege involved
   in it caused horror and fear when they had had time to reflect
   upon it. Megacles and his whole family--the Alcmæonids as they
   were called, from the name of one of their ancestors--were
   held accountable for the affront to the gods and were
   considered polluted and accursed. Every public calamity was
   ascribed to their sin, and at length, after a solemn trial,
   they were banished from the city (about 596 or 595 B. C.),
   while the dead of the family were disinterred and cast out.
   The agitations of this affair exercised an important influence
   on the course of events, which opened the way for Solon and
   his constitutional reforms.

      _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 11._

      ALSO IN: _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 10._

ATHENS: B. C. 610-586.
   Struggle with Megara for Salamis.
   Cirrhæan or First Sacred War.

   "The petty state of Megara, which, since the earlier ages,
   had, from the dependent of Athens, grown up to the dignity of
   her rival, taking advantage of the internal dissensions in the
   latter city, succeeded in wresting from the Athenian
   government the isle of Salamis. It was not, however, without
   bitter and repeated struggles that Athens at last submitted to
   the surrender of the isle. But, after signal losses and
   defeats, as nothing is ever more odious to the multitude than
   unsuccessful war, so the popular feeling was such as to induce
   the government to enact a decree by which it was forbidden,
   upon pain of death, to propose reasserting the Athenian
   claims. ... Many of the younger portion of the community,
   pining at the dishonour of their country, and eager for
   enterprise, were secretly inclined to countenance any
   stratagem that might induce the reversal of the decree. At
   this time there went a report through the city that a man of
   distinguished birth ... had incurred the consecrating
   misfortune of insanity. Suddenly this person appeared in the
   market place, wearing the peculiar badge [a cap] that
   distinguished the sick. ... Ascending the stone from which the
   heralds made their proclamations, he began to recite aloud a
   poem upon the loss of Salamis, boldly reproving the cowardice
   of the people, and inciting them again to war. His supposed
   insanity protected him from the law--his rank, reputation, and
   the circumstance of his being himself a native of Salamis,
   conspired to give to his exhortation a powerful effect, and
   the friends he had secured to back his attempt loudly
   proclaimed their applauding sympathy with the spirit of the
   address. The name of the pretended madman was Solon, son of
   Execestides, the descendant of Codrus. ... The stratagem and
   the eloquence of Solon produced its natural effect upon his
   spirited and excitable audience, and the public enthusiasm
   permitted the oligarchical government to propose and effect
   the repeal of the law. An expedition was decreed and planned,
   and Solon was invested with its command. It was but a brief
   struggle to recover the little island of Salamis. ... But the
   brave and resolute Megarians were not men to be disheartened
   by a single reverse; they persisted in the contest--losses
   were sustained on either side, and at length both states
   agreed to refer their several claims on the sovereignty of the
   island to the decision of Spartan arbiters. And this appeal
   from arms to arbitration is a proof how much throughout Greece
   had extended that spirit of civilisation which is but an
   extension of the sense of justice. ... The arbitration of the
   umpires in favour of Athens only suspended hostilities; and
   the Megarians did not cease to watch (and shortly afterwards
   they found) a fitting occasion to regain a settlement so
   tempting to their ambition. The credit acquired by Solon in
   this expedition was shortly afterwards greatly increased in
   the estimation of Greece. In the Bay of Corinth was situated a
   town called Cirrha, inhabited by a fierce and lawless race,
   who, after devastating the Sacred territories of Delphi,
   sacrilegiously besieged the city itself, in the desire to
   possess themselves of the treasures which the piety of Greece
   had accumulated in the Temple of Apollo. Solon appeared at the
   Amphictyonic council, represented the sacrilege of the
   Cirrhæans, and persuaded the Greeks to arm in defence of the
   altars of their tutelary god [B. C. 595]. Clisthenes, the
   tyrant of Sicyon, was sent as commander-in-chief against the
   Cirrhæans; and (according to Plutarch) the records of Delphi
   inform us that Alcmæon was the leader of the Athenians. The
   war [known as the First Sacred War] was not very successful at
   the onset; the oracle of Apollo was consulted, and the answer
   makes one of the most amusing anecdotes of priestcraft. The
   besiegers were informed by the god that the place would not be
   reduced until the waves of the Cirrhæan Sea washed the
   territories of Delphi. The reply perplexed the army; but the
   superior sagacity of Solon was not slow in discovering that
   the holy intention of the oracle was to appropriate the lands
   of the Cirrhæans to the profit of the temple. He therefore
   advised the besiegers to attack and to conquer Cirrha, and to
   dedicate its whole territory to the service of the god. The
   advice was adopted--Cirrha was taken [B. C. 586]; it became
   thenceforth the arsenal of Delphi, and the insulted deity had
   the satisfaction of seeing the sacred lands washed by the
   waves of the Cirrhæan Sea. ... The Pythian games commenced, or
   were revived, in celebration of this victory of the Pythian god."

      _Sir E. Bulwer Lytton, Athens: Its Rise and Fall,
      book 2, chapter 1._

      See, also, DELPHI.

{148}

ATHENS: B. C. 594.
   The Constitution of Solon.
   The Council of Four Hundred.

   "Solon, Archon Ol. 46,1, was chosen mediator. Equity and
   moderation are described by the ancients as the
   characteristics of his mind; he determined to abolish the
   privileges of particular classes, and the arbitrary power of
   officers, and to render all the participators in civil and
   political freedom equal in the eye of the law, at the same
   time ensuring to everyone the integrity of those lights to
   which his real merits entitled him; on the other hand, he was
   far from contemplating a total subversion of existing
   regulations. ... Whatever was excellent in prescription was
   incorporated with the new laws and thereby stamped afresh; but
   prescription as such, with the exception of some unwritten
   religious ordinances of the Eumolpids, was deprived of force.
   The law was destined to be the sole centre, whence every
   member of the political community was to derive a fixed rule
   of conduct."

      _W. Wachsmuth, Historical Antiquities of the Greeks,
      section 46 (volume 1)_.

   "The factions, to allay the reviving animosities of which was
   Solon's immediate object, had, at that time, formed parties
   corresponding to the geographical division of the country,
   which we have already adverted to; the Pediæi, or inhabitants
   of the lowlands, insisted on a strict oligarchy; the Parali,
   on the coast, who, did we not find the Alcmaeonid Megacles at
   their head, might be considered the wealthier portion of the
   people, wished for a mixed constitution; but the Diacrii or
   Hyperacrii [of the mountainous district] formed the great
   majority, who, in their impoverished state, looked for relief
   only from a total revolution. Solon might, had he so chosen,
   have made himself tyrant by heading this populace: but he
   preferred acting as mediator, and with this view caused
   himself to be elected archon, B. C. 594, as being an Eupatrid
   of the house ... of Codrus."

      _C. F. Hermann, Manual of the Political
      Antiquities of Greece, chapter 5, section 106._

   "The chief power was vested in the collective people; but in
   order that it might be exercised with advantage it was
   necessary that they should be endowed with common rights of
   citizenship. Solon effected this by raising the lower class
   from its degradation, and by subjecting to legal control those
   who had till now formed the governing order, as well as by
   rendering the liberty of both dependent upon the law. ... This
   change was brought about by two ordinances, which must not be
   regarded as mere remedies for the abuses of that period, but
   as the permanent basis of free and legal citizenship. The one
   was the Seisachtheia; this was enacted by Solon to afford
   relief to oppressed debtors, by reducing their debts in
   amount, and by raising the value of money in the payment of
   interest and principal; at the same time he abrogated the
   former rigorous law of debt by which the freeman might be
   reduced to servitude, and thus secured to him the unmolested
   possession of his legal rights. ... A second ordinance
   enjoined, that their full and entire rights should be restored
   to all citizens who had incurred Atimia, except to absolute
   criminals. This was not only destined to heal the wounds which
   had been caused by the previous dissensions, but as till that
   time the law of debt had been able to reduce citizens to
   Atimia, and the majority of the Atimoi pointed out by Solon
   were slaves for debt, that declaration stood in close
   connection with the Seisachtheia, and had the effect of a
   proclamation from the state of its intention to guarantee the
   validity of the new citizenship. ... The right of
   naturalization was granted by Solon to deserving aliens, when
   6,000 citizens declared themselves in favour of the measure,
   but these new citizens were likewise deficient in a few of the
   privileges of citizenship. ... The statement that Solon
   received a great many foreigners as citizens, and every
   artizan that presented himself, appears highly improbable, as
   Solon was the first legislator who systematically regulated
   the condition of the Metœci. The Metœci ... probably took the
   place of the former Demiurgi; their position was one of
   sufferance, but the protection of the laws was guaranteed
   them. ... The servile order, exclusively consisting of
   purchased aliens and their descendants, did not, as a body,
   stand in direct relation with the state; individual slaves
   became the property of individual citizens, but a certain
   number were employed by the state as clerks, etc., and were
   abandoned to the arbitrary pleasure of their oppressive
   taskmasters. ... Those who were manumitted stood upon the
   footing of Metœci; the citizens who enfranchised them becoming
   their Prostatæ. ... Upon attaining the age of puberty, the
   sons of citizens entered public life under the name of Ephebi.
   The state gave them two years for the full development of
   their youthful strength. ... Upon the expiration of the
   second, and according to the most authentic accounts, in their
   eighteenth year, they received the shield and spear in the
   popular assembly, complete armour being given to the sons of
   those who had fallen in battle, and in the temple of Agraulos
   took the oath of young citizens, the chief obligations of
   which concerned the defence of their country, and then for the
   space of one or two years performed military service in the
   Attic border fortresses under the name of Peripoli. The
   ceremony of arming them was followed by enrolment in the book
   which contained the names of those who had attained majority;
   this empowered the young citizen to manage his own fortune,
   preside over a household, enter the popular assembly, and
   speak. When he asserted the last right, viz., the Isegoria,
   Parrhesia, he was denominated Rhetor, and this appellation
   denoted the difference between him and the silent member of
   the assembly, the Idiotes. ... Upon attaining his 30th year,
   the citizen might assert his superior rights; he was qualified
   for a member of the sworn tribunal entitled Heliæa. ... The
   word Heliast does not merely signify a judge; but the citizen
   who has fully attained maturity. ... The judges of the courts
   of the Diætetæ and Ephetæ, which existed without the circle of
   the ordinary tribunals, were required to be still older men
   than the Heliasts, viz., 50 or 60 years of age. Solon
   appointed gradations in the rights of citizenship, according
   to the conditions of a census in reference to offices of
   state. ... Upon the principle of a conditional equality of
   rights, which assigns to everyone as much as he deserves, and
   which is highly characteristic of Solon's policy in general,
   he instituted four classes according to a valuation; these
   were the Pentacosiomedimni [whose land yielded 500 measures of
   wheat or oil], the Hippeis [horsemen], the Zeugitæ [owners of
   a yoke of mules], and the Thetes [or laborers]. The valuation,
   however, only affected that portion of capital from which
   contributions to the state-burthens were required,
   consequently, according to Böckh, a taxable capital. ... The
   Thetes, the last of these classes, were not regularly summoned
   to perform military service, but only exercised the civic
   right as members of the assembly and the law-courts; ... the
   highest class exclusively supplied the superior offices, such
   as the archonship, and through this the council of the
   Areopagus. ... In lieu of the former council of
   administration, of which no memorial has been preserved, Solon
   instituted a Council of four hundred citizens taken from the
   first three classes, 100 from every Phyle, of which no person
   under 30 years of age could be a member. The appointments were
   renewed annually; the candidates underwent an examination, and
   such as were deemed eligible drew lots."

      _W. Wachsmuth, Historical Antiquities of the Greeks,
      section 46-47 (volume 1)._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. F. Schömann, Antiquity of Greece: The State,
      part 3, chapter 3, section 4._

      _E. Abbott, History of Greece, part 11, chapter 3._

      _G. Grote, History of Greece, chapter 11._

      _Plutarch, Solon._

      _Aristotle, On the Constitution of Athens
      (translated by E. Poste), chapters 5-13._

      See, also,
      AREOPAGUS, PRYTANES, HELIÆA, and DEBT.

{149}

ATHENS: B. C. 560-510.
   The tyranny of the Pisistratidæ.

   "The constitution which he [Solon] framed was found to be
   insufficient even in his own life-time. ... The poor citizens
   were still poor, in spite of the Seisachtheia and the reform
   of the constitution. At the same time the admission of the
   lowest class in the scale of property to the rights of
   Athenian citizenship, and the authority given to the General
   Assembly, had thrown a power into the hands of the masses
   which filled the more conservative citizens with resentment
   and alarm. And so the old party quarrels, which had divided
   Attica before the reforms of Solon, reappeared after them with
   even greater violence. The men of the plain were led by
   Miltiades, a grandson of the tyrant of Corinth, and Lycurgus,
   the son of Aristolaidas; the men of the shore by Megacles, the
   Alcmæonid, who had recently strengthened the position of his
   family by his marriage with Agariste, the daughter of
   Clisthenes of Sicyon. At the head of the mountaineers stood
   Pisistratus, a descendant of the royal stock of Nestor, who
   ... had greatly distinguished himself in the Salaminian war.
   As he possessed property in the neighborhood of Marathon,
   Pisistratus may have been intimately known to the inhabitants
   of the adjacent hills. ... Solon watched the failure of his
   hopes with the deepest distress. He endeavoured to recall the
   leaders of the contending parties to a sense of their duty to
   the country, and to soothe the bitterness of their followers.
   With a true instinct he regarded Pisistratus as by far the
   most dangerous of the three. Pisistratus was an approved
   general, and the faction which he led was composed of poor men
   who had nothing to lose. ... Pisistratus met the vehement
   expressions of Solon by driving wounded into the market-place.
   The people's friend had suffered in the people's cause; his
   life was in danger. The incident roused the Athenians to an
   unusual exercise of political power. Without any previous
   discussion in the Council, a decree was passed by the people
   allowing Pisistratus to surround himself with a body-guard of
   fifty men, and to arm them with clubs. Thus protected, he
   threw off all disguises, and established himself in the
   Acropolis as tyrant of Athens [B. C. 560]. ... Herodotus tells
   us that Pisistratus was a just and moderate ruler. He did not
   alter the laws or remove the existing forms of government. The
   Council was still elected, the Assembly continued to meet,
   though it is improbable that either the one or the other was
   allowed to extend its functions beyond domestic affairs. The
   archons still continued to be the executive magistrates of the
   city, and cases of murder were tried, as of old, at the
   Areopagus. The tyrant contented himself with occupying the
   Acropolis with his troops and securing important posts in the
   administration for his family or his adherents." Twice,
   however, Pisistratus was driven from power by the combination
   of his opponents, and into exile, for four years in the first
   instance and for ten years in the last; but Athens was
   compelled to accept him for a ruler in the end. "Pisistratus
   remained in undisturbed possession of the throne till his
   death in 527 B. C. He was succeeded by his eldest son Hippias,
   with whom Hipparchus and Thessalus, his younger sons, were
   associated in the government." But these younger tyrants soon
   made themselves intolerably hateful, and a conspiracy formed
   against them by Harmodius and Aristogeiton was successful in
   taking the life of Hipparchus. Four years later, in 510 B. C.,
   with the help of Delphi and Sparta, Hippias was driven from
   the city. Clisthenes, at the head of the exiled Alcmæonids,
   was the master-spirit of the revolution, and it was under his
   guidance that the Athenian democratic
   constitution was reorganized.

      _E. Abbott, History of Greece, volume 1, chapter 15._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote, History of Greece, chapter 11 and 30._

ATHENS: B. C. 510-507.
   The constitution of Cleisthenes.
   Advance of democracy.

   "The expulsion of the Pisistratides left the democratical
   party, which had first raised them to power, without a leader.
   The Alcmæonids had always been considered as its adversaries,
   though they were no less opposed to the faction of the nobles,
   which seems at this time to have been headed by Isagoras. ...
   Cleisthenes found himself, as his party had always been,
   unable to cope with it; he resolved, therefore, to shift his
   ground, and to attach himself to that popular cause which
   Pisistratus had used as the stepping stone of his ambition.
   His aims, however, were not confined to a temporary advantage
   over his rivals; he planned an important change in the
   constitution, which should forever break the power of his
   whole order, by dissolving some of the main links by which
   their sway was secured. For this purpose, having gained the
   confidence of the commonalty and obtained the sanction of the
   Delphic oracle, he abolished the four ancient tribes, and made
   a fresh geographical division of Attica into ten new tribes,
   each of which bore a name derived from some Attic hero. The
   ten tribes were subdivided into districts of various extent,
   called demes, each containing a town or village. ...
   Cleisthenes appears to have preserved the ancient phratries;
   but as they were now left insulated by the abolition of the
   tribes to which they belonged, they lost all political
   importance. ... Cleisthenes at the same time increased the
   strength of the commonalty by making a great many new
   citizens, and he is said to have enfranchised not only
   aliens--and these both residents and adventurers from
   abroad--but slaves. ... The whole frame of the state was
   reorganized to correspond with the new division of the country.
{150}
   The Senate of the Four Hundred was increased to Five Hundred,
   that fifty might be drawn from each tribe, and the rotation of
   the presidency was adapted to this change, the fifty
   councillors of each tribe filling that office for thirty-five
   or thirty-six days in succession, and nine councillors being
   elected one from each of the other tribes to preside at the
   Council and the Assembly of the People, which was now called
   regularly four times in the month, certain business being
   assigned to each meeting. The Heliæa was also distributed into
   ten courts: and the same division henceforth prevailed in most
   of the public offices, though the number of the archons
   remained unchanged. To Cleisthenes also is ascribed the formal
   institution of the ostracism. ... These changes, and the
   influence they acquired for their author, reduced the party of
   Isagoras to utter weakness, and they saw no prospect of
   maintaining themselves but by foreign aid." Isagoras,
   accordingly, applied for help to Cleomenes, one of the kings
   of Sparta, who had already interfered in Athenian affairs by
   assisting at the expulsion of the Pisistratidæ. Cleomenes
   responded by coming to Athens with a small force [B. C. 508],
   which sufficed to overawe the people, and, assuming
   dictatorial authority, he established Isagoras in power, with
   an attempted rearrangement of the government. "He began by
   banishing 700 families designated by Isagoras, and then
   proceeded to suppress the Council of the Five Hundred, and to
   lodge the government in the hands of Three Hundred of his
   friend's partisans. When, however, the councillors resisted
   this attempt, the people took heart, and, Cleomenes and
   Isagoras having occupied the citadel, rose in a body and
   besieged them there. As they were not prepared to sustain a
   siege, they capitulated on the third day: Cleomenes and
   Isagoras were permitted to depart with the Lacedæmonian
   troops, but they were compelled to abandon their adherents to
   the mercy of their enemies. All were put to death, and
   Cleisthenes and the 700 banished families returned
   triumphantly to Athens." Cleomenes soon afterwards raised a
   force with which to subdue Athens and restore Isagoras. The
   Athenians in their alarm sent an embassy to Sardis to solicit
   the protection of the Persians. Fortunately, nothing came of
   it, and Cleomenes was so much opposed in his project, by the
   Corinthians and other allies of Sparta, that he had to give it
   up.

      _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 11._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 31._

      _E. Abbott, History of Greece, chapter 15._

      _Aristotle, On the Constitution of Athens
      (translated by E. Poste), chapter 20-22._

ATHENS: B. C. 509-506.
   Hostile undertakings of Kleomenes and Sparta.
   Help solicited from the Persian king.
   Subjection refused.
   Failure of Spartan schemes to restore tyranny.
   Protest of the Corinthians.
   Successful war with Thebes and Chalcis.

   "With Sparta it was obvious that the Athenians now had a
   deadly quarrel, and on the other side they knew that Hippias
   was seeking to precipitate on them the power of the Persian
   king. It seemed therefore to be a matter of stern necessity to
   anticipate the intrigues of their banished tyrant; and the
   Athenians accordingly sent ambassadors to Sardeis to make an
   independent alliance with the Persian despot. The envoys, on
   being brought into the presence of Artaphernes, the Satrap of
   Lydia, were told that Dareios would admit them to an alliance
   if they would give him earth and water,--in other words, if
   they would acknowledge themselves his slaves. To this demand
   of absolute subjection the envoys gave an assent which was
   indignantly repudiated by the whole body of Athenian citizens.
   ... Foiled for the time in his efforts, Kleomenes was not cast
   down. Regarding the Kleisthenian constitution as a personal
   insult to himself, he was resolved that Isagoras should be
   despot of Athens. Summoning the allies of Sparta [including
   the Bœotian League headed by Thebes, and the people of Chalcis
   in Eubœa], he led them as far as Eleusis, 12 miles only from
   Athens, without informing them of the purpose of the campaign.
   He had no sooner confessed it than the Corinthians, declaring
   that they had been brought away from home on an unrighteous
   errand, went back, followed by the other Spartan King,
   Demaratos, the son of Ariston; and this conflict of opinion
   broke up the rest of the army. This discomfiture of their
   enemy seemed to inspire fresh strength into the Athenians, who
   won a series of victories over the Boiotians and
   Euboians"--completely overthrowing the latter--the
   Chalcidians--taking possession of their city, and making it a
   peculiar colony and dependency of Athens.--See KLERUCHS. The
   anger of Kleomenes "on being discomfited at Eleusis by the
   defection of his own allies was heightened by indignation at
   the discovery that in driving out his friend Hippias he had
   been simply the tool of Kleisthenes and of the Delphian
   priestess whom Kleisthenes had bribed. It was now clear to him
   and to his countrymen that the Athenians would not acquiesce
   in the predominance of Sparta, and that if they retained their
   freedom, the power of Athens would soon be equal to their own.
   Their only safety lay, therefore, in providing the Athenians
   with a tyrant. An invitation was, therefore, sent to Hippias
   at Sigeion, to attend a congress of the allies at Sparta, who
   were summoned to meet on the arrival of the exiled despot."
   The appointed congress was held, and the Spartans besought
   their allies to aid them in humbling the Athenian Democracy,
   with the object of restoring Hippias to power. But again the
   Corinthians protested, bluntly suggesting that if the Spartans
   thought tyranny a good thing they might first try it for
   themselves. Hippias, speaking in his own behalf, attempted to
   convince them that the time was coming "in which they would
   find the Athenians a thorn in their side. For the present his
   exhortations were thrown away. The allies protested
   unanimously against all attempts to interfere with the
   internal administration of any Hellenic city; and the banished
   tyrant went back disappointed to Sigeion."

      _G. W. Cox, The Greeks and the Persians, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 31 (volume 4)._

{151}

ATHENS: B. C. 501-490.
   Aid to Ionians against Persia.
   Provocation of King Darius.
   His wrath and attempted vengeance.
   The first Persian invasions.
   Battle of Marathon.

   "It is undeniable that the extension of the Persian dominion
   over Asia Minor, Syria, and Egypt gave a violent check to the
   onward movement of Greek life. On the other hand, it seemed as
   if the great enterprise of Darius Hystaspis against the
   Scythians ought to have united the Greeks and Persians. It was
   of a piece with the general policy of Darius that, after
   defeating so many other adversaries, he undertook to prevent
   for all succeeding time a repetition of those inroads with
   which, some centuries before, the Scythians had visited Asia
   and the civilized world. He possessed authority enough to
   unite the different nations which obeyed his sceptre in a
   great campaign against the Scythians. ... The Greeks were his
   best allies in his campaign; they built him the bridge by
   which he crossed the Bosporus, and also the bridge of boats
   over the Danube by which he made his invasion into the enemy's
   territory. The result was not one which could properly be
   called unfortunate; yet it was certainly of a very doubtful
   character. ... A great region, in which they had already
   obtained very considerable influence, was closed to them once
   more. The Persian army brought the populations upon the
   Strymon, many in number and individually weak, under the
   dominion of Persia; and even Amyntas, the king of Makedonia,
   one of a race of rulers of Greek origin, was compelled to do
   homage to the Great King. Thus the movement which had thrust
   back the Greeks from Egypt and Asia Minor made advances even
   into the regions of Europe which bordered upon Northern
   Hellas. It was an almost inevitable consequence of this that
   the Greeks were menaced and straitened even in their proper
   home. A pretext and opportunity for an attack upon the Greek
   islands was presented to the Persians by the questions at
   issue between the populations of the cities and the tyrants.
   ... The instrument by whom the crisis was brought about was
   not a person of any great importance. It is not always great
   natures, or natures strong in the consciousness of their own
   powers, that bring on such conflicts; this is sometimes the
   work of those flexible characters which, being at the point of
   contact between the opposing forces, pass from one side to the
   other. Such a character was Aristagoras of Miletus. ...
   Morally contemptible, but gifted intellectually with a range
   of ideas of unlimited extent, Aristagoras made for himself an
   imperishable name by being the first to entertain the thought
   of a collective opposition to the Persians on the part of all
   the Greeks, even contemplating the possibility of waging a
   great and successful offensive war upon them. ... He announced
   in Miletus his own resignation of power and the restoration to
   the people of their old laws. ... A general overthrow of
   tyranny ensued [B. C. 501], involving a revolt from Persia,
   and Strategi were everywhere appointed. The supreme power in
   the cities was based upon a good understanding between the
   holders of power and the Persians; the fact that one of these
   rulers found the authority of the Persians intolerable was the
   signal for a universal revolt. Aristagoras himself voluntarily
   renounced the tyranny, the other tyrants were compelled to
   take the same course; and thus the cities, assuming at the
   same time a democratic organization, came into hostility with
   Persia. ... The cities and islands which had so often been
   forced to submission could not hope to resist the Persians by
   their own unaided efforts. Even Aristagoras could not have
   expected so much. ... He visited Lakedæmon, the strongest of
   the Greek powers, in person, and endeavored to carry her with
   him in his plans. ... Rejected by Sparta, Aristagoras betook
   himself to Athens. ... The Athenians granted Aristagoras
   twenty ships, to which the Eretrians, from friendship to
   Miletus, added five more. The courage of the Ionians was thus
   revived, and an attack upon the Persian dominion commenced,
   directed, not indeed against Susa, but against Sardis, in
   their immediate neighborhood, the capital of the satrapy which
   imposed on them their heaviest burdens. ... By the burning of
   Sardis, in which a sanctuary of Kybele had been destroyed, the
   Syrian nations had been outraged in the person of their gods.
   We know that it was part of the system of the Persians to take
   the gods of a country under their protection. Nor would the
   great king who thought himself appointed to be master of the
   world fail to resent an invasion of his dominions as an insult
   calling for revenge. The hostile attempts of the Ionians made
   no great impression upon him, but he asked who were the
   Athenians, of whose share in the campaign he had been
   informed. They were foreigners, of whose power the king had
   scarcely heard. ... The enterprise of Aristagoras had
   meanwhile caused general commotion. He had by far the larger
   part of Cyprus, together with the Carians, on his side. All
   the country near the Propontis and the Hellespont was in
   revolt. The Persians were compelled to make it their first
   concern to suppress this insurrection, a task which, if
   attempted by sea, did not promise to be an easy one. In their
   first encounter with the Phœnicians the Ionians had the
   advantage. When, however, the forces of the great empire were
   assembled, the insurrection was everywhere put down. ... It
   must be reckoned among the consequences of the battle of Lade,
   by which the combination against the Persian empire had been
   annihilated, that King Darius, not content with having
   consolidated his dominion in Ionia, once more resumed the plan
   of pushing forward into Europe, of which his enterprise
   against the Scythians formed part. With the execution of this
   project he commissioned one of the principal persons of the
   empire and the court, ... Mardonius by name, whom he united to
   his family by marrying him to his daughter. ... This general
   crossed the Hellespont with a large army, his fleet always
   accompanying him along the shore whilst he pushed on by the
   mainland. He once more subdued Makedonia, probably the
   districts which had not yet, like the Makedonian king, been
   brought into subjection, and gave out that his aim was
   directed against Eretria and Athens, the enemies of the king.
   ... In the stormy waters near Mount Athos, which have always
   made the navigation of the Ægean difficult, his fleet suffered
   ship-wreck. But without naval supports he could not hope to
   gain possession of an island and a maritime town situated on a
   promontory. Even by land he encountered resistance, so that he
   found it advisable to postpone the further execution of his
   undertakings to another time. ... In order to subdue the
   recalcitrants, especially Athens and Eretria, another attempt
   was organized without delay. Under two generals, one of whom,
   Datis, was a Mede, the other, Artaphernes, the son of the
   satrap of Sardis of the same name, and brother of the Darius
   who was in alliance with Hippias, a maritime expedition was
   undertaken for the immediate subjugation of the islands and
   the maritime districts.
{152}
   It was not designed for open hostility against the Greeks in
   general. ... Their design was to utilize the internal
   dissensions of Greece in conquering the principal enemies upon
   whom the Great King had sworn vengeance, and presenting them
   as captives at his feet. The project succeeded in the case of
   Eretria. In spite of a brave resistance it fell by treachery
   into their hands, and they could avenge the sacrilege
   committed at Sardis by plundering and devastating Grecian
   sanctuaries. They expected now to be able to overpower Athens
   also without much trouble. ... It was a circumstance of great
   value to the Athenians that there was a man amongst them who
   was familiar with the Persian tactics. This was Miltiades, the
   son of Kimon. ... Although a Thracian prince, he had never
   ceased to be a citizen of Athens. Here he was impeached for
   having held a tyranny, but was acquitted and chosen strategus,
   for the democracy could not reject a man who was so admirably
   qualified to be at their head in the interchange of
   hostilities with Persia. Miltiades was conducting his own
   personal quarrel in undertaking the defence of Attica. The
   force of the Persians was indeed incomparably the larger, but
   the plains of Marathon, on which they were drawn up, prevented
   their proper deployment, and they saw with astonishment the
   Athenian hoplites displaying a front as extended as their own.
   These troops now rushed upon them with an impetus which grew
   swifter at every moment. The Persians easily succeeded in
   breaking through the centre of the Athenian army; but that was
   of no moment, for the strength of the onset lay in the two
   wings, where now began a hand-to-hand fight. The Persian
   sword, formidable elsewhere, was not adapted to do good
   service against the bronze armor and the spear of the
   Hellenes. On both flanks the Athenians obtained the advantage,
   and now attacked the Persian centre, which was not able to
   withstand the onslaught of men whose natural vigor was
   heightened by gymnastic training. The Persians, to their
   misfortune, had calculated upon desertion in the ranks of
   their opponents; foiled in this hope, they retreated to the
   shore and to their ships. Herodotus intimates that the
   Persians had secret intelligence with a party in Athens, and
   took their course round the promontory of Sunium toward the
   city, in the hope of surprising it. But when they came to
   anchor the Athenians had arrived also, and they saw themselves
   once more confronted by the victors of Marathon."

      _L. von Ranke, Universal History, chapter 6._

      ALSO IN:
      _Herodotus, History, book 6._

      _V. Duruy, History of Greece, chapter 16 (volume 2)_.

      See, also, PERSIA: B. C. 521-493,
      and GREECE: B. C. 492-491, and 490.

ATHENS: B. C. 489-480.
   Condemnation and death of Miltiades.
   The Æginetan war.
   Naval power created by Themistocles.

   "The victory of Marathon was chiefly due to Miltiades; it was
   he who brought on the engagement, and he was chief in command
   on the day when the battle was fought. Such a brilliant
   success greatly improved his position in the city, and excited
   in his enemies a still deeper hatred. Ever on the watch for an
   opportunity to pull down their rival, it was not long before
   they found one. Soon after his victory, Miltiades came before
   the Athenians with a request that a squadron of 70 ships might
   be placed at his disposal. The purpose for which he required
   them he would not disclose, though pledging his word that the
   expedition would add largely to the wealth and prosperity of
   the city. The request being granted, he sailed with the ships
   to Paros, an island which at this time was subject to Persia.
   From the Parians he demanded 100 talents, and when they
   refused to pay he blockaded the city. So vigorous and
   successful was the resistance offered that, after a long
   delay, Miltiades, himself dangerously wounded, was compelled
   to return home. His enemies, with Xanthippus at their head, at
   once attacked him for misconduct in the enterprise. ...
   Miltiades was unable to reply in person; he was carried into
   court, while his friends pleaded his cause. The sentence was
   given against him, but the penalty was reduced from death to a
   fine of 50 talents. So large a sum was more than even
   Miltiades could pay; he was thrown into prison as a public
   debtor, where he soon died from the mortification of his
   wound. ... His condemnation was one in a long series of
   similar punishments. The Athenians never learnt to be just to
   those who served them, or to distinguish between treachery and
   errors of judgment. ... We have very little information about
   the state of Athens immediately after the battle of Marathon.
   So far as we can tell, for the chronology is most uncertain,
   she was now engaged in a war with Ægina. ... Meanwhile, a man
   was rising to power, who may be said to have created the
   history of Athens for the rest of the century,--Themistocles,
   the son of Neocles. ... On the very day of Marathon,
   Themistocles had probably made up his mind that the Persians
   would visit Greece again. What was to keep them away, so long
   as they were masters of the Ægean? ... With an insight almost
   incredible he perceived that the Athenians could become a
   maritime nation; that Athens possesses harbours large enough
   to receive an enormous fleet, and capable of being strongly
   fortified; that in possession of a fleet she could not only
   secure her own safety, but stand forth as a rival power to
   Sparta. But how could Themistocles induce the Athenians to
   abandon the line in which they had been so successful for a
   mode of warfare in which even Miltiades had failed? After the
   fall of the great general, the conduct of affairs was in the
   hands of Xanthippus ... and Aristides. ... They were by no
   means prepared for the change which Themistocles was
   meditating. This is more especially true of Aristides. He had
   been a friend of Clisthenes; he was known as an admirer of
   Spartan customs. ... He had been second in command at
   Marathon, and was now the most eminent general at Athens. From
   him Themistocles could only expect the most resolute
   opposition. Xanthippus and Aristides could reckon on the
   support of old traditions and great connections. Themistocles
   had no support of the kind. He had to make his party ...
   conscious of their own position, Aristides and Xanthippus
   looked with contempt upon the knot of men who began to gather
   round their unmannerly and uncultivated leader. And they
   might, perhaps, have maintained their position if it had not
   been for the Æginetan war. That unlucky struggle had begun,
   soon after the reforms of Clisthenes, with an unprovoked
   attack of the Æginetans on the coast of Attica (506 B. C.),
   [Ægina being allied with Thebes in the war mentioned
   above--B.C. 509-506].
{153}
   It was renewed when the Æginetans gave earth and water to the
   heralds of Darius in 491, and though suspended at the time of
   the Persian invasion, it broke out again with renewed ferocity
   soon afterwards. The Æginetans had the stronger fleet, and
   defeated the Athenian ships. "Such experiences naturally
   caused a change in the minds of the Athenians. ... It was
   clear that the old arrangements for the navy were quite
   inadequate to the task which was now required of them. Yet the
   leaders of the state made no proposals." Themistocles now
   "came forward publicly with proposals of naval reform, and, as
   he expected, he drew upon himself the strenuous opposition of
   Aristides. ... It was clear that nothing decisive could be
   done in the Æginetan war unless the proposals of Themistocles
   were carried; it was equally clear that they never would be
   carried while Aristides and Xanthippus were at hand to oppose
   them. Under these circumstances recourse was had to the
   safety-valve of the constitution. Ostracism was proposed and
   accepted; and in this manner, by 483 B. C., Themistocles had
   got rid of both of his rivals in the city. He was now master
   of the situation. The only obstacle to the realization of his
   plans was the expense involved in building ships. And this he
   was able to meet by a happy accident, which brought into the
   treasury at this time a large surplus from the silver mines
   from Laurium. ... By the summer of 480, the Athenians ... were
   able to launch 180 vessels, besides providing 20 for the use
   of the Chalcideans of Eubœa. ... At the same time Themistocles
   set about the fortification of the Peiræus. ... Could he have
   carried the Athenians with him, he would have made the Peiræus
   the capital of the country, in order that the ships and the
   city might be in close connection. But for this the people
   were not prepared."

      _E. Abbott, Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN: Plutarch, _Aristides.--Themistocles._

ATHENS: B. C. 481-479.
   Congress at Corinth.
   Organized Hellenic Union, under the headship of Sparta.

      See GREECE: B. C. 481-479.

ATHENS: B. C. 480-479.
   The second Persian invasion.
   Thermopylæ, Artemisium, Salamis, Platæa.
   Abandonment of the City.

   "The last days of Darius were clouded by the disaster of
   Marathon; 'that battle formed the turning point of his good
   fortune,' and it would seem that the news of it led to several
   insurrections, particularly that of Egypt; but they were soon
   put down. Darius died (Olymp. 73, 3), and Xerxes, who
   succeeded him, was prevented from taking revenge on the
   Athenians by the revolt of Egypt, which engaged his attention
   during the first years of his reign. But he completely
   conquered the insurgents after they had maintained themselves
   about four or five years; and he then made preparations for
   that vengeance on Athens for which his barbarian pride was
   longing. The account of the three years' preparations of
   Xerxes, how he assembled his army in Asia Minor, how he made a
   bridge across the Hellespont, how he cut a canal through the
   isthmus of Mount Athos to prevent his fleet being destroyed by
   storms--all this is known to everyone who has read Herodotus.
   History is here so much interwoven with poetry, that they can
   no longer be separated. ... The Greeks awaited the attack
   (Olymp. 75, 1), 'but they were not agreed among themselves.
   The Argives from hatred of Sparta joined the Persians, and the
   miserable Boeotians likewise supported them. The others kept
   together only from necessity; and without the noble spirit of
   the Athenians Greece would have been lost, and that from the
   most paltry circumstances. A dispute arose as to who was to be
   honoured with the supreme command; the Athenians gave way to
   all, for their only desire was to save Greece. Had the
   Persians moved on rapidly, they would have met with no
   resistance, but they proceeded slowly, and matters turned out
   differently.' A Greek army was encamped at Tempe, at the
   entrance of Thessaly, and at first determined on defending
   Thessaly. But they must have seen that they could be entirely
   surrounded from Upper Thessaly; and when they thus discovered
   the impossibility of stopping the Persians, they retreated.
   The narrative now contains one inconceivable circumstance
   after another. ... It is inconceivable that, as the Greeks did
   make a stand at Thermopylae, no one else took his position
   there except King Leonidas and his Spartans, not including
   even the Lacedaemonians, for they remained at home! Only 1,000
   Phocians occupied the heights, though that people might surely
   have furnished 10,000 men; 400 of the Boeotians were posted in
   the rear, as a sort of hostages, as Herodotus remarks, and 700
   Thespians. Where were all the rest of the Greeks? ...
   Countless hosts are invading Greece; the Greeks want to defend
   themselves, and are making active preparations at sea; but on
   land hundreds of thousands are met by a small band of
   Peloponnesians. 700 Thespians, 400 Thebans as hostages, and
   1,000 Phocians, stationed on the heights! A pass is occupied,
   but only that one, and the others are left unguarded. ... All
   this is quite unintelligible; it would almost appear as if
   there had been an intention to sacrifice Leonidas and his men;
   but we cannot suppose this. These circumstances alone suggest
   to us, that the numbers of the Persian army cannot have been
   as great as they are described; but even if we reduce them to
   an immense extent, it still remains inconceivable why they
   were not opposed by greater numbers of the Greeks, for as
   afterwards they ventured to attack the Persians in the open
   field, it was certainly much more natural to oppose them while
   marching across the hills. But however this may be, it is an
   undoubted fact, that Leonidas and his Spartans fell in the
   contest, of which we may form a conception from the
   description of Herodotus, when after a resistance of three
   days they were surrounded by the Persians. A few of the
   Spartans escaped on very excusable grounds, but they were so
   generally despised, that their life became unendurable, and
   they made away with themselves. This is certainly historical.
   ... After the victory of Thermopylae all Hellas lay open
   before the Persians, and they now advanced towards Athens, a
   distance which they could march in a few days. Thebes opened
   her gates, and joyfully admitted them from hatred of Athens.
   Meantime a portion of the army appeared before Delphi. It is
   almost inconceivable that the Persians did not succeed in
   taking the temple. ... The miracles by which the temple is
   said to have been saved, are repeated in the same manner
   during the attack of the Gauls.
{154}
   But the temple of Delphi was certainly not
   plundered.' ... The city of Athens had in the meantime been
   abandoned by all the people; the defenceless had taken refuge
   in the small island of Salamis, or of Troezen, 'and all the
   Athenians capable of bearing arms embarked in the fleet.' ...
   The Persians thus took Athens without any resistance. ...
   During the same days on which the battle of Thermopylae was
   fought, the Greek fleet was engaged in two indecisive but
   glorious battles near the promontory of Artemisium. 'In a
   third the Persians gained the upper hand, and when the Greeks
   at the same time heard of the defeat at Thermopylae, they
   withdrew, and doubling Cape Sunium sailed towards Salamis.'
   God sent them a storm whereby the Persians in their pursuit
   suffered shipwreck. ... While the Greek fleet was stationed in
   the channel between the island of Salamis and Attica, towards
   Piraeeus, discord broke out among the Greeks. The
   Peloponnesians thought only of themselves; they had fortified
   the Isthmus; there they were assembled, and there they wanted
   to offer resistance to the Persians. In their folly they
   forgot, that if the enemy with his superior fleet, should turn
   against Peloponnesus, they might land wherever they liked. ...
   But Themistocles now declared, that all the hopes of the
   Athenians were directed towards the recovery of their own
   city; that, if the Peloponnesians should sacrifice them, and,
   thinking of themselves only, should abandon Attica to the
   barbarians, the Athenians would not be so childish as to
   sacrifice themselves for them, but would take their women and
   children on board their ships, and sail far away from the
   Persians to the island of Sardinia, or some other place where
   Greek colonies were established; that there they would settle
   as a free people, and abandon Peloponnesus to its fate; and
   that then the peninsula would soon be in the hands of the
   enemy. This frightened the Peloponnesians, and they resolved
   to stand by Athens. It is evident that, throughout that time,
   Themistocles had to struggle with the most intolerable
   difficulties, which the allies placed in his way, as well as
   with their jealousy, meanness, and insolence. 'The rudeness of
   the Spartans and Corinthians is nowhere more strongly
   contrasted with the refinement of the Athenians, than on that
   occasion.' But after he had tried everything, and overcome by
   every possible means a hundred different difficulties, he yet
   saw, that he could not rely on the perseverance of the
   Peloponnesians, and that they would turn to the Isthmus as
   soon as Xerxes should proceed in that direction. He
   accordingly induced the Persian king, by a false message, to
   surround the Greek fleet, for the purpose of cutting off the
   retreat of the Peloponnesians. He declared himself ready to
   deliver the whole of the Greek fleet into his hands. This
   device was quite to the mind of the Persians; Xerxes believed
   him, and followed his advice. When Themistocles was thus sure
   of the Peloponnesians, the ever-memorable battle of Salamis
   commenced, which is as certainly historical as that of Cannae,
   or any modern battle, 'whatever the numbers may be.' The
   battle proceeded somewhat in the manner of the battle of
   Leipzig: when the issue was decided, a portion of those who
   ought to have joined their countrymen before, made common
   cause with the Greeks. ... Their accession increased the
   victory of the Greeks. ... Certain as the battle of Salamis
   is, all the accounts of what took place after it, are very
   doubtful. This much is certain, that Xerxes returned, 'leaving
   a portion of his army under Mardonius in Greece;' ... Winter
   was now approaching, and Mardonius withdrew from ravaged
   Attica, taking up his winter-quarters partly in Thessaly and
   partly in Boeotia. ... The probability is, that the Athenians
   remained the winter in Salamis in sheds, or under the open
   sky. Mardonius offered to restore to them Attica uninjured, so
   far as it had not already been devastated, if they would
   conclude peace with him. They might at that time have obtained
   any terms they pleased, if they had abandoned the common cause
   of the Greeks; and the Persians would have kept the peace; for
   when they concluded treaties they observed them: they were not
   faithless barbarians. But on this occasion again, we see the
   Athenian people in all its greatness and excellence; it
   scorned such a peace, and preferred the good of the
   Peloponnesians. ... Mardonius now again advanced towards
   Athens; the Spartans, who ought to have proceeded towards
   Cithaeron, had not arrived, and thus he again took possession
   of Attica and ravaged it completely. At length, however
   (Olymp. 75, 2), the Athenians prevailed upon the
   Peloponnesians to leave the Isthmus, and they gradually
   advanced towards Boeotia. There the battle of Plataeae was
   fought. ... In regard to the accounts of this battle, it is
   historically certain that it was completely won by the Greeks,
   and that the remnants of the Persian army retreated without
   being vigorously pursued. It must have reached Asia, but it
   then disappears. It is also historically certain, that
   Pausanias was the commander of the allied army of the Greeks.
   ... After their victory, the Greeks advanced towards Thebes.
   In accordance with a vow which they had made before the war,
   Thebes ought to have been destroyed by the Greeks. But their
   opinions were divided. ... On the same day on which the battle
   of Plataeae was fought, the allied Greeks gained as complete a
   victory at sea. ... After this victory of Mycale, the Ionian
   cities revolted against the Persians."

      _B. G. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient History,
      volume 1, lectures. 37 and 38._

      ALSO IN:
      _Herodotus, History; translated and edited by H. Rawlinson,
      book 7 (volume 4)_.

      _Plutarch, Themistocles._

      _G. W. Cox, The Greeks and Persians._

ATHENS: B. C. 479-478.
   Protection of Ionia assumed.
   Siege and capture of Sestus.
   Rebuilding and enlargement of the city and its walls.
   Interference of Sparta foiled by Themistocles.

   "The advantages obtained by the Hellenes [in their war with
   Persia] came upon them so unexpectedly as to find them totally
   unprepared, and accordingly embarrassed by their own
   victories. What was to be done with Ionia? Was the whole
   country to be admitted into the Hellenic confederation? Too
   great a responsibility would, in the opinion of the
   Peloponnesians, be incurred by such a step. ... It would be
   better to sacrifice the country, and establish the Ionians in
   settlements in other parts, at the expense of those who had
   favoured the Medes, i. e., of the Argives, Bœotians, Locrians,
   and Thessalians. ... The Athenians, on the other hand,
   espoused the cause of the cities. ... Ionia ought to be a
   bulwark against the Barbarians, and to belong to the Hellenes.
{155}
   ... The Athenians found a support in the feeling prevalent
   among the Ionians, who were naturally opposed to any forced
   settlement. Accordingly, in the first instance, Samos, Lesbos,
   Chios, and a number of other island-towns, were admitted into
   the confederation ... and a new Hellas was formed, a Greek
   empire comprehending both sides of the sea. Considerations of
   caution made it necessary, above all, to secure the passage
   from Asia to Europe; for it was universally believed that the
   bridge over the Hellespont was either still in existence or
   had been restored. When it was found to have been destroyed,
   the Peloponnesians urged the termination of the campaign. ...
   The Athenians, on the other hand, declared themselves resolved
   ... not to leave unfinished what they had begun. Sestus, the
   strongest fortress on the Hellespont, ought not to be left in
   the hands of the enemy; an attack on it ought to be risked
   without delay, before the city had prepared for a siege. They
   allowed the Peloponnesians to take their departure, and under
   the command of Xanthippus united with the ships of the Ionians
   and Hellespontians for the purpose of new undertakings." The
   Persians in Sestus resisted obstinately, enduring a long
   siege, but were forced to surrender at last. "Meanwhile, the
   main point consisted in the Athenians having remained alone in
   the field, in their having fraternized with the Ionians as one
   naval power, and having after such successes attained to a
   confidence in victory, to which no enterprise any longer
   seemed either too distant or too difficult. Already they
   regarded their city as the centre of the coast-lands of
   Greece. But what was the condition of this city of Athens
   itself? A few fragments of the ancient city wall, a few
   scattered houses, which had served the Persian commanders as
   their quarters, were yet standing; the rest was ashes and
   ruins. After the battle of Platææ the inhabitants had returned
   from Salamis, Trœzene, and Ægina; not even the fleet and its
   crews were at hand to afford them assistance. They endeavoured
   to make shift as best they could, to pass through the trials
   of the winter. As soon as the spring arrived, the restoration
   of the city was commenced with all possible activity. ... But
   even now it was not the comforts of domesticity which occupied
   their thoughts, but, above all, the city as a whole and its
   security. To Themistocles, the founder of the port-town,
   public confidence was in this matter properly accorded." It
   was not possible "to carry out a new and regular plan for the
   city; but it was resolved to extend its circumference beyond
   the circle of the ancient walls, ... so as to be able, in case
   of a future siege, to offer a retreat to the
   country-population within the capital itself. ... But the
   Athenians were not even to be permitted to build their walls
   undisturbed; for, as soon as their grand plan of operations
   became known, the envy and insidious jealousy of their
   neighbours broke out afresh. ... The Peloponnesian states,
   above all Ægina and Corinth, hastened to direct the attention
   of Sparta to the situation of affairs. ... As at Sparta city
   walls were objected to on principle, and as no doubts
   prevailed with regard to the fact that z well-fortified town
   was impregnable to the military art of the Peloponnesians, it
   was actually resolved at any price to prevent the building of
   the walls in Attica." But, for shame's sake, the interference
   undertaken by Sparta was put upon the ground that in the event
   of a future invasion of the country, only the peninsula could
   be successfully defended; that central Greece would
   necessarily be abandoned to the enemy; and that every
   fortified city in it would furnish him a dangerous base. "At
   such a crisis craft alone could be of avail. When the Spartans
   made their imperious demand at Athens, Themistocles ordered
   the immediate cessation of building operations, and with
   assumed submissiveness, promised to present himself at Sparta,
   in order to pursue further negotiations in person. On his
   arrival there, he allowed one day after the other to go by,
   pretending to be waiting for his fellow envoys." In the
   meantime, all Athens was toiling night and day at the walls,
   and time enough was gained by the audacious duplicity of
   Themistocles to build them to a safe height for defence. "The
   enemies of Athens saw that their design had been foiled, and
   were forced to put the best face upon their discomfiture. They
   now gave out that they had intended nothing beyond good
   advice."

      _E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

      ALSO IN _G. W. Cox, History of Greece,
      book 2, chapter 7-8 (volume 1-2)._

ATHENS: B. C. 478-477.
   Alienation of the Asiatic Greeks from Sparta.
   Formation of the Confederacy of Delos.
   The founding of Athenian Empire.

      See GREECE: B. C. 478-477.

ATHENS: B. C. 477-462.
   Constitutional gains for the democracy.
   Ascendency of Aristeides.
   Declining popularity and ostracism of Themistokles.
   The sustentation of the commons.
   The stripping of power from the Areopagus.

   At the time when the Confederacy of Delos was formed, "the
   Persians still held not only the important posts of Eion on
   the Strymon and Doriskus in Thrace, but also several other
   posts in that country which are not specified to us. We may
   thus understand why the Greek cities on and near the Chalkidic
   peninsula ... were not less anxious to seek protection in the
   bosom of the new confederacy than the Dorian islands of Rhodes
   and Cos, the Ionic islands of Samos and Chios, the Æolic
   Lesbos and Tenedos, or continental towns such as Miletus and
   Byzantium. ... Some sort of union, organised and obligatory
   upon each city, was indispensable to the safety of all.
   Indeed, even with that aid, at the time when the Confederacy
   of Delos was first formed, it was by no means certain the
   Asiatic enemy would be effectually kept out, especially as the
   Persians were strong not merely from their own force, but also
   from the aid of internal parties in many of the Grecian
   states--traitors within, as well as exiles without. Among
   these traitors, the first in rank as well as the most
   formidable, was the Spartan Pausanias." Pausanias, whose
   treasonable intrigues with the Persian king began at Byzantium
   (See GREECE: B. C. 478-477) was convicted some nine or ten
   years later, and suffered a terrible fate, being shut within a
   temple to which he had fled, and starved. "His treasonable
   projects implicated and brought to disgrace a man far greater
   than himself--the Athenian Themistokles. ... The charge
   [against Themistokles] of collusion with the Persians connects
   itself with the previous movement of political parties. ...
   The rivalry of Themistokles and Aristeides had been greatly
   appeased by the invasion of Xerxes, which had imposed upon both 
   the peremptory necessity of  cooperation against a common enemy.
{156}
   And apparently it was not resumed during the times which
   immediately succeeded the return of the Athenians to their
   country: at least we hear of both in effective service and in
   prominent posts. Themistokles stands forward as the contriver
   of the city walls and architect of Peiraeus: Aristeides is
   commander of the fleet and first organiser of the Confederacy
   of Delos. Moreover we seem to detect a change in the character
   of the latter. He had ceased to be the champion of Athenian
   old-fashioned landed interest, against Themistokles as the
   originator of the maritime innovations. Those innovations had
   now, since the battle of Salamis, become an established fact.
   ... From henceforth the fleet is endeared to every man as the
   grand force, offensive and defensive, of the state, in which
   character all the political leaders agree in accepting it. ...
   The triremes, and the men who manned them, taken collectively,
   were now the determining element in the state. Moreover, the
   men who manned them had just returned from Salamis, fresh from
   a scene of trial and danger, and from a harvest of victory,
   which had equalized for the moment all Athenians as sufferers,
   as combatants, and as patriots. ... The political change
   arising from hence in Athens was not less important than the
   military. 'The maritime multitude, authors of the victory of
   Salamis,' and instruments of the new vocation at Athens as
   head of the Delian Confederacy, appear now ascendant in the
   political constitution also; not in any way as a separate or
   privileged class, but as leavening the whole mass,
   strengthening the democratical sentiment, and protesting
   against all recognised political inequalities. ... Early after
   the return to Attica, the Kleisthenian constitution was
   enlarged as respects eligibility to the magistracy. According
   to that constitution, the fourth or last class on the Solonian
   census, including the considerable majority of freemen, were
   not admissible to offices of state, though they possessed
   votes in common with the rest; no person was eligible to be a
   magistrate unless he belonged to one of the three higher
   classes. This restriction was now annulled and eligibility
   extended to all the citizens; We may appreciate the strength
   of feeling with which such reform was demanded when we find
   that it was proposed by Aristeides. ... The popularity thus
   ensured to him, probably heightened by some regret for his
   previous ostracism, was calculated to acquire permanence from
   his straightforward and incorruptible character, now brought
   into strong relief by his function as assessor to the new
   Delian Confederacy. On the other hand, the ascendency of
   Themistokles, though so often exalted by his unrivalled
   political genius and daring, as well as by the signal value of
   his public recommendations, was as often overthrown by his
   duplicity of means and unprincipled thirst for money. New
   political opponents sprung up against him, men sympathising
   with Aristeides. ... Of these the chief were Kimon [Cimon],
   (son of Miltiades), and Alkmæon." In 471 B. C. Themistokles
   was sent into exile by a vote of ostracism, and retired to
   Argos. Five years later he was accused of complicity in the
   treasonable intrigues of Pausanias, and fled to the court of
   the Persian king, where he spent the remainder of his days.
   "Aristeides died about three or four years after the ostracism
   of Themistokles."

      _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 44 (volume 5)_.

   The constitutional effects of the Persian war, and the
   political situation of Athens immediately after the war, are
   represented somewhat differently from the account above, in
   the lately discovered work on the Constitution of Athens which
   is attributed to Aristotle. The following is quoted from one
   of the translations of the latter: "After the Median war the
   council of Areopagus [See AREOPAGUS] recovered strength and
   ruled the state, not that any law conferred the hegemony on
   them, but because the aristocratic party had the credit of the
   victory at Salamis. For when the generals had despaired of the
   country and proclaimed a sauve qui peut, the Areopagus raised
   funds, gave every man eight drachmas (6s. 6d.) and induced
   them to man the ships. In consequence of this public service
   the Ecclesia yielded the ascendency to the Areopagus, and
   public affairs were admirably administered during the
   following epoch. For they acquired the art of war, made their
   name honoured throughout the Hellenic world, and possessed
   themselves of the sovereignty of the sea with the consent of
   Lakedaimon. At this time the leaders of the commons were
   Aristeides, son of Lusimachos, and Themistokles, son of
   Neokles; the latter studious of the arts of war, the former
   reputed eminent in statesmanship and honest beyond his
   contemporaries; which characters made their countrymen employ
   the one as a general, the other as a councillor. The
   rebuilding of the walls of Athens was their joint work, though
   they were otherwise at feud. The detachment of the Ionians
   from Persia and the formation of an alliance with Sparta were
   due to the counsels of Aristeides, who seized the opportunity
   afforded by the discredit cast on the Lakonians by the conduct
   of Pausanias. He too originally apportioned, two years after
   the battle of Salamis, in the archonship of Timosthenes (478
   B. C.), the contribution to be paid by the islanders. ...
   Subsequently, when lofty thoughts filled every bosom and
   wealth was accumulating, Aristeides advised them to administer
   the hegemony with their own hands, to leave their country
   occupations and fix their domicile in the city. Sustentation,
   he promised, would be provided for all, either as soldiers or
   sailors in active service, or as troops in garrison or as
   public servants; and then they could increase the vigour of
   their imperial sway. They followed his advice, and, taking the
   rule into their own hands, reduced their allies to the
   position of vassals, except the Chians, Lesbians, and Samians,
   whom they kept as satellites of their power, and permitted to
   retain their own constitutions and to rule their own
   dependencies: and they provided for their own sustentation by
   the method which Aristeides indicated; for in the end the
   public revenues, the taxes and the tributes of the allies gave
   maintenance to more than 20,000. There were 6,000 dicasts or
   jurors, 1,600 archers, 1,200 cavalry, 500 senators, 500
   soldiers of the dockyard garrison, 50 city guards, 700 home
   magistrates, 700 foreign magistrates, 2,500 heavy armed
   soldiers (this was their number at the beginning of the
   Peloponnesian war), 4,000 sailors manning 20 guardships, 2,000
   sailors appointed by lot, manning 20 tribute-collecting ships,
   and in addition to these the Prutaneion, the orphans, the
   gaolers; and all these persons were maintained at the expense
   of the national treasury. The sustentation of the commons was
   thus secured.
{157}
   The 17 years which followed the Median war were about the
   period during which the country continued under the ascendency
   of the Areopagus, though its aristocratic features were
   gradually on the wane. When the masses had grown more and more
   preponderant, Ephialtes, son of Sophonides, reputed
   incorruptible in his loyalty to democracy, became leader of
   the commons, and began to attack the Areopagus. First, he put
   to death many of its members, by impeaching them of offences
   committed in their administration. Afterwards in the
   archonship of Konon (462 B. C.) he despoiled the council
   itself of all its more recently acquired attributes, which
   were the keystone of the existing constitution, and
   distributed them among the Senate of 500, the Ecclesia, and
   the courts of law. In this work he had the co-operation of
   Themistokles, who was himself an Areopagite, but expecting to
   be impeached for treasonable correspondence with Persia. ...
   Ephialtes and Themistokles kept accusing the Areopagus before
   the Senate of 500, and again before the commons, till finally
   they stripped it of all its principal functions. The
   assassination of Ephialtes by the instrumentality of
   Aristodikos of Tanagra followed not long after. Such were the
   circumstances of the overthrow of the Areopagus. After this
   the degradation of the constitution proceeded without
   intermission from the eagerness of politicians to win popular
   favour; and at the same time there happened to be no organizer
   of the aristocratic party, whose head, Kimon, the son of
   Miltiades, was too young for some years to enter political
   life; besides which their ranks were much devastated by war.
   Expeditionary forces were recruited by conscription; and as
   the generals had no military experience and owed their
   appointment to the reputation of their ancestors, each
   expedition entailed the sacrifice of 2,000 or 3,000 lives,
   chiefly of the noblest sons of Athens, whether belonging to
   the wealthy classes or to the commons."--Aristotle, On the
   Constitution of Athens (translated by E. Poste.) chapter
   23-26.--On the above, Dr. Abbott comments as follows: "So much
   of this account as refers to Themistocles may be at once
   dismissed as unhistorical. ... If the evidence of Thucydides
   is to count for anything, it is quite certain that
   Themistocles finally left Greece for Persia about 466 B. C.
   ... Plutarch says not a word about Themistocles. But the
   remainder of the account [of the attack on the Areopagus] is
   supported by all our authorities--if indeed it is not merely
   repeated by them."

      _E. Abbott, History of Greece,
      part 2, chapter 11, section 5._

      ALSO IN
      _J. P. Mahaffy, Problems in Greek History page 96._

      _Plutarch, Themistocles._

      See, also, below: B. C. 466-454.

ATHENS: B. C. 470-466.
   Continued war against the Persians.
   Cimon's victories at the Eurymedon.
   Revolt and subjugation of Naxos.

   "Under the guidance of Athens, the war against the Persians
   was continued. Cimon [Kimon] sailed with a fleet to the coast
   of Thrace, and laid siege to Eion on the Strymon [B. C. 470].
   The Persian garrison made a gallant defence; and finally
   Boges, the governor, rather than surrender, cast all his gold
   and silver into the river; and, having raised a huge pile of
   wood, slew his wives, children and slaves, and laid their
   bodies on it; then setting fire to it, he flung himself into
   the flames: the garrison surrendered at discretion. Doriscus
   was attacked in vain, but all the other Persian garrisons in
   Europe were reduced. Cimon then, as executor of an
   Amphictyonic decree, turned his arms against the piratic
   Dolopians of the Isle of Scyros, whom he expelled, and filled
   the island with Athenian colonists. On this occasion he sought
   and found (as was supposed) the bones of the hero Theseus, who
   had died in this island 800 years before; and he brought them
   in his own trireme to Athens,--an act which gained him great
   favour with the people. By this time, some of the confederates
   were grown weary of war, and began to murmur at the toils and
   expense to which it put them. The people of Naxos were the
   first who positively refused to contribute any longer; but the
   Athenians, who had tasted of the sweets of command, would not
   now permit the exercise of free will to their allies. Cimon
   appeared (Ol. 78,3) [B. C. 466] with a large fleet before
   Naxos; the Naxians defended themselves with vigour, but were
   at length forced to submit; and the Athenians had the
   hardihood to reduce them to the condition of subjects to
   Athens--an example which they soon followed in other cases.
   ... After the reduction of Naxos, Cimon sailed over to the
   coast of Asia, and learning that the Persian generals had
   assembled a large fleet and army in Pamphylia, he collected a
   fleet of 200 triremes at Cnidos, with which he proceeded to
   the coast of that country, and laid siege to the city of
   Phaselis, which, though Greek, obeyed the Persian monarch.
   Having reduced it to submission, he resolved to proceed and
   attack the Persian fleet and army, which he learned were lying
   at the river Eurymedon. On his arrival, the Persian fleet, of
   350 triremes, fearing at first to fight till 80 Phoenician
   vessels, which they were expecting, should come up, kept in
   the river; but finding that the Greeks were preparing to
   attack, they put out to sea and engaged them. The action did
   not continue long: the Barbarians fled to the land; 200 ships
   fell into the hands of the victors, and several were
   destroyed. Without a moment's delay, Cimon disembarked his
   men, and led them against the land forces: the resistance of
   the Persians was obstinate for some time, but at last they
   turned and fled, leaving their camp a prey to the conquerors;
   and Cimon had thus the rare glory of having gained two
   important victories in the one day. Hearing then that the 80
   Phoenician vessels were at Hydros, in the Isle of Cyprus, he
   immediately sailed thither and took or destroyed the whole of
   them. The victory on the Eurymedon may be regarded as the
   termination of the conflict between Greece and Persia. The
   year after it (Ol. 78,4) [B. C. 465], Xerxes was assassinated,
   and the usual confusion took place in the court of Susa."

      _T. Keightley, History of Greece, part 1, chapter 13._

      ALSO IN
      _W. W. Lloyd, The Age of Pericles, chapter 27 (volume 1)._

      See also PERSIA: B. C. 486-405.

{158}

ATHENS: B. C. 466-454.
   Leadership in the Delian confederacy changed to sovereignty.
   Revolt and subjugation of Thasos.
   Help to Sparta and its ungracious requital.
   Fall and exile of Cimon.
   Rise of Pericles and the democratic anti-Spartan policy.
   Removal of the federal treasury from Delos.
   Building the Long Walls.

   "It was now evident to the whole body of the allies of Athens
   that by joining the league they had provided themselves with a
   mistress rather than a leader. ... Two years after the
   reduction of Naxos another powerful island-state broke out
   into rebellion against the supremacy of Athens. The people of
   Thasos had from very early times possessed territory on the
   mainland of Thrace opposite to their island. By holding this
   coast-slip they engrossed the trade of the Valley of the
   Strymon, and held the rich gold mines of Mount Pangaeus. But
   the Athenians, after the capture of Eïon, set themselves to
   develop that port as the commercial centre of Thrace. ... A
   spot called 'The Nine Ways,' ... where that great river first
   begins to broaden out into its estuary, but can still be
   spanned by a bridge, was the chosen site of a fortress to
   secure the hold of Athens on the land. But the native Thracian
   tribes banded themselves together, and fell upon the invaders
   with such desperation that ... the Athenian armies were
   defeated. ... It was probably the discouragement which this
   defeat caused at Athens that emboldened Thasos to declare her
   secession from the Confederacy of Delos. She wished to save
   her Thracian trade, before Athens could make another attempt
   to divert it from her. The Thasians did not rely on their own
   resources alone; they enlisted the Thracians and Macedonians
   of the mainland, and sent to Sparta to endeavour to induce the
   ephors to declare war on Athens." The Spartans were well
   disposed to take up the cause of the Thasians; but at that
   moment they were overwhelmed by the calamity of the frightful
   Earthquake of 464, instantly followed by the rising of the
   Helots and the third Messenian war (See MESSENIAN WAR, THE
   THIRD). "The island-state was therefore left to its own
   resources; and these were so considerable that she held out
   against the force of the Athenian confederacy for two whole
   years. ... She was obliged at last to surrender to Cimon [B.
   C. 463], whose army had long been lying before her walls. Like
   Naxos, she was punished for her defection by the loss of her
   war-fleet and her fortifications, and the imposition of a fine
   of many talents. Still more galling must have been the loss of
   her trade with Thrace, which now passed entirely into Athenian
   hands. ... The Spartans were still engaged in a desperate
   struggle with their revolted subjects when the siege of Thasos
   came to an end. Cimon, who was now at the height of his
   reputation and power, saw with distress the troubles of the
   city he so much admired. He set himself to persuade the
   Athenians that they ought to forego old grudges, and save from
   destruction the state which had shared with them the glory of
   the Persian war. ... His pleading was bitterly opposed by the
   anti-Spartan party at Athens, headed by two statesmen,
   Ephialtes and Pericles, who had already come into notice as
   antagonists of Cimon. But the more generous and unwise policy
   prevailed, and 4,000 hoplites were sent to the aid of Sparta
   [B. C. 462]. This army was pursued by misfortune; it was so
   unsuccessful in attacking Ithome that the Spartans attributed
   its failure to ill will rather than ill luck. They, therefore,
   began to treat their allies with marked discourtesy, and at
   last sent them home without a word of thanks, merely stating
   that their services could be of no further use [See MESSENIAN
   WAR, THE THIRD]. This rudeness and ingratitude fully justified
   the anti-Spartan party at Athens. ... Cimon was now no longer
   able to deal with the policy of the state as he chose, and the
   conduct of affairs began to pass into the hands of men whose
   foreign and domestic policy were alike opposed to all his
   views. Ephialtes and Pericles proceeded to form alliances
   abroad with all the states which were ill disposed toward
   Sparta, and at home to commence a revision of the
   constitution. They were determined to carry out to its
   furthest logical development the democratic tendency which
   Cleisthenes had introduced into the Athenian polity. Of
   Ephialtes, the son of Sophonides, comparatively little is
   known. But Pericles ... was the son of Xanthippus, the accuser
   of Miltiades in 489, B. C., and the victor of Mycale and
   Sestos; while, on his mother's side, he came of the blood of
   the Alcmaeonidae. Pericles was staid, self-contained, and
   haughty--a strange chief for the popular party. But his
   relationship to Cleisthenes, and the enmity which existed
   between his house and that of Cimon, urged him to espouse the
   cause of democracy. ... While Cimon had Greece in his mind,
   Pericles could only think of Athens, and the temper of the
   times was favourable to the narrower policy. ... The first aim
   which Pericles and Ephialtes set before themselves was the
   cutting down of the power of the Areopagus [See above: B. C.
   477-462]. That body had since the Persian war become the
   stronghold of the Conservative and philo-Laconian party. ...
   Ephialtes took the lead in the attack on the Areopagus. He
   chose a moment when Cimon was away at sea, bent on assisting a
   rebellion against the Great King which had broken out in
   Egypt. After a violent struggle, he succeeded in carrying a
   law which deprived the Areopagus of its ancient censorial
   power, and reduced it to a mere court to try homicides. ...
   When Cimon came home from Egypt he was wildly enraged. ...
   Recourse was had to the test of ostracism. It decided against
   Cimon, who therefore went into banishment [B. C. 459]. But
   this wrong against the greatest general of Athens was, not
   long after, avenged by an over-zealous and unscrupulous
   friend. Ephialtes was slain by assassins in his own house. ...
   The immediate result of this murder was to leave Pericles in
   sole and undivided command of the democratic party. The
   foreign policy of Pericles soon began to involve Athens in
   troubles at home. He concluded alliances with Argos and
   Thessaly, both states at variance with Sparta, and thereby
   made a collision with the Lacedæmonian confederacy inevitable.
   He gave still more direct offence to Corinth, one of the most
   powerful members of that confederacy, by concluding a close
   alliance with Megara. ... In Boeotia, too, he stirred up
   enmity, by giving an active support to the democratic party in
   that country. These provocations made a war inevitable. In 458
   B. C. the storm burst. ... At the moment of the outbreak of
   the first important naval war which she had to wage with a
   Greek enemy since the formation of her empire, Athens took two
   important steps. The first was destined to guard against the risk
   of misfortunes by sea; it consisted in the transference from
   Delos to Athens [dated by different authorities between 461
   and 454 B. C.] of the central treasury of the confederacy. ...
{159}
   It was not long before the Athenians came to regard the
   treasury as their own, and to draw upon it for purely Attic
   needs, which had no connection with the welfare of the other
   confederates. ... The second important event of the year 458
   B. C. was the commencement of the famous 'Long Walls' of
   Athens [See LONG WALLS]. ... When they were finished Athens,
   Peiræus, and Phalerum, formed the angles of a vast fortified
   triangle, while the space between them, a considerable expanse
   of open country, could be utilized as a place of refuge for
   the population of Attica, and even for their flocks and
   herds."

      _C. W. C. Oman, History of Greece, chapters 23-24._

      ALSO IN
      _E. Abbott, Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,
      chapters 5-6._

      _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 17 (volume 3)._

      _Plutarch, Cimon; Pericles._

ATHENS: B. C. 460-449.
   Disastrous expedition to Egypt.
   Attacks on the Peloponnesian Coast.
   Recall of Cimon.
   His last enterprise against the Persians.
   The disputed Peace of Cimon or Callias.
   Five years truce with Sparta.

   "Inarus, king of some of the Libyan tribes on the western
   border of Egypt, had excited an insurrection there against the
   Persians [about 460 B. C.], and his authority was acknowledged
   throughout the greater part of the country. Artaxerxes sent
   his brother Achæmenes with a great army to quell this
   rebellion. An Athenian armament of 200 galleys was lying at
   the time off Cyprus, and Inarus sent to obtain its assistance.
   The Athenian commanders, whether following their own
   discretion, or after orders received from home, quitted
   Cyprus, and having joined with the insurgents, enabled them to
   defeat Achæmenes, who fell in the battle by the hand of
   Inarus. They then sailed up the Nile to Memphis, where a body
   of Persians, and some Egyptians, who still adhered to their
   cause were in possession of one quarter of the city, called
   White Castle. The rest was subject to Inarus, and there the
   Athenians stationed themselves, and besieged the Persians. ...
   Artaxerxes sent a Persian, named Megabazus, to Sparta, with a
   sum of money, to be employed in bribing the principal Spartans
   to use their influence, so as to engage their countrymen in an
   expedition against Attica. Megabazus did not find the leading
   Spartans unwilling to receive his money; but they seem to have
   been unable to render him the service for which it was
   offered. Ithome still held out: and Sparta had probably not
   yet sufficiently either recovered her strength or restored
   internal tranquility, to venture on the proposed invasion.
   Some rumours of this negotiation may have reached Athens, and
   have quickened the energy with which Pericles now urged the
   completion of the long walls. ... But among his opponents
   there was a faction who viewed the progress of this great work
   in a different light from Cimon, and saw in it, not the means
   of securing the independence of Athens, but a bulwark of the
   hated commonalty. They too would have gladly seen an invading
   army in Attica, which might assist them in destroying the work
   and its authors." This party was accused of sympathy with the
   Spartan expedition which came to the help of Doris against the
   Phocians in 457 B. C., and which defeated the Athenians at
   Tanagra (See GREECE: B. C. 458-456). In 455, "the Spartans
   were reminded that they were also liable to be attacked at
   home. An Athenian armament of 50 galleys, and, if we may trust
   Diadorus, with 4,000 heavy armed troops on board, sailed round
   Peloponnesus under Tolmides, burnt the Spartan arsenal at
   Gythium, took a town named Chalcis belonging to the
   Corinthians, and defeated the Sicyonians, who attempted to
   oppose the landing of the troops. But the most important
   advantage gained in the expedition was the capture of
   Naupactus, which belonged to the Ozolian Locrians, and now
   fell into the hands of the Athenians at a very seasonable
   juncture. The third Messenian war had just come to a close.
   The brave defenders of Ithome had obtained honourable terms.
   ... The besieged were permitted to quit Peloponnesus with
   their families, on condition of being detained in slavery if
   they ever returned. Tolmides now settled the homeless
   wanderers in Naupactus. ... But these successes were
   counterbalanced by a reverse which befell the arms of Athens
   this same year in another quarter. After the defeat of
   Achæmens, Artaxerxes, disappointed in his hopes of assistance
   from Sparta, ... raised a great army, which he placed under
   the command of an abler general, Megabyzus, son of Zopyrus.
   Megabyzus defeated the insurgents and their allies, and forced
   the Greeks to evacuate Memphis, and to take refuge in an
   island of the Nile, named Prosopitis, which contained a town
   called Byblus, where he besieged them for 18 months. At length
   he resorted to the contrivance of turning the stream. ... The
   Greek galleys were all left aground, and were fired by the
   Athenians themselves, that they might not fall into the
   enemy's hands. The Persians then marched into the island over
   the dry bed of the river: the Egyptians in dismay abandoned
   their allies, who were overpowered by numbers and almost all
   destroyed. ... Inarus himself was betrayed into the hands of
   the Persians and put to death. ... Egypt ... was again reduced
   under the Persian yoke, except a part of the Delta, where
   another pretender, named Amyrtæus, who assumed the title of
   king ... maintained himself for several years against the
   power of the Persian monarchy. But the misfortune of the
   Athenians did not end with the destruction of the great fleet
   and army which had been first employed in the war. They had
   sent a squadron of 50 galleys to the relief of their
   countrymen, which, arriving before the news of the recent
   disaster had reached them, entered the Mendesian branch of the
   Nile. They were here surprised by a combined attack of the
   Persian land force and a Phoenician fleet, and but few escaped
   to bear the mournful tidings to Athens. Yet even after this
   calamity we find the Athenians, not suing for peace, but bent
   on extending their power, and annoying their enemies." Early
   in 454 they sent an expedition into Thessaly, to restore a
   ruler named Orestes, who had been driven out. "But the
   superiority of the Thessalians in cavalry checked all their
   operations in the field; they failed in an attempt upon
   Pharsalus, and were at length forced to retire without having
   accomplished any of their ends. It was perhaps to soothe the
   public disappointment that Pericles shortly afterwards
   embarked at Pegæ with 1,000 men, and, coasting the south side
   of the Corinthian gulf made a descent on the territory of
   Sicyon, and routed the Sicyon force sent to oppose his landing.
{160}
   He then ... laid siege to the town of Œniadæ. ... This
   attempt, however, proved unsuccessful; and the general result
   of the campaign seems not to have been on the whole
   advantageous or encouraging. ... It seems to have been not
   long after the events which have been just related that Cimon
   was recalled from his exile; and the decree for that purpose
   was moved by Pericles himself;--a fact which seems to intimate
   that some change had taken place in the relations or the
   temper of parties at Athens. ... The three years next
   following Cimon's return, as we have fixed its date [B. C. 454
   or 453], passed, happily for his contemporaries, without
   affording any matter for the historian; and this pause was
   followed by a five years' truce [with Sparta], in the course
   of which Cimon embarked in his last expedition, and died near
   the scene of his ancient glory. The pretender Amyrtæus had
   solicited succour from the Athenians. ... Cimon was appointed
   to the command of a fleet of 200 galleys, with which he sailed
   to Cyprus, and sent a squadron of 60 to the assistance of
   Amyrtæus, while he himself with the rest laid siege to Citium.
   Here he was carried off by illness, or the consequences of a
   wound; and the armament was soon after compelled, by want of
   provisions, to raise the siege. But Cymon's spirit still
   animated his countrymen, who, when they had sailed away with
   his remains, fell in with a great fleet of Phoenician and
   Cilician galleys, near the Cyprian Salamis, and, having
   completely defeated them, followed up their naval victory with
   another which they gained on shore, either over the troops
   which had landed from the enemy's ships, or over a land force
   by which they were supported. After this they were joined by
   the squadron which had been sent to Egypt, and which returned,
   it would appear, without having achieved any material object,
   and all sailed home (B. C. 449). In after-times Cimon's
   military renown was enhanced by the report of a peace
   [sometimes called the Peace of Cimon, and sometimes the Peace
   of Callias], which his victories had compelled the Persian
   king to conclude on terms most humiliating to the monarchy.
   Within less than a century after his death it was, if not
   commonly believed, confidently asserted, that by this treaty,
   negotiated, as it was supposed, by Callias, son of Hipponicus,
   the Persians had agreed to abandon at least the military
   occupation of Asia Minor, to the distance of three days
   journey on foot, or one on horseback, from the coast, or,
   according to another account, the whole peninsula west of the
   Halys, and to abstain from passing the mouth of the Bosphorus
   and the Chelidonian islands, on the coast of Lycia, or the
   town of Phaselis, into the Western Sea. The mere silence of
   Thucydides on so important a transaction would be enough to
   render the whole account extremely suspicious."

      _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 17 (volume 3)._

   Mr. Grote accepts the Peace of Cimon as an historical fact;
   Professor Curtius rejects it.

      _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 45 (volume 5)._

      _E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 2 (volume 2)._

ATHENS: B. C. 458-456.
   War for Megara with Corinth and Ægina.
   Victories of Myronides.
   Siege and conquest of Ægina.
   Collision with the Spartans in Bœotia.
   Defeat at Tanagra.
   Overthrow of the Thebans.
   Recovered Ascendency.

      See GREECE: B. C. 458-456.

ATHENS: B. C. 449-445.
   Hostile revolution in Bœotia.
   Defeat at Coroneia.
   Revolt of Eubœa and Megara.
   The thirty years' truce.
   Territorial losses.
   Spartan recognition of the Delian Confederacy.

      See GREECE: B. C. 449-445.

ATHENS: B. C. 445-431.
   Supremacy of Pericles and the popular arts by which he
   attained it.
   The splendor of Athens and grandeur of the Athenian Empire
   under his rule.

   "The conclusion of peace left the Athenians to their
   confederacy and their internal politics. ... After the death
   of Cimon the oligarchical party at Athens had been led by
   Thucydides, the son of Melesias, a man of high character and a
   kinsman of Cimon. ... Hitherto the members had sat here or
   there in the assembly as they pleased; now they were combined
   into a single body, and sat in a special place. Such a
   consolidation was doubtless needed if the party was to hold
   its own against Pericles, who was rapidly carrying all before
   him. For years past he had provided a subsistence for many of
   the poorer citizens by means of his numerous colonies--no
   fewer than 5,000 Athenians must have been sent out to the
   'cleruchies' in the interval between 453 B. C. and 444 B. C.
   The new system of juries [See DICASTERIA] had also been
   established on the fall of the Areopagus, and the jurymen were
   paid--a second source of income to the poor. Such measures
   were beyond anything that the private liberality of
   Cimon--splendid as it was--could achieve; and on Cimon's death
   no other aristocrat came forward to aid his party with his
   purse. Pericles did not stop here. Since the cessation of the
   war with Persia there had been fewer drafts on the public
   purse, and the contributions of the allies were accumulating
   in the public treasury. A scrupulous man would have regarded
   the surplus as the money of the allies. ... Pericles took
   another view. He plainly told the Athenians that so long as
   the city fulfilled the contract made with the allied cities,
   and kept Persian vessels from their shores, the surplus was at
   the disposal of Athens. Acting on this principle, he devoted a
   part of it to the embellishment of the city. With the aid of
   Pheidias, the sculptor, and Ictinus, the architect, a new
   temple began to rise on the Acropolis in honour of Athena--the
   celebrated Parthenon or 'Virgin's Chamber' [See PARTHENON].
   ... Other public buildings were also begun about this time.
   Athens was in fact a vast workshop, in which employment was
   found for a great number of citizens. Nor was this all. ...
   For eight months of the year 60 ships were kept at sea with
   crews on board, in order that there might be an ample supply
   of practical seamen. ... Thus by direct or indirect means
   Pericles made the state the paymaster of a vast number of
   citizens, and the state was practically himself, with these
   paid citizens at his back. At the same time the public
   festivals of the city were enlarged and adorned with new
   splendour. ... That all might attend the theatre in which the
   plays were acted, Pericles provided that every citizen should
   receive from the state a sum sufficient to pay the charge
   demanded from the spectators by the lessee [See DIOBOLY]. We
   may look on these measures as the arts of a demagogue. ... Or
   we may say that Pericles was able to gratify his passion for
   art at the expense of the Athenians and their allies.
{161}
   Neither of these views is altogether untenable; and both are
   far from including the whole truth. Pericles ... was, if we
   please to say it, a demagogue and a connoisseur. But he was
   something more. Looking at the whole evidence before us with
   impartial eyes, we cannot refuse to acknowledge that he
   cherished aspirations worthy of a great statesman. He
   sincerely desired that every Athenian should owe to his city
   the blessing of an education in all that was beautiful, and
   the opportunity of a happy and useful life. ... The oligarchs
   determined to pull down Pericles, if it were possible. ...
   They proposed, in the winter of 445 B. C., that there should
   be an ostracism in the city. The people agreed, and the usual
   arrangements were made. But when the day came for decision, in
   the spring of 444 B. C., the sentence fell, not on Pericles,
   but on Thucydides. The sentence left no doubt about the
   feeling of the Athenian people, and it was accepted as final.
   Thucydides disappeared from Athens, and for the next fifteen
   years Pericles was master of the city. ... While Athens was
   active, organizing her confederacy and securing her
   communication with the north, the Peloponnesians had allowed
   the years to pass in apathy and inattention. At length they
   awoke to a sense of the situation. It was clear that Athens
   had abandoned all idea of war with Persia, and that the
   confederacy of Delos was transformed into an Athenian empire,
   of whose forces the great city was absolutely mistress. And
   meanwhile in visible greatness Athens had become far the first
   city in Greece."

      _E. Abbott, Pericles, chapters 10-11_.

   "A rapid glance will suffice to show the eminence which Athens
   had attained over the other states of Greece. She was the head
   of the Ionian League--the mistress of the Grecian seas; with
   Sparta, the sole rival that could cope with her armies and
   arrest her ambition, she had obtained a peace; Corinth was
   Humbled--Ægina ruined--Megara had shrunk into her dependency
   and garrison. The states of Bœotia had received their very
   constitution from the hands of an Athenian general--the
   democracies planted by Athens served to make liberty itself
   subservient to her will, and involved in her safety. She had
   remedied the sterility of her own soil by securing the rich
   pastures of the neighbouring Eubœa. She had added the gold of
   Thasos to the silver of Laurion, and established a footing in
   Thessaly which was at once a fortress against the Asiatic arms
   and a mart for Asiatic commerce. The fairest lands of the
   opposite coast--the most powerful islands of the Grecian
   seas--contributed to her treasury, or were almost legally
   subjected to her revenge. ... In all Greece, Myronides was
   perhaps the ablest general--Pericles ... was undoubtedly the
   most highly educated, cautious and commanding statesman. ...
   In actual possession of the tribute of her allies, Athens
   acquired a new right to its collection and its management, and
   while she devoted some of the treasures to the maintenance of
   her strength, she began early to uphold the prerogative of
   appropriating a part to the enhancement of her splendour. ...
   It was now [about B. C. 444] resolved to make Athens also the
   seat and centre of the judicial authority. The subject-allies
   were compelled, if not on minor, at least on all important
   cases, resort to Athenian courts of law for justice. And thus
   Athens became, as it were, the metropolis of the allies. ...
   Before the Persian war, and even scarcely before the time of
   Cimon, Athens cannot be said to have eclipsed her neighbours
   in the arts and sciences. She became the centre and capital of
   the most polished communities of Greece, and she drew into a
   focus all the Grecian intellect; she obtained from her
   dependents the wealth to administer the arts, which universal
   traffic and intercourse taught her to appreciate; and thus the
   Odeon, and the Parthenon, and the Propylæa arose. During the
   same administration, the fortifications were completed, and a
   third wall, parallel and near to that uniting Piræus with
   Athens, consummated the works of Themistocles and Cimon, and
   preserved the communication between the two-fold city, even
   should the outer walls fall into the hands of an enemy."

      _E. G. Bulwer-Lytton, Athens: Its Rise and Fall, book 4,
      chapter 5, book 5, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. W. Lloyd, The Age of Pericles,_

      Plutarch, _Pericles_.

ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
   The Age of Pericles: Art.

   "The Greeks ... were industrious, commercial, sensitive to
   physical and moral beauty, eager for discussion and
   controversy; they were proud of their humanity, and happy in
   the possession of their poets, their historians, their orators
   and artists. It is singular, in the history of nations, to
   meet with a people distinguished at once by mercantile
   aptitude, and by an exquisite feeling and sympathy for works
   of art; to see the vanity of wealth compatible with a nice
   discernment for the true principles of taste; to behold a
   nation, inconstant in ideas; inconceivably fickle in
   prejudices, worshipping a man one day and proscribing him the
   next, yet at the same time progressing with unheard-of
   rapidity; within the space of a few years traversing all
   systems of philosophy, all forms of government, laying the
   foundations of all sciences, making war on all its neighbors,
   yet, in the midst of this chaos of ideas, systems, and
   passions, developing art steadily and with calm intelligence,
   giving to it novelty, originality, and beauty, while
   preserving it pure from the aberrations and caprices of what
   we now call fashion. At the time of the battle of Salamis, 480
   B. C., Athens had been destroyed, its territory ravaged, and
   the Athenians had nothing left but their ships; yet so great
   was the activity of this commercial but artistic people, that,
   only twenty years afterwards, they had built the Parthenon."

      _E. E. Viollet-le-Duc, Discourses on Architecture, page 65._

ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
   The Age of Pericles: Domestic life.
   The Athenian house.

   "For any one coming from Asia it seemed as if in entering
   Athens he was coming into an ant's nest. Possessing, at the
   epoch of its greatest power, the three ports of Munychia,
   Phalerum and the Piræus, it covered a district whose
   circumference measured two hundred stadia (twenty-four miles).
   But it was around the Acropolis that the houses were crowded
   together and the population always in activity. There wagons
   were passing to and fro, filled with merchandise from the
   ports or conveying it thither. The streets and public places
   in which people passed their lives presented a busy and noisy
   scene. Strangers, who came to buy or to sell, were continually
   entering or leaving the shops and places of manufacture, and
   slaves were carrying messages or burdens.
{162}
   Women as well as men were to be seen in the streets,
   going to the markets, the public games and the meetings of
   corporate bodies. From the earliest hours of the day large
   numbers of peasants might be seen bringing in vegetables,
   fruit and poultry, and crying their wares in the streets.
   Houses of the higher class occupied the second zone; they
   generally possessed a garden and sometimes outbuildings of
   considerable extent. Around them were to be seen clients and
   parasites, waiting for the hour when the master should make
   his appearance; and whiling away the time discussing the news
   of the day, repeating the rumours, true or false, that were
   current in the city; getting the slaves to talk, and laughing
   among themselves at the strangers that happened to be passing,
   or addressing them with a view to make fun of their accent,
   garb or dress. The house of Chremylus, recently built in that
   second zone, was a subject of remark for all the idlers.
   Chremylus, who had lately become wealthy by means of commerce,
   and of certain transactions of more or less creditable
   character in the colonies, was an object of envy and criticism
   to most people, and of admiration for some who did justice to
   his intelligence and energy. He enjoyed a certain degree of
   influence in the public assemblies--thanks to his liberality;
   while he took care to secure the good graces of the archons
   and to enrich the temples."

[Image]
Plan Of Athenian House.

   "We have [in the accompanying figure] the ground-plan of the
   residence of this Athenian citizen. The entrance x opens on
   the public road. The site is bounded on either side by narrow
   streets. This entrance x opens on the court O, which is
   surrounded by porticos. At A is the porter's lodge, and at B
   the rooms for the slaves, with kitchen at C and latrines at a.
   From this first court: in the centre of which is a small
   fountain with a basin which receives the rain water, the
   passage D leads into the inner court E; which is larger and is
   likewise surrounded by porticos. At G is the reception room,
   at H the strong room for valuables, and at S the private
   altar. At F is a large storeroom containing provisions and
   wine; and at I the small dining room (triclinium); the
   cooking-room for the family being at J with latrines at b. The
   large triclinium is at K. The passage m admits to the
   gynæceum, containing the bedrooms P along the portico M, a
   common room for the women, with its small enclosed garden, and
   closets at e. The quarters for visitors are entered by the
   passage t, and consist of bedrooms V, a portico T, a small
   garden and closets f. At d is an opening into the lane for the
   servants, when required. The gardens extend in the direction
   Z. This house is situated on the slopes of the hill which to
   the south-west looks towards the Acropolis; thus it is
   sheltered from the violent winds which sometimes blow from
   this quarter. From the large dining-hall and from the terrace
   L, which adjoins it, there is a charming prospect; for, above
   the trees of the garden is seen the city overlooked by the
   Acropolis, and towards the left the hill of the Areopagus.
   From this terrace L there is a descent to the garden by about
   twelve steps. The position was chosen with a view to
   protection against the sun's heat and the troublesome winds.
   From the portico of the gynæceum are seen the hills extending
   towards the north, covered with houses surrounded by
   olive-trees; and in the background Mount Pentelicus. ... In
   the dwelling of Chremylus the various departments were
   arranged at the proprietor's discretion, and the architect
   only conformed to his instructions. Thus the front part of the
   house is assigned to the external relations of the owner. In
   this court O assemble the agents or factors who come to give
   an account of the commissions they have executed, or to
   receive orders. If the master wishes to speak to any of them,
   he takes him into his reception room; his bedchamber being at
   R, he can easily repair to that reception-room or to the
   gynæceum reserved for the women and younger children. If he
   entertains friends, they have their separate apartments, which
   are shut off, not being in communication with the first court
   except through the passage t. All that part of the habitation
   which is beyond the wide entrance-hall D is consecrated to
   domestic life; and only the intimate friends of the family are
   admitted into the second court; for example, if they are
   invited to a banquet,--which is held in the great hall K. The
   master usually takes his meals with his wife and one or two
   members of his family who live in the house, in the smaller
   room I, the couches of which will hold six persons; whereas
   fifteen guests can be accommodated on the couches of the great
   hall K. Chremylus has spared nothing to render his house one
   of the most sumptuous in the city. The columns of Pentelican
   marble support architraves of wood, surmounted by friezes and
   cornices overlaid with stucco and ornamented with delicate
   painting. Everywhere the walls are coated with fine smooth
   plaster, adorned with paintings; and the ceilings are of
   timber artistically wrought and coloured."

      _E. Viollet-le-Duc, The Habitations of Man in all Ages,
      chapter 17._

{163}

ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
   The Age of Pericles: Law and its Administration.
   Contrast with the Romans.

   "It is remarkable ... that the 'equality' of laws on which the
   Greek democracies prided themselves--that equality which, in
   the beautiful drinking song of Callistratus, Harmodius and
   Aristogiton are said to have given to Athens--had little in
   common with the 'equity' of the Romans. The first was an equal
   administration of civil laws among the citizens, however
   limited the class of citizens might be; the last implied the
   applicability of a law, which was not civil law, to a class
   which did not necessarily consist of citizens. The first
   excluded a despot; the last included foreigners, and for some
   purposes slaves. ... There are two special dangers to which
   law, and society which is held together by law, appear to be
   liable in their infancy. One of them is that law may be too
   rapidly developed. This occurred with the codes of the more
   progressive Greek communities, which disembarrassed themselves
   with astonishing facility from cumbrous forms of procedure and
   needless terms of art, and soon ceased to attach any
   superstitious value to rigid rules and prescriptions. It was
   not for the ultimate advantage of mankind that they did so,
   though the immediate benefit conferred on their citizens may
   have been considerable. One of the rarest qualities of
   national character is the capacity for applying and working
   out the law, as such, at the cost of constant miscarriages of
   abstract justice, without at the same time losing the hope or
   the wish that law may be conformed to a higher ideal. The
   Greek intellect, with all its nobility and elasticity, was
   quite unable to confine itself within the strait waistcoat of
   a legal formula; and, if we may judge them by the popular
   courts of Athens, of whose working we possess accurate
   knowledge, the Greek tribunals exhibited the strongest
   tendency to confound law and fact. The remains of the Orators
   and the forensic commonplaces preserved by Aristotle in his
   Treatise on Rhetoric, show that questions of pure law were
   constantly argued on every consideration which could possibly
   influence the mind of the judges. No durable system of
   jurisprudence could be produced in this way. A community which
   never hesitated to relax rules of written law whenever they
   stood in the way of an ideally perfect decision on the facts
   of particular cases, would only, if it bequeathed any body of
   judicial principles to posterity, bequeath one consisting of
   the ideas of right and wrong which happened to be prevalent at
   the time. Such jurisprudence would contain no framework to
   which the more advanced conceptions of subsequent ages could
   be fitted. It would amount at best to a philosophy, marked
   with the imperfections of the civilisation under which it grew
   up. ... The other liability to which the infancy of society is
   exposed has prevented or arrested the progress of far the
   greater part of mankind. The rigidity of primitive law,
   arising chiefly from its earlier association and
   identification with religion, has chained down the mass of the
   human race to those views of life and conduct which they
   entertained at the time when their usages were first
   consolidated into a systematic form. There were one or two
   races exempted by a marvellous fate from this calamity, and
   grafts from these stocks have fertilised a few modern
   societies; but it is still true that, over the larger part of
   the world, the perfection of law has always been considered as
   consisting in adherence to the ground plan supposed to have
   been marked out by the original legislator. If intellect has
   in such cases been exercised on jurisprudence, it has
   uniformly prided itself on the subtle perversity of the
   conclusions it could build on ancient texts without
   discoverable departure from their literal tenour. I know no
   reason why the law of the Romans should be superior to the
   laws of the Hindoos, unless the theory of Natural Law had
   given it a type of excellence different from the usual one."

      _H. S. Maine, Ancient Law, ch, 3-4._

   "But both the Greek and the English trial by jury were at one
   time the great political safeguard against state oppression
   and injustice; and, owing to this origin, free nations become
   so attached to it that they are blind to its defects. And just
   as Ireland would now benefit beyond conception by the
   abolition of the jury system, so the secured Athenian (or any
   other) democracy would have thriven better had its laws been
   administered by courts of skilled judges. For these large
   bodies of average citizens, who, by the way, were not like our
   jurymen, unwilling occupants of the jury-box, but who made it
   a paid business and an amusement, did not regard the letter of
   the law. They allowed actions barred by the reasonable limits
   of time; they allowed arguments totally beside the question,
   though this too was illegal, for there was no competent judge
   to draw the line; they allowed hearsay evidence, though that
   too was against the law; indeed the evidence produced in most
   of the speeches is of the loosest and poorest kind. Worse than
   all, there were no proper records kept of their decisions, and
   witnesses were called in to swear what had been the past
   decisions of a jury sitting in the same city, and under the
   same procedure. This is the more remarkable, as there were
   state archives, in which the decrees of the popular assembly
   were kept. ... There is a most extraordinary speech of Lysias
   against a man called Nichomachus, who was appointed to
   transcribe the laws of Solon in four months, but who kept them
   in his possession for six years, and is accused of having so
   falsified them as to have substituted himself for Solon. Hence
   there can have been no recognized duplicate extant, or such a
   thing could not be attempted. So again, in the Trapeziticus of
   Isocrates, it is mentioned as a well known fact, that a
   certain Pythodorus was convicted of tampering with state
   documents, signed and sealed by the magistrates, and deposited
   in the Acropolis. All these things meet us in every turn in
   the court speeches of the Attic orators. We are amazed at
   seeing relationships proved in will cases by a man coming in
   and swearing that such a man's father had told him that his
   brother was married to such a woman, of such a house. We find
   the most libellous charges brought against opponents on
   matters totally beside the question at issue, and even formal
   evidence of general bad character admitted. We find some
   speakers in consequence treating the jury with a sort of
   mingled deference and contempt which is amusing. 'On the
   former trial of this case,' they say, 'my opponent managed to
   tell you many well devised lies; of course you were deceived,
   how could it be otherwise, and you made a false decision;' or
   else, 'You were so puzzled that you got at variance with one
   another, you voted at sixes and sevens, and by a small
   majority you came to an absurd decision.'
{164}
   'But I think you know well,' says Isocrates,
   'that the city has often repented so bitterly ere this for
   decisions made in passion and without evidence, as to desire
   after no long interval to punish those who misled it, and to
   wish those who had been calumniated were more than restored to
   their former prosperity. Keeping these facts before you, you
   ought not to be hasty in believing the prosecutors, nor to
   hear the defendants with interruption and ill temper. For it
   is a shame to have the character of being the gentlest and
   most humane of the Greeks in other respects, and yet to act
   contrary to this reputation in the trials which take place
   here. It is a shame that in other cities, when a human life is
   at stake, a considerable majority of votes is required for
   conviction, but that among you those in danger do not even get
   an equal chance with their false accusers. You swear indeed
   once a year that you will attend to both plaintiff and
   defendant, but in the interval only keep your oath so far as
   to accept whatever the accusers say, but you sometimes will
   not let those who are trying to refute them utter even a
   single word. You think those cities uninhabitable, in which
   citizens are executed without trial, and forget that those who
   do not give both sides a fair hearing are doing the very same
   thing.'"

      _J. P. Mahaffy, Social Life in Greece, chapter 13._

ATHENS: B. C. 445-429.
   The Age of Pericles: Political life.
   The democracy.

   "The real life of Athens lasted at the most for 200 years: and
   yet there are moments in which all that we have won by the
   toils of so many generations seems as if it would be felt to
   be but a small thing beside a single hour of Periklês. The
   Democracy of Athens was in truth the noblest fruit of that
   self-developing power of the Greek mind which worked every
   possession of the common heritage into some new and more
   brilliant shape, but which learned nothing, nothing of all
   that formed its real life and its real glory, from the
   Barbarians of the outer world. Men tell us that Greece learned
   this or that mechanical invention from Phœnicia or Egypt or
   Assyria. Be it so; but stand in the Pnyx; listen to the
   contending orators; listen to the ambassadors of distant
   cities; listen to each side as it is fairly hearkened to, and
   see the matter in hand decided by the peaceful vote of
   thousands--here at least of a truth is something which Athens
   did not learn from any Assyrian despot or from any Egyptian
   priest. And we, children of the common stock, sharers in the
   common heritage, as we see man, Aryan man, in the full growth
   of his noblest type, we may feel a thrill as we think that
   Kleisthenês and Periklês were, after all, men of our own
   blood--as we think that the institutions which grew up under
   their hands and the institutions under which we ourselves are
   living are alike branches sprung from one stock, portions of
   one inheritance in which Athens and England have an equal
   right. In the Athenian Democracy we see a popular constitution
   taking the form which was natural for such a constitution to
   take when it was able to run its natural course in a
   common-wealth which consisted only of a single city. Wherever
   the Assembly really remains, in truth as well as in name, an
   Assembly of the whole people in their own persons, it must in
   its own nature be sovereign. It must, in the nature of things,
   delegate more or less of power to magistrates and generals;
   but such power will be simply delegated. Their authority will
   be a mere trust from the sovereign body, and to that sovereign
   body they will be responsible for its exercise. That is to
   say, one of the original elements of the State, the King or
   chief, now represented by the elective magistracy, will lose
   its independent powers, and will sink into a body who have
   only to carry out the will of the sovereign Assembly. So with
   another of the original elements, the Council. This body too
   loses its independent being; it has no ruling or checking
   power; it becomes a mere Committee of the Assembly, chosen or
   appointed by lot to put measures into shape for more easy
   discussion in the sovereign body. As society becomes more
   advanced and complicated, the judicial power can no longer be
   exercised by the Assembly itself, while it would be against
   every democratic instinct to leave it in the arbitrary power
   of individual magistrates. Other Committees of the Assembly,
   Juries on a gigantic scale, with a presiding magistrate as
   chairman rather than as Judge, are therefore set apart to
   decide causes and to sit in judgment on offenders. Such is
   pure Democracy, the government of the whole people and not of
   a part of it only, as carried out in its full perfection in a
   single city. It is a form of government which works up the
   faculties of man to a higher pitch than any other; it is the
   form of government which gives the freest scope to the inborn
   genius of the whole community and of every member of it. Its
   weak point is that it works up the faculties of man to a pitch
   so high that it can hardly be lasting, that its ordinary life
   needs an enthusiasm, a devotion too highly strung to be likely
   to live through many generations. Athens in the days of her
   glory, the Athens of Periklês, was truly 'the roof and crown
   of things;' her democracy raised a greater number of human
   beings to a higher level than any government before or since;
   it gave freer play than any government before or since to the
   personal gifts of the foremost of mankind. But against the few
   years of Athenian glory we must set the long ages of Athenian
   decline. Against the city where Periklês was General we must
   set the city where Hadrian was Archon. On the Assemblies of
   other Grecian cities it is hardly needful to dwell. Our
   knowledge of their practical working is slight. We have one
   picture of a debate in the popular Assembly of Sparta, an
   Assembly none the less popular in its internal constitution
   because it was the assembly of what, as regarded the excluded
   classes of the State, was a narrow oligarchy. We see that
   there, as might be looked for, the chiefs of the State, the
   Kings, and yet more the Ephors, spoke with a degree of
   official, as distinguished from personal, authority which fell
   to the lot of no man in the Assembly of Athens. Periklês
   reigned supreme, not because he was one of Ten Generals, but
   because he was Periklês. ... In the Ekklêsia which listened to
   Periklês and Dêmosthenes we feel almost as much at home as in
   an institution of our own land and our own times. At least we
   ought to feel at home there; for we have the full materials
   for calling up the political life of Athens in all its
   fullness, and within our own times one of the greatest minds
   of our own or of any age has given its full strength to clear
   away the mists of error and calumny which so long shrouded the
   parent state of justice and freedom.
{165}
   Among the contemporaries and countrymen of Mr. Grote it is
   shame indeed if men fail to see in the great Democracy the
   first state which taught mankind that the voice of persuasion
   could be stronger than a despot's will, the first which taught
   that disputes could be settled by a free debate and a free
   vote which in other lands could have been decided only by the
   banishment or massacre of the weaker side. ... It must be
   constantly borne in mind that the true difference between an
   aristocratic and a democratic government, as those words were
   understood in the politics of old Greece, lies in this. In the
   Democracy all citizens, all who enjoy civil rights, enjoy also
   political rights. In the aristocracy political rights belong
   to only a part of those who enjoy civil rights. But, in either
   case, the highest authority of the State is the general
   Assembly of the whole ruling body, whether that ruling body be
   the whole people or only a part of it. ... The slaves and
   strangers who were shut out at Athens were, according to Greek
   ideas, no Athenians; but every Athenian had his place in the
   sovereign assembly of Athens, while every Corinthian had not
   his place in the sovereign assembly of Corinth. But the
   aristocratic and the democratic commonwealth both agreed in
   placing the final authority of the State in the general
   Assembly of all who enjoy the highest franchise. ... The
   people, of its own will, placed at its head men of the same
   class as those who in the earlier state of things had ruled it
   against its will. Periklês, Nikias, Alkibiadês, were men
   widely differing in character, widely differing in their
   relations to the popular government. But all alike were men of
   ancient birth, who, as men of ancient birth, found their way,
   almost as a matter of course, to those high places of the
   State to which Kleôn found his way only by a strange freak of
   fortune. At Rome we find quite another story. There, no less
   than at Athens, the moral influence of nobility survived its
   legal privileges; but, more than this, the legal privileges of
   the elder nobility were never wholly swept away, and the
   inherent feeling of respect for illustrious birth called into
   being a younger nobility by its side. At Athens one stage of
   reform placed a distinction of wealth instead of a distinction
   of birth: another stage swept away the distinction of wealth
   also. But the reform, at each of its stages, was general; it
   affected all offices alike, save those sacred offices which
   still remained the special heritage of certain sacred
   families. ... In an aristocratic commonwealth there is no room
   for Periklês; there is no room for the people that hearkened
   to Periklês; but in men of the second order, skilful
   conservative administrators, men able to work the system which
   they find established, no form of government is so fertile.
   ... But everywhere we learn the same lesson, the inconsistency
   of commonwealths which boast themselves of their own freedom
   and exalt themselves at the cost of the freedom of others."

      _E. A. Freeman, Comparative Politics, lecture 5-6._

   "Dêmos was himself King, Minister, and Parliament. He had his
   smaller officials to carry out the necessary details of public
   business, but he was most undoubtedly his own First Lord of
   the Treasury, his own Foreign Secretary, his own Secretary for
   the Colonies. He himself kept up a personal correspondence
   both with foreign potentates and with his own officers on
   foreign service; the 'despatches' of Nikias and the 'notes' of
   Philip were alike addressed to no officer short of the
   sovereign himself; he gave personal audience to the
   ambassadors of other states, and clothed his own with just so
   great or so small a share as he deemed good of his own
   boundless authority. He had no need to entrust the care of his
   thousand dependencies to the mysterious working of a Foreign
   Office; he himself sat in judgment upon Mitylenaian rebels; he
   himself settled the allotment of lands at Chalkis or
   Amphipolis; he decreed by his own wisdom what duties should be
   levied at the Sound of Byzantion; he even ventured on a task
   of which two-and-twenty ages have not lessened the difficulty,
   and undertook, without the help of a Lord High Commissioner,
   to adjust the relations and compose the seditions even of
   Korkyra and Zakynthos. He was his own Lord High Chancellor,
   his own Lord Primate, his own Commander-in-Chief. He listened
   to the arguments of Kleôn on behalf of a measure, and to the
   arguments of Nikias against it, and he ended by bidding Nikias
   to go and carry out the proposal which he had denounced as
   extravagant or unjust. He listened with approval to his own
   'explanations;' he passed votes of confidence in his own
   policy; he advised himself to give his own royal assent to the
   bills which he had himself passed, without the form of a
   second or third reading, or the vain ceremony of moving that
   the Prytaneis do leave their chairs. ... We suspect that the
   average Athenian citizen was, in political intelligence, above
   the average English Member of Parliament. It was this
   concentration of all power in an aggregate of which every
   citizen formed a part, which is the distinguishing
   characteristic of true Greek democracy. Florence had nothing
   like it; there has been nothing like it in the modern world:
   the few pure democracies which have lingered on to our own day
   have never had such mighty questions laid before them, and
   have never had such statesmen and orators to lead them. The
   great Democracy has had no fellow; but the political lessons
   which it teaches are none the less lessons for all time and
   for every land and people."

      _E. A. Freeman, Historical Essays (volume 2): The Athenian
      Democracy._

   "The individual freedom which was enjoyed at Athens and which
   is extolled by Pericles was plainly an exception to the common
   usage of Greece, and is so regarded in the Funeral Speech. The
   word 'freedom,' it should be remembered, bore an ambiguous
   meaning. It denoted on the one hand political
   independence,--the exercise of sovereign power by the State
   and of political rights by the citizens. In this sense every
   Greek citizen could claim it as his birthright. Even the
   Spartans could tell the Persian Hydarnes that he had not, like
   them, tasted of freedom, and did not know whether it was sweet
   or not. But the word also denoted personal and social
   liberty,--freedom from the excessive restraints of law, the
   absence of a tyrannous public opinion and of intolerance
   between man and man. Pericles claims for Athens 'freedom' in
   this double sense. But freedom so far as it implies the
   absence of legal interference in the private concerns of life
   was but little known except at Athens."

      _S. H. Butcher, Some Aspects of Greek Genius,
      pages 70-71._

{166}

   "To Athens ... we look ... for an answer to the question, What
   does history teach in regard to the virtue of a purely
   democratic government? And here we may safely say that, under
   favourable circumstances, there is no form of government
   which, while it lasts, has such a virtue to give scope to a
   vigorous growth and luxuriant fruitage of various manhood as a
   pure democracy. ... But it does not follow that, though in
   this regard it has not been surpassed by any other form of
   government, it is therefore absolutely the best of all forms
   of government. ... Neither, on the other hand, does it follow
   from the shortness of the bright reign of Athenian
   democracy--not more than 200 years from Clisthenes to the
   Macedonians--that all democracies are short-lived, and must
   pay, like dissipated young gentlemen, with premature decay for
   the feverish abuse of their vital force. Possible no doubt it
   is, that if the power of what we may call a sort of Athenian
   Second Chamber, the Areiopagus, instead of being weakened as
   it was by Aristides and Pericles, had been built up according
   to the idea of Æschylus and the intelligent aristocrats of his
   day, such a body, armed, like our House of Lords, with an
   effective negative on all outbursts of popular rashness, might
   have prevented the ambition of the Athenians from launching on
   that famous Syracusan expedition which exhausted their force
   and maimed their action for the future. But the lesson taught
   by the short-lived glory of Athens, and its subjugation under
   the rough foot of the astute Macedonian, is not that
   democracies, under the influence of faction, and, it may be,
   not free from venality, will sell their liberties to a strong
   neighbour--for aristocratic Poland did this in a much more
   blushless way than democratic Greece--but that any loose
   aggregate of independent States, given more to quarrel amongst
   themselves than to unite against a common enemy, whether
   democratic, or aristocratic, or monarchical in their form of
   government, cannot in the long run maintain their ground
   against the firm policy and the well-massed force of a strong
   monarchy. Athens was blotted out from the map of free peoples
   at Chæronea, not because the Athenian people had too much
   freedom, but because the Greek States had too little unity.
   They were used by Philip exactly in the same way that Napoleon
   used the German States at the commencement of the present
   century."

      _J. S. Blackie, What does History Teach? pages 28-31._

   "In Herodotus you have the beginning of the age of discussion.
   ... The discourses on democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy,
   which he puts into the mouth of the Persian conspirators when
   the monarchy was vacant, have justly been called absurd, as
   speeches supposed to have been spoken by those persons. No
   Asiatic ever thought of such things. You might as well imagine
   Saul or David speaking them as those to whom Herodotus
   attributes them. They are Greek speeches, full of free Greek
   discussions, and suggested by the experience, already
   considerable, of the Greeks in the results of discussion. The
   age of debate is beginning, and even Herodotus, the least of a
   wrangler of any man, and the most of a sweet and simple
   narrator, felt the effect. When we come to Thucydides, the
   results of discussion are as full as they have ever been; his
   light is pure, 'dry light,' free from the 'humours' of habit,
   and purged from consecrated usage. As Grote's history often
   reads like a report to Parliament, so half Thucydides reads
   like a speech, or materials for a speech, in the Athenian
   Assembly."

      _W. Bagehot, Physics and Politics, pages 170-171._

ATHENS: B. C. 440-437.
   New settlements of Klerouchoi.
   The founding of Amphipolis.--
   Revolt and subjugation of Samos.

   "The great aim of Perikles was to strengthen the power of
   Athens over the whole area occupied by her confederacy. The
   establishment of settlers or Klerouchoi [see KLERUCHS]. who
   retained their rights as Athenian citizens, had answered so
   well in the Lelantian plain of Euboia that it was obviously
   good policy to extend the system. The territory of Hestiaia in
   the north of Euboia and the islands of Lemnos, Imbros, and
   Skyros, were thus occupied; and Perikles himself led a body of
   settlers to the Thrakian Chersonesos where he repaired the old
   wall at the neck of the peninsula, and even to Sinope which
   now became a member of the Athenian alliance. A generation had
   passed from the time when Athens lost 10,000 citizens in the
   attempt to found a colony at the mouth of the Strymon. The
   task was now undertaken successfully by Hagnon, and the city
   came into existence which was to be the cause of disaster to
   the historian Thucydides and to witness the death of Brasidas
   and of Kleon [see AMPHIPOLIS]. ... Two years before the
   founding of Amphipolis, Samos revolted from Athens. ... In
   this revolt of Samos the overt action comes from the oligarchs
   who had seized upon the Ionian town of Priene, and defeated
   the Milesians who opposed them. The latter appealed to the
   Athenians, and received not only their aid but that of the
   Samian demos. The latter now became the ruling body in the
   island, fifty men and fifty boys being taken from the
   oligarchic families and placed as hostages in Lemnos, which,
   as we have seen, was now wholly occupied by Athenian
   Klerouchoi. But the Samian exiles (for many had fled rather
   than live under a democracy) entered into covenant with
   Pissouthnes, the Sardian satrap, crossed over to Samos and
   seized the chief men of the demos, then falling on Lemnos
   succeeded in stealing away the hostages; and, having handed
   over to Pissouthnes the Athenian garrison at Samos, made ready
   for an expedition against Miletos. The tidings that Byzantion
   had joined in this last revolt left to the Athenians no room
   to doubt the gravity of the crisis. A fleet of sixty ships was
   dispatched to Samos under Perikles and nine other generals, of
   whom the poet Sophokles is said to have been one. Of these
   ships sixteen were sent, some to gather the allies, others to
   watch for the Phenician fleet which they believed to be off
   the Karian coast advancing to the aid of the Samian oligarchs.
   With the remainder Perikles did not hesitate to engage the
   Samian fleet of seventy ships which he encountered on its
   return from Miletos off the island of Tragia. The Athenians
   gained the day; and Samos was blockaded by land and sea. But
   no sooner had Perikles sailed with sixty ships to meet the
   Phenician fleet, than the Samians, making a vigorous sally,
   broke the lines of the besiegers and for fourteen days
   remained masters of the sea.
{167}
   The return of Perikles changed the face of things. Soon after
   the resumption of the siege the arrival of sixty fresh ships
   from Athens under five Strategoi in two detachments, with
   thirty from Chios and Lesbos, damped the energy of the Samian
   oligarchs; and an unsuccessful effort at sea was followed by
   their submission in the ninth month after the beginning of the
   revolt, the terms being that they should raze their walls,
   give hostages, surrender their ships, and pay the expenses of
   the war. Following their example, the Byzantines also made
   their peace with Athens. The Phenician fleet never came. ...
   The Athenians escaped at the same time a far greater danger
   nearer home. The Samians, like the men of Thasos, had applied
   for aid to the Spartans, who, no longer pressed by the Helot
   war, summoned a congress of their allies to discuss the
   question. For the truce which had still five-and-twenty years
   to run Sparta cared nothing: but she encountered an opposition
   from the Corinthians which perhaps she now scarcely expected.
   ... The Spartans were compelled to give way; and there can be
   no doubt that when some years later the Corinthians claimed
   the gratitude of the Athenians for this decision, they took
   credit for an act of good service singularly opportune. Had
   they voted as Sparta wished, Athens might by the extension of
   revolt amongst her allied cities have been reduced now to the
   condition to which, in consequence perhaps of this respite,
   she was not brought until the lifetime of a generation had
   been spent in desperate warfare."

      _G. W. Cox, History of Greece, book 3, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

ATHENS: B. C. 431.
   Beginning of the Peloponnesian War.
   Its Causes.

   "In B. C. 431 the war broke out between Athens and the
   Peloponnesian League, which, after twenty-seven years, ended
   in the ruin of the Athenian empire. It began through a quarrel
   between Corinth and Kerkyra, in which Athens assisted Kerkyra.
   A congress was held at Sparta; Corinth and other States
   complained of the conduct of Athens, and war was decided on.
   The real cause of the war was that Sparta and its allies were
   jealous of the great power that Athens had gained [see GREECE:
   B. C. 435-132 and 432-431]. A far greater number of Greek
   States were engaged in this war than had ever been engaged in
   a single undertaking before. States that had taken no part in
   the Persian war were now fighting on one side or the other.
   Sparta was an oligarchy, and the friend of the nobles
   everywhere; Athens was a democracy, and the friend of the
   common people; so that the war was to some extent a struggle
   between these classes all over Greece, and often within the
   same city walls the nobles and the people attacked one
   another, the nobles being for Sparta and the people for
   Athens. On the side of Sparta, when the war began, there was
   all Peloponnesus except Argos and Achæa, and also the
   oligarchical Bœotian League under Thebes besides Phokis,
   Lokris, and other States west of them. They were very strong
   by land, but the Corinthians alone had a good fleet. Later on
   we shall see the powerful State of Syracuse with its navy,
   acting with Sparta. On the side of Athens there were almost
   all the Ægæan islands, and a great number of the Ægæan coast
   towns as well as Kerkyra and certain States in the west of
   Greece. The Athenians had also made alliance with Sitalkes,
   the barbarian king of the interior of Thrace. Athens was far
   stronger by sea than Sparta, but had not such a strong land
   army. On the other hand it had a large treasure, and a system
   of taxes, while the Spartan League had little or no money."

      _C. A. Fyffe, History of Greece (History Primers), page 84._

   The Ionian cities, called "allies" of Athens, were subjects in
   reality, and held in subjection by tyrannical measures which
   made the yoke odious, as is plainly explained by Xenophon, who
   says: "Some person might say, that it is a great support to
   the Athenians that their allies should be in a condition to
   contribute money to them. To the plebeians, however, it seems
   to be of much greater advantage that every individual of the
   Athenians should get some of the property of the allies, and
   that the allies themselves should have only so much as to
   enable them to live and to till the ground, so that they may
   not be in a condition to form conspiracies. The people of
   Athens seem also to have acted injudiciously in this respect,
   that they oblige their allies to make voyages to Athens for
   the decision of their lawsuits. But the Athenians consider
   only, on the other hand, what benefits to the state of Athens
   are attendant on this practice; in the first place they
   receive their dues throughout the year from the prytaneia; in
   the next place, they manage the government of the allied
   states while sitting at home, and without sending out ships;
   they also support suitors of the lower orders, and ruin those
   of an opposite character in their courts of law; but if each
   state had its own courts, they would, as being hostile to the
   Athenians, be the ruin of those who were most favourable to
   the people of Athens. In addition to these advantages, the
   Athenian people have the following profits from the courts of
   justice for the allies being at Athens; first of all the duty
   of the hundredth on what is landed at the Peiræeus affords a
   greater revenue to the city; next, whoever has a lodging-house
   makes more money by it, as well as whoever has cattle or
   slaves for hire; and the heralds, too, are benefited by the
   visits of the allies to the city. Besides, if the allies did
   not come to Athens for law, they would honour only such of the
   Athenians as were sent over the sea to them, as generals, and
   captains of vessels, and ambassadors; but now every individual
   of the allies is obliged to flatter the people of Athens,
   knowing that on going to Athens he must gain or lose his cause
   according to the decision, not of other judges, but of the
   people, as is the law of Athens; and he is compelled, too, to
   use supplication before the court, and, as anyone of the
   people enters, to take him by the hand. By these means the
   allies are in consequence rendered much more the slaves of the
   Athenian people."

      _Xenophon, On the Athenian Government (Minor Works,
      translated by Reverend J. S. Watson), page 235._

   The revolt of these coerced and hostile "allies," upon the
   outbreak of the Peloponnesian War, was inevitable.--The
   prominent events of the Peloponnesian war, in which most of
   the Greek States were involved, are properly narrated in their
   connection with Greek history at large (see GREECE: B. C.
   431-429, and after). In this place it will only be necessary
   to take account of the consequences of the war as they
   affected the remarkable city and people whose superiority had
   occasioned it by challenging and somewhat offensively
   provoking the jealousy of their neighbors.

{168}

ATHENS: B. C. 431.
   Peloponnesian invasions of Attica.
   Siege of Athens.

   "While the Peloponnesians were gathering at the Isthmus, and
   were still on their way, but before they entered Attica,
   Pericles, the son of Xanthippus, who was one of the ten
   Athenian generals, ... repeated [to the Athenians] his
   previous advice; they must prepare for war and bring their
   property from the country into the city; they must defend
   their walls but not go out to battle; they should also equip
   for service the fleet in which lay their strength. ... The
   citizens were persuaded, and brought into the city their
   children and wives, their household goods, and even the
   wood-work of their houses, which they took down. Their flocks
   and beasts of burden they conveyed to Euboea and the adjacent
   islands. The removal of the inhabitants was painful; for the
   Athenians had always been accustomed to reside in the country.
   Such a life had been characteristic of them more than of any
   other Hellenic people, from very early times. ... When they
   came to Athens, only a few of them had houses or could find
   homes among friends or kindred. The majority took up their
   abode in the vacant spaces of the city, and in the temples and
   shrines of heroes. ... Many also established themselves in the
   turrets of the walls, or in any other place which they could
   find; for the city could not contain them when they first came
   in. But afterwards they divided among them the Long Walls and
   the greater part of the Piraeus. At the same time the
   Athenians applied themselves vigorously to the war, summoning
   their allies, and preparing an expedition of 100 ships against
   the Peloponnese. While they were thus engaged, the
   Peloponnesian army was advancing: it arrived first of all at
   Oenoe," where Archidamus, the Spartan king, wasted much time
   in a fruitless siege and assault. "At last they marched on,
   and about the eightieth day after the entry of the Thebans
   into Plataea, in the middle of the summer, when the corn was
   in full ear, invaded Attica: ... They encamped and ravaged,
   first of all, Eleusis and the plain of Thria. ... At Acharnae
   they encamped, and remained there a considerable time,
   ravaging the country." It was the expectation of Archidamus
   that the Athenians would be provoked to come out and meet him
   in the open field; and that, indeed, they were eager to do;
   but the prudence of their great leader held them back. "The
   people were furious with Pericles, and, forgetting all his
   previous warnings, they abused him for not leading them to
   battle." But he was vindicated by the result. "The
   Peloponnesians remained in Attica as long as their provisions
   lasted, and then, taking a new route, retired through Boeotia.
   ... On their return to Peloponnesus the troops dispersed to
   their several cities." Meantime the Athenian and allied fleets
   were ravaging the Peloponnesian coast. "In the same summer [B.
   C. 431] the Athenians expelled the Aeginetans and their
   families from Aegina, alleging that they had been the main
   cause of the war. ... The Lacedaemonians gave the Aeginetan
   exiles the town of Thyrea to occupy and the adjoining country
   to cultivate. ... About the end of the summer the entire
   Athenian force, including the metics, invaded the territory of
   Megara. ... After ravaging the greater part of the country
   they retired. They repeated the invasion, sometimes with
   cavalry, sometimes with the whole Athenian army, every year
   during the war until Nisaea was taken [B. C. 424]."

      _Thucydides, History; translated by B. Jowett,
      book 2; section 13-31 (volume 1)._

ATHENS: B. C. 430.
   The funeral oration of Pericles.

   During the winter of the year B. C. 431-430, "in accordance
   with an old national custom, the funeral of those who first
   fell in this war was celebrated by the Athenians at the public
   charge. The ceremony is as follows: Three days before the
   celebration they erect a tent in which the bones of the dead
   are laid out, and everyone brings to his own dead any offering
   which he pleases. At the time of the funeral the bones are
   placed in chests of cypress wood, which are conveyed on
   hearses; there is one chest for each tribe. They also carry a
   single empty litter decked with a pall for all whose bodies
   are missing, and cannot be recovered after the battle. The
   procession is accompanied by anyone who chooses, whether
   citizen or stranger, and the female relatives of the deceased
   are present at the place of interment and make lamentation.
   The public sepulchre is situated in the most beautiful spot
   outside the walls; there they always bury those who fall in
   war; only after the battle of Marathon the dead, in
   recognition of their pre-eminent valour, were interred on the
   field. When the remains have been laid in the earth, some man
   of known ability and high reputation, chosen by the city,
   delivers a suitable oration over them; after which the people
   depart. Such is the manner of interment; and the ceremony was
   repeated from time to time throughout the war. Over those who
   were the first buried Pericles was chosen to speak. At the
   fitting moment he advanced from the sepulchre to a lofty
   stage, which had been erected in order that he might be heard
   as far as possible by the multitude, and spoke as
   follows:

      'Most of those who have spoken here before me have
      commended the lawgiver who added this oration to our other
      funeral customs; it seemed to them a worthy thing that such
      an honour should be given at their burial to the dead who
      have fallen on the field of battle. But I should have
      preferred that, when men's deeds have been brave, they
      should be honoured in deed only, and with such an honour as
      this public funeral, which you are now witnessing. Then the
      reputation of many would not have been imperilled on the
      eloquence or want of eloquence of one, and their virtues
      believed or not as he spoke well or ill. For it is
      difficult to say neither too little nor too much; and even
      moderation is apt not to give the impression of
      truthfulness. The friend of the dead who knows the facts is
      likely to think that the words of the speaker fall short of
      his knowledge and of his wishes; another who is not so well
      informed, when he hears of anything which surpasses his own
      powers, will be envious and will suspect exaggeration.
      Mankind are tolerant of the praises of others so long as
      each hearer thinks that he can do as well or nearly as well
      himself, but, when the speaker rises above him, jealousy is
      aroused and he begins to be incredulous. However, since our
      ancestors have set the seal of their approval upon the practice,
      I must obey, and to the utmost of my power shall endeavour
      to satisfy the wishes and beliefs of all who hear me. I
      will speak first of our ancestors, for it is right and
      becoming that now, when we are lamenting the dead, a
      tribute should be paid to their memory. There has never
      been a time when they did not inhabit this land, which by
      their valour they have handed down from generation to
      generation, and we have received from them a free state.
{169}
      But if they were worthy of praise, still more were our
      fathers who added to their inheritance, and after many a
      struggle transmitted to us their sons this great empire.
      And we ourselves assembled here to-day, who are still most
      of us in the vigour of life, have chiefly done the work of
      improvement, and have richly endowed our city with all
      things, so that she is sufficient for herself both in peace
      and war. Of the military exploits by which our various
      possessions were acquired, or of the energy with which we
      or our fathers drove back the tide of war, Hellenic or
      Barbarian, I will not speak; for the tale would be long and
      is familiar to you. But before I praise the dead, I should
      like to point out by what principles of action we rose to
      power, and under what institutions and through what manner
      of life our empire became great. For I conceive, that such
      thoughts are not unsuited to the occasion, and that this
      numerous assembly of citizens and strangers may profitably
      listen to them. Our form of government does not enter into
      rivalry with the institutions of others. We do not copy our
      neighbours, but are an example to them. 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 recognised; 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 neighbour 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 for 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 anything 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 Lacedaemonians come into Attica not by themselves,
      but with their whole confederacy following; we go alone
      into a neighbour's country; and although our opponents are
      fighting for their homes and we 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 in 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 a
      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 a harmless, but as a useless character; and
      if few of us are originators, we are all sound judges of a
      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 favours. Now he who confers a favour 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 neighbours 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.
{170}
      For we have compelled every land and every sea to open a
      path for our valour, 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 everyone of us who survive should gladly toil on
      her behalf. I have dwelt upon the greatness of Athens
      because I want to show you that we are contending for a
      higher prize than those who enjoy none of these privileges,
      and to establish by manifest proof the merit of these men
      whom I am now commemorating. Their loftiest praise has been
      already spoken. For in magnifying the city I have magnified
      them, and men like them whose virtues made her glorious.
      And of how few Hellenes can it be said as of them, that
      their deeds when weighed in the balance have been found
      equal to their fame! Methinks that a death such as theirs
      has been gives the true measure of a man's worth; it may be
      the first revelation of his virtues, but is at any rate
      their final seal. For even those who come short in other
      ways may justly plead the valour with which they have
      fought for their country; they have blotted out the evil
      with the good, and have benefited the state more by their
      public services than they have injured her by their private
      actions. None of these men were enervated by wealth or
      hesitated to resign the pleasures of life; none of them put
      off the evil day in the hope, natural to poverty, that a
      man, though poor, may one day become rich. But, deeming
      that the punishment of their enemies was sweeter than any
      of these things, and that they could fall in no nobler
      cause, they determined at the hazard of their lives to be
      honourably avenged, and to leave the rest. They resigned to
      hope their unknown chance of happiness; but in the face of
      death they resolved to rely upon themselves alone. And when
      the moment came they were minded to resist and suffer,
      rather than to fly and save their lives; they ran away from
      the word of dishonour, but on the battle-field their feet
      stood fast, and in an instant, at the height of their
      fortune, they passed away from the scene, not of their
      fear, but of their glory. Such was the end of these men;
      they were worthy of Athens, and the living need not desire
      to have a more heroic spirit although they may pray for a
      less fatal issue. The value of such a spirit is not to be
      expressed in words. Anyone can discourse to you for ever
      about the advantages of a brave defence which you know
      already. But instead of listening to him I would have you
      day by day fix your eyes upon the greatness of Athens,
      until you become filled with the love of her; and when you
      are impressed by the spectacle of her glory reflect that
      this empire has been acquired by men who knew their duty
      and had the courage to do it; who in the hour of conflict
      had the fear of dishonour always present to them, and who,
      if ever they failed in an enterprize, would not allow their
      virtues to be lost to their country, but freely gave their
      lives to her as the fairest offering which they could
      present at her feast. The sacrifice which they collectively
      made was individually repaid to them; for they received
      again each one for himself a praise which grows not old,
      and the noblest of all sepulchres--I speak not of that in
      which their remains are laid, but of that in which their
      glory survives, and is proclaimed always and on every
      fitting occasion both in word and deed. For the whole earth
      is the sepulchre of famous men; not only are they
      commemorated by columns and inscriptions in their own
      country, but in foreign lands there dwells also an
      unwritten memorial of them, graven not on stone but in the
      hearts of men. Make them your examples, and esteeming
      courage to be freedom and freedom to be happiness, do not
      weigh too nicely the perils of war. The unfortunate who has
      no hope of a change for the better has less reason to throw
      away his life than the prosperous who, if he survive, is
      always liable to a change for the worse, and to whom any
      accidental fall makes the most serious difference. To a man
      of spirit, cowardice and disaster coming together are far
      more bitter than death striking him unperceived at a time
      when he is full of courage and animated by the general
      hope. Wherefore I do not now commiserate the parents of the
      dead who stand here; I would rather comfort them. You know
      that your life has been passed amid manifold vicissitudes;
      and that they may be deemed fortunate who have gained most
      honour, whether an honourable death like theirs, or an
      honourable sorrow like yours, and whose days have been so
      ordered that the term of their happiness is likewise the
      term of their life. I know how hard it is to make you feel
      this, when the good fortune of others will too often remind
      you of the gladness which once lightened your hearts. And
      sorrow is felt at the want of those blessings, not which a
      man never knew, but which were a part of his life before
      they were taken from him. Some of you are of an age at
      which they may hope to have other children, and they ought
      to bear their sorrow better; not only will the children who
      may hereafter be born make them forget their own lost ones,
      but the city will be doubly a gainer. She will not be left
      desolate, and she will be safer. For a man's counsel cannot
      have equal weight or worth, when he alone has no children
      to risk in the general danger. To those of you who have
      passed their prime I say: "Congratulate yourselves that you
      have been happy during the greater part of those days;
      remember that your life of sorrow will not last long, and
      be comforted by the glory of those who are gone. For the
      love of honour alone is ever young, and not riches, as some
      say, but honour is the delight of men when they are old and
      useless." To you who are the sons and brothers of the
      departed, I see that the struggle to emulate them will be
      an arduous one. For all men praise the dead, and, however
      pre-eminent your virtue may be, hardly will you be thought,
      I do not say to equal, but even to approach them. The
      living have their rivals and detractors, but when a man is
      out of the way, the honour and good-will which he receives
      is unalloyed. And, if I am to speak of womanly virtues to
      those of you who will henceforth be widows, let me sum them
      up in one short admonition: To a woman not to show more
      weakness than is natural to her sex is a great glory, and
      not to be talked about for good or for evil among men. I
      have paid the required tribute, in obedience to the law,
      making use of such fitting words as I had. The tribute of
      deeds has been paid in part; for the dead have been
      honourably interred, and it remains only that their
      children should be maintained at the public charge until
      they are grown up: this is the solid prize with which, as
      with a garland, Athens crowns her sons living and dead,
      after a struggle like theirs. For where the rewards of
      virtue are greatest, there the noblest citizens are
      enlisted in the service of the state. And now, when you
      have duly lamented, everyone his own dead, you may depart.'

   Such was the order of the funeral celebrated in this winter,
   with the end of which ended the first year of the
   Peloponnesian War."

      _Thucydides, History, translated by B. Jowett,
      volume 1, book 2, section 34-47._

{171}

ATHENS: B. C. 130-429.
   The Plague in the city.
   Death of Pericles.
   Capture of Potidæa.

   "As soon as the summer returned [B. C. 430] the Peloponnesians
   ... invaded Attica, where they established themselves and
   ravaged the country. They had not been there many days when
   the plague broke out at Athens for the first time. ... The
   disease is said to have begun south of Egypt in Æthiopia;
   thence it descended into Egypt and Libya, and after spreading
   over the greater part of the Persian Empire, suddenly fell
   upon Athens. It first attacked the inhabitants of the Piæeus,
   and it was supposed that the Peloponnesians had poisoned the
   cisterns, no conduits having as yet been made there. It
   afterwards reached the upper city, and then the mortality
   became far greater. As to its probable origin or the causes
   which might or could have produced such a disturbance of
   nature, every man, whether a physician or not, will give his
   own opinion. But I shall describe its actual course, and the
   symptoms by which anyone who knows them beforehand may
   recognize the disorder should it ever reappear. For I was
   myself attacked, and witnessed the sufferings of others. The
   season was admitted to have been remarkably free from ordinary
   sickness; and if anybody was already ill of any other disease,
   it was absorbed in this. Many who were in perfect health, all
   in a moment, and without any apparent reason, were seized with
   violent heats in the head and with redness and inflammation of
   the eyes. Internally the throat and tongue were quickly
   suffused with blood and the breath became unnatural and fetid.
   There followed sneezing and hoarseness; in a short time the
   disorder, accompanied by a violent cough, reached the chest;
   then fastening lower down, it would move the stomach and bring
   on all the vomits of bile to which physicians have ever given
   names; and they were very distressing. ... The body externally
   was not so very hot to the touch, nor yet pale; it was a livid
   colour inclining to red, and breaking out in pustules and
   ulcers. But the internal fever was intense. ... The disorder
   which had originally settled in the head passed gradually
   through the whole body, and, if a person got over the worst,
   would often seize the extremities and leave its mark,
   attacking the privy parts and the fingers and toes; and some
   escaped with the loss of these, some with the loss of their
   eyes. ... The crowding of the people out of the country into
   the city aggravated the misery; and the newly-arrived suffered
   most. ... 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 pleasure of the moment and any
   sort of thing which conduced to it took the place both of
   honour and of expediency. No fear of God or law of man
   deterred a criminal." Terrified by the plague, when they
   learned of it, the Peloponnesians retreated from Attica, after
   ravaging it for forty days; but, in the meantime, their own
   coasts had been ravaged, as before, by the Athenian fleet. And
   now, being once more relieved from the presence of the enemy,
   though still grievously afflicted by the plague, the Athenians
   turned upon Pericles with complaints and reproaches, and
   imposed a fine upon him. They also sent envoys to Sparta, with
   peace proposals which received no encouragement. But Pericles
   spoke calmly and wisely to the people, and they acknowledged
   their sense of dependence upon him by re-electing him general
   and committing again "all their affairs to his charge." But he
   was stricken next year with the plague, and, lingering for
   some weeks in broken health, he died in the summer of 429 B.
   C. By his death the republic was given over to striving
   demagogues and factions, at just the time when a capable brain
   and hand were needed in its government most. The war went on,
   acquiring more ferocity of temper with every campaign. It was
   especially embittered in the course of the second summer by
   the execution, at Athens, of several Lacedaemonian envoys who
   were captured while on their way to solicit help from the
   Persian king. One of these unfortunate envoys was Aristeus,
   who had organized the defence of Potidaea. That city was still
   holding out against the Athenians, who blockaded it obstinately,
   although their troops suffered frightfully from the plague.
   But in the winter of 430-429 B. C. they succumbed to
   starvation and surrendered their town, being permitted to
   depart in search of a new home. Potidaea was then peopled
   anew, with colonists.

      _Thucydides, History,
      translated by Jowett, book 2, section 8-70._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Abbott, Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,
      chapter 13-15._

      _W. W. Lloyd, The Age of Pericles, chapter 64 (volume 2)._

      _L. Whibley, Political Parties in Athens during the
      Peloponnesian War._

      _W. Wachsmuth, History Antiquities of the Greeks,
      sections 62-64 (volume 2)._

ATHENS: B. C. 429-421.
   After Pericles.
   The rise of the Demagogues.

   "When Pericles rose to power it would have been possible to
   frame a Pan-Hellenic union, in which Sparta and Athens would
   have been the leading states; and such a dualism would have
   been the best guarantee for the rights of the smaller cities.
   When he died there was no policy left but war with Sparta, and
   conquest in the West. And not only so, but there was no
   politician who could adjust the relations of domestic war and
   foreign conquest. The Athenians passed from one to the other,
   as they were addressed by Cleon or Alcibiades. We cannot
   wonder that the men who lived in those days of trouble spoke
   bitterly of Pericles, holding him accountable for the miseries
   which fell upon Athens. Other statesmen had bequeathed good
   laws, as Solon and Clisthenes, or the memory of great
   achievements, as Themistocles or Cimon, but the only changes
   which Pericles had introduced were thought, not without
   reason, to be changes for the worse; and he left his country
   involved in a ruinous war.".

      _E. Abbott, Pericles and the Golden Age of Athens,
      pages 362-363._

{172}

   "The moral change which had ... befallen the Attic community
   had, it is true, even during the lifetime of Pericles,
   manifested itself by means of sufficiently clear premonitory
   signs; but Pericles had, notwithstanding, up to the days of
   his last illness, remained the centre of the state; the people
   had again and again returned to him, and by subordinating
   themselves to the personal authority of Pericles had succeeded
   in recovering the demeanor which befitted them. But now the
   voice was hushed, which had been able to sway the unruly
   citizens, even against their will. No other authority was in
   existence--no aristocracy, no official class, no board of
   experienced statesmen--nothing, in fact, to which the citizens
   might have looked for guidance and control. The multitude had
   recovered absolute independence, and in proportion as, in the
   interval, readiness of speech and sophistic versatility had
   spread in Athens, the number had increased of those who now
   put themselves forward as popular speakers and leaders. But
   as, among all these, none was capable of leading the multitude
   after the fashion of Pericles, another method of leading the
   people, another kind of demagogy, sprung into existence.
   Pericles stood above the multitude. ... His successors were
   obliged to adopt other means; in order to acquire influence,
   they took advantage not so much of the strong as of the weak
   points in the character of the citizens, and achieved
   popularity by flattering their inclinations, and endeavoring
   to satisfy the cravings of their baser nature. ... Now for the
   first time, men belonging to the lower class of citizens
   thrust themselves forward to play a part in politics,--men of
   the trading and artisan class, the culture and wealth of which
   had so vigorously increased at Athens. ... The office of
   general frequently became a post of martyrdom; and the bravest
   men felt that the prospect of being called to account as to
   their campaigns by cowardly demagogues, before a capricious
   multitude, disturbed the straightforward joyousness of their
   activity, and threw obstacles in the way of their successes.
   ... On the orators' tribune the contrast was more striking.
   Here the first prominent successor of Pericles was a certain
   Eucrates, a rude and uneducated man, who was ridiculed on the
   comic stage as the 'boar' or 'bear of Melite' (the name of the
   district to which he belonged), a dealer in tow and
   mill-owner, who only for a short space of time took the lead
   in the popular assembly. His place was taken by Lysicles, who
   had acquired wealth by the cattle-trade. ... It was not until
   after Lysicles, that the demagogues attained to power who had
   first made themselves a name by their opposition against
   Pericles, and, among them, Cleon was the first who was able to
   maintain his authority for a longer period of time; so that it
   is in his proceedings during the ensuing years of the war that
   the whole character of the new demagogy first thoroughly
   manifests itself."

      _E. Curtius, History of Greece, volume 3, chapter 2._

   "The characters of the military commander and the political
   leader were gradually separated. The first germs of this
   division we find in the days of Kimôn and Periklês. Kimôn was
   no mean politician; but his real genius clearly called him to
   warfare with the Barbarian. Periklês was an able and
   successful general; but in him the military character was
   quite subordinate to that of the political leader. It was a
   wise compromise which entrusted Kimôn with the defence of the
   state abroad and Periklês with its management at home. After
   Periklês the separation widened. We nowhere hear of
   Dêmosthenes and Phormiôn as political leaders; and even in
   Nikias the political is subordinate to the military character.
   Kleôn, on the other hand, was a politician but not a soldier.
   But the old notion of combining military and political
   position was not quite lost. It was still deemed that he who
   proposed a warlike expedition should himself, if it were
   needful, be able to conduct it. Kleôn in an evil hour was
   tempted to take on himself military functions; he was forced
   into command against Sphaktêria; by the able and loyal help of
   Dêmosthenês he acquitted himself with honour. But his head was
   turned by success; he aspired to independent command; he
   measured himself against the mighty Brasidas; and the fatal
   battle of Amphipolis was the result. It now became clear that
   the Demagogue and the General must commonly be two distinct
   persons. The versatile genius of Alkibiadês again united the
   two characters; but he left no successor. ... A Demagogue then
   was simply an influential speaker of popular politics.
   Dêmosthenês is commonly distinguished as an orator, while
   Kleôn is branded as a Demagogue; but the position of the one
   was the same as the position of the other. The only question
   is as to the wisdom and honesty of the advice given either by
   Kleôn or by Dêmosthenês."

      _E. A. Freeman, Historical Essays, 2d ser.,
      pages 138-140._

ATHENS: B. C. 429-427.
   Fate of Platæa.
   Phormio's Victories.
   Revolt of Lesbos.
   Siege of Mitylene.
   Cleon's bloody decree and its reversal.

      See GREECE: B. C. 429-427.

ATHENS: B. C. 425.
   Seizure of Pylus by Demosthenes, the general.
   Spartans entrapped and captured at Sphacteria.
   Peace pleaded for and refused.

      See GREECE: B. C. 425.

ATHENS: B. C. 424-406.
   Socrates as soldier and citizen.
   The trial of the Generals.

   "Socrates was born very shortly before the year 469 B. C. His
   father, Sophroniscus, was a sculptor, his mother, Phænarete, a
   midwife. Nothing definite is known of his moral and
   intellectual development. There is no specific record of him
   at all until he served at the siege of Potidæa (432 B. C.-429
   B. C.) when he was nearly forty years old. All that we can say
   is that his youth and manhood were passed in the most splendid
   period of Athenian or Greek history. ... As a boy he received the
   usual Athenian liberal education, in music and gymnastic, an
   education, that is to say, mental and physical. He was fond of
   quoting from the existing Greek literature, and he seems to
   have been familiar with it, especially with Homer. He is
   represented by Xenophon as repeating Prodieus' fable of the
   choice of Heracles at length. He says that he was in the habit
   of studying with his friends 'the treasures which the wise men
   of old have left us in their books:' collections, that is, of
   the short and pithy sayings of the seven sages, such as 'know
   thyself'; a saying, it may be noticed, which lay at the root
   of his whole teaching. And he had some knowledge of
   mathematics, and of science, as it existed in those days. He
   understood something of astronomy and of advanced geometry;
   and he was acquainted with certain, at any rate, of the
   theories of his predecessors in philosophy, the Physical or
   Cosmical philosophers, such as Heraclitus and Parmenides, and,
   especially, with those of Anaxagoras.
{173}
   But there is no trustworthy evidence which enables us to go
   beyond the bare fact that he had such knowledge. ... All then
   that we can say of the first forty years of Socrates' life
   consists of general statements like these. During these years
   there is no specific record of him. Between 432 B. C. and 429
   B. C. he served as a common soldier at the siege of Potidæa,
   an Athenian dependency which had revolted, and surpassed
   everyone in his powers of enduring hunger, thirst, and cold,
   and all the hardships of a severe Thracian winter. At this
   siege we hear of him for the first time in connection with
   Alcibiades, whose life he saved in a skirmish, and to whom he
   eagerly relinquished the prize of valour. In 431 B. C. the
   Peloponnesian War broke out, and in 424 B. C. the Athenians
   were disastrously defeated and routed by the Thebans at the
   battle of Delium. Socrates and Laches were among the few who
   did not yield to panic. They retreated together steadily, and
   the resolute bearing of Socrates was conspicuous to friend and
   foe alike. Had all the Athenians behaved as he did, says
   Laches, in the dialogue of that name, the defeat would have
   been a victory. Socrates fought bravely a third time at the
   battle of Amphipolis [422 B. C.] against the Peloponnesian
   forces, in which the commanders on both sides, Cleon and
   Brasidas, were killed: but there is no record of his specific
   services on that occasion. About the same time that Socrates
   was displaying conspicuous courage in the cause of Athens at
   Delium and Amphipolis, Aristophanes was holding him up to
   hatred, contempt, and ridicule in the comedy of the Clouds
   [13. C. 423]. ... The Clouds is his protest against the
   immorality of free thought and the Sophists. He chose Socrates
   for his central figure, chiefly, no doubt, on account of
   Socrates' well-known and strange personal appearance. The
   grotesque ugliness, and flat nose, and prominent eyes, and
   Silenus-like face, and shabby dress, might be seen every day
   in the streets, and were familiar to every Athenian.
   Aristophanes cared little--probably he did not take the
   trouble to find out--that Socrates' whole life was spent in
   fighting against the Sophists. It was enough for him that
   Socrates did not accept the traditional beliefs, and was a
   good centre-piece for a comedy. ... The Clouds, it is needless
   to say, is a gross and absurd libel from beginning to end: but
   Aristophanes hit the popular conception. The charges which he
   made in 423 B. C. stuck to Socrates to the end of his life.
   They are exactly the charges made by popular prejudice,
   against which Socrates defends himself in the first ten
   chapters of the Apology, and which he says have been so long
   'in the air.' He formulates them as follows: 'Socrates is an
   evil doer who busies himself with investigating things beneath
   the earth and in the sky, and who makes the worse appear the
   better reason, and who teaches others these same things.' ...
   For sixteen years after the battle of Amphipolis we hear
   nothing of Socrates. The next events in his life, of which
   there is a specific record, are those narrated by himself in
   the twentieth chapter of the Apology. They illustrate, as he
   meant them to illustrate, his invincible moral courage. ... In
   406 B. C. the Athenian fleet defeated the Lacedæmonians at the
   battle of Arginusæ, so called from some small islands off the
   south-east point of Lesbos. After the battle the Athenian
   commanders omitted to recover the bodies of their dead, and to
   save the living from off their disabled enemies. The Athenians
   at home, on hearing of this, were furious. The due performance
   of funeral rites was a very sacred duty with the Greeks; and
   many citizens mourned for friends and relatives who had been
   left to drown. The commanders were immediately recalled, and
   an assembly was held in which they were accused of neglect of
   duty. They defended themselves by saying that they had ordered
   certain inferior officers (amongst others, their accuser
   Theramenes) to perform the duty, but that a storm had come on
   which had rendered the performance impossible. The debate was
   adjourned, and it was resolved that the Senate should decide
   in what way the commanders should be tried. The Senate
   resolved that the Athenian people, having heard the accusation
   and the defence, should proceed to vote forthwith for the
   acquittal or condemnation of the eight commanders
   collectively. The resolution was grossly unjust, and it was
   illegal. It substituted a popular vote for a fair and formal
   trial. ... Socrates was at that time a member of the Senate,
   the only office that he ever filled. The Senate was composed
   of five hundred citizens, elected by lot, fifty from each of
   the ten tribes, and holding office for one year. The members
   of each tribe held the Prytany, that is, were responsible for
   the conduct of business, for thirty-five days at a time, and
   ten out of the fifty were proedri or presidents every seven
   days in succession. Every bill or motion was examined by the
   proedri before it was submitted to the Assembly, to see if it
   were in accordance with law; if it was not, it was quashed:
   one of the proedri presided over the Senate and the Assembly
   each day, and for one day only: he was called the Epistates:
   it was his duty to put the question to the vote. In short he
   was the speaker. ... On the day on which it was proposed to
   take a collective vote on the acquittal or condemnation of the
   eight commanders, Socrates was Epistates. The proposal was, as
   we have seen, illegal: but the people were furious against the
   accused, and it was a very popular one. Some of the proedri
   opposed it before it was submitted to the Assembly, on the
   ground of its illegality; but they were silenced by threats
   and subsided. Socrates alone refused to give way. He would not
   put a question which he knew to be illegal, to the vote.
   Threats of suspension and arrest, the clamour of an angry
   people, the fear of imprisonment or death, could not move him.
   ... But his authority lasted only for a day; the proceedings
   were adjourned, a more pliant Epistates succeeded him, and the
   generals were condemned and executed."

      _F. J. Church, Introduction to Trial and Death of Socrates,
      pages 9-23._

      See, also, GREECE: B. C. 406.

{174}

ATHENS: B. C. 421.
   End of the first period of the Peloponnesian War.
   The Peace of Nicias.

   "The first stage of the Peloponnesian war came to an end just
   ten years after the invasion of Attica by Archidamus in 431 B.
   C. Its results had been almost purely negative; a vast
   quantity of blood and treasure had been wasted on each side,
   but to no great purpose. The Athenian naval power was
   unimpaired, and the confederacy of Delos, though shaken by the
   successful revolt of Amphipolis and the Thraceward towns, was
   still left subsisting. On the other hand, the attempts of
   Athens to accomplish anything on land had entirely failed, and
   the defensive policy of Pericles had been so far justified.
   Well would it have been for Athens if her citizens had taken
   the lesson to heart, and contented themselves with having
   escaped so easily from the greatest war they had ever
   known."

      _C. W. C. Oman, History of Greece, page 341._

   "The treaty called since ancient times the Peace of Nicias ...
   put an end to the war between the two Greek confederations of
   states, after it had lasted for rather more than ten years,
   viz., from the attack of the Bœotians upon Platææ, Ol.
   lxxxvii. 1 (beginning of April B. C. 431) to Ol. lxxxix. 3
   (towards the middle of April B. C. 421). The war was for this
   reason known under the name of the Ten Years' War, while the
   Peloponnesians called it the Attic War. Its end constituted a
   triumph for Athens; for all the plans of the enemies who had
   attacked her had come to naught; Sparta had been unable to
   fulfil a single one of the promises with which she had entered
   upon the war, and was ultimately forced to acknowledge the
   dominion of Athens in its whole extent,--notwithstanding all
   the mistakes and misgivings, notwithstanding all the
   calamities attributable, or not, to the Athenians themselves:
   the resources of offence and defence which the city owed to
   Pericles had therefore proved their excellence, and all the
   fury of her opponents had wasted itself against her in vain.
   Sparta herself was satisfied with the advantages which the
   peace offered to her own city and citizens; but great was the
   discontent among her confederates, particularly among the
   secondary states, who had originally occasioned the war and
   obliged Sparta to take part in it. Even after the conclusion
   of the peace, it was impossible to induce Thebes and Corinth
   to accede to it. The result of the war to Sparta was therefore
   the dissolution of the confederation at whose head she had
   begun the war; she felt herself thereby placed in so
   dangerously isolated a position, that she was obliged to fall
   back upon Athens in self-defence against her own confederates.
   Accordingly the Peace of Nicias was in the course of the same
   year converted into a fifty years' alliance, under the terms
   of which Sparta and Athens contracted the obligation of mutual
   assistance against any hostile attack."

      _E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 2 (volume 3)._

      See, also, GREECE: B. C. 424-421.

ATHENS: B. C. 421-418.
   New combinations.
   Conflicting alliances with Sparta and the Argive Confederacy.
   Rising influence of Alcibiades.
   War in Argos and Arcadia.
   Battle of Mantinea.

      See GREECE: B. C. 421-418.

ATHENS: B. C. 416.
   Siege and conquest of Melos.
   Massacre of the inhabitants.

      See GREECE: B. C. 416.

ATHENS: B. C. 415.
   The expedition against Syracuse.
   Mutilation of the Hermæ (Hermai).

   A quarrel having broken out in Sicily, between the cities of
   Segesta and Selinous, "the latter obtained aid from Syracuse.
   Upon this, Segesta, having vainly sought help from Carthage,
   appealed to Athens, where the exiled Sicilians were numerous.
   Alkibiades had been one of the most urgent for the attack upon
   Melos, and he did not lose the present opportunity to incite
   the Athenians to an enterprise of much greater importance, and
   where he hoped to be in command. ... All men's minds were
   filled with ambitious hopes. Everywhere, says Plutarch, were
   to be seen young men in the gymnasia, old men in workshops and
   public places of meeting, drawing the map of Sicily, talking
   about the sea that surrounds it, the goodness of its harbors,
   its position opposite Africa. Established there, it would be
   easy to cross over and subjugate Carthage, and extend their
   sway as far as the Pillars of Hercules. The rich did not
   approve of this rashness, but feared if they opposed it that
   the opposite faction would accuse them of wishing to avoid the
   service and costs of arming galleys. Nikias had more courage;
   even after the Athenians had appointed him general, with
   Alkibiades and Lamachos, he spoke publicly against the
   enterprise, showed the imprudence of going in search of new
   subjects when those they already had were at the moment in a
   state of revolt, as in Chalkidike, or only waited for a
   disaster to break the chain which bound them to Athens. He
   ended by reproaching Alkibiades for plunging the republic, to
   gratify his personal ambition, into a foreign war of the
   greatest danger. ... One of the demagogues, however, replied
   that he would put an end to all this hesitation, and he
   proposed and secured the passage of a decree giving the
   generals full power to use all the resources of the city in
   preparing for the expedition (March 24, 415 B. C.) Nikias was
   completely in the right. The expedition to Sicily was
   impolitic and foolish. In the Ægæan Sea lay the empire of
   Athens, and there only it could lie, within reach, close at
   hand. Every acquisition westward of the Peloponnesos was a
   source of weakness. Syracuse, even if conquered, would not
   long remain subject. Whatever might be the result of the
   expedition, it was sure to be disastrous in the end. ... An
   event which took place shortly before the departure of the
   fleet (8-9 June) threw terror into the city: one morning the
   hermai throughout the city were seen to have been mutilated.
   ... 'These Hermæ, or half-statues of the god Hermês, were
   blocks of marble about the height of the human figure. The
   upper part was cut into a head, face, neck and bust; the lower
   part was left as a quadrangular pillar, broad at the base,
   without arms, body, or legs, but with the significant mark of
   the male sex in front. They were distributed in great numbers
   throughout Athens, and always in the most conspicuous
   situations; standing beside the outer doors of private houses
   as well as of temples, near the most frequented porticos, at
   the intersection of cross ways, in the public agora. ... The
   religious feelings of the Greeks considered the god to be
   planted or domiciled where his statue stood, so that the
   companionship, sympathy, and guardianship of Hermês became
   associated with most of the manifestations of conjunct life at
   Athens,--political, social, commercial, or gymnastic.' ... To
   all pious minds the city seemed menaced with great misfortunes
   unless the anger of Heaven should be appeased by a sufficient
   expiation.
{175}
   While Alkibiades had many partisans, he had also violent
   enemies. Not long before this time Hyperbolos, a contemptible
   man, had almost succeeded in obtaining his banishment; and he
   had escaped this danger only by uniting his party with that of
   Nikias, and causing the demagogue himself to suffer ostracism.
   The affair of the hermai appeared to his adversaries a
   favourable occasion to repeat the attempt made by Hyperbolos,
   and we have good reason to believe in a political machination,
   seeing this same populace applaud, a few months later, the
   impious audacity of Aristophanes in his comedy of The Birds.
   An inquiry was set on foot, and certain metoikoi and slaves,
   without making any deposition as to the hermai, recalled to
   mind that before this time some of these statues had been
   broken by young men after a night of carousal and
   intoxication, thus indirectly attacking Alkibiades. Others in
   set terms accused him of having at a banquet parodied the
   Eleusinian Mysteries; and men took advantage of the
   superstitious terrors of the people to awake their political
   anxieties. It was repeated that the breakers of sacred
   statues, the profaners of mysteries, would respect the
   government even less than they had respected the gods, and it
   was whispered that not one of these crimes had been committed
   without the participation of Alkibiades; and in proof of this
   men spoke of the truly aristocratic license of his life. Was
   he indeed the author of this sacrilegious freak? To believe
   him capable of it would not be to calumniate him. Or, on the
   other hand, was it a scheme planned to do him injury? Although
   proofs are lacking, it is certain that among the rich, upon
   whom rested the heavy burden of the naval expenses, a plot had
   been formed to destroy the power of Alkibiades, and perhaps to
   prevent the sailing of the fleet. The demagogues, who had
   intoxicated the people with hope, were for the expedition; but
   the popularity of Alkibiades was obnoxious to them: a
   compromise was made between the two factions, as is often done
   in times when public morality is enfeebled, and Alkibiades
   found himself threatened on all sides. ... Urging as a pretext
   the dangers of delay in sending off the expedition, they
   obtained a decree that Alkibiades should embark at once; and
   that the question of his guilt or innocence should be
   postponed until after his return. It was now the middle of
   summer. The day appointed for departure, the whole city,
   citizens and foreigners, went out to Peiraieus at daybreak.
   ... At that moment the view was clearer as to the doubts and
   dangers, and also the distance of the expedition; but all eyes
   were drawn to the immense preparations that had been made, and
   confidence and pride consoled those who were about to part."

      _V. Duruy, History of the Greek People,
      chapter 25, section 2 (volume 3)._

      ALSO IN:
      _Thucydides, History, book 6, section 27-28._

      _G. W. Cox, The Athenian Empire, chapter 5._

      _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 58 (volume 7)._

ATHENS: B. C. 415-413.
   Fatal end of the expedition against Syracuse.

   "Alkibiades was called back to Athens, to take his trial on a
   charge of impiety. ... He did not go back to Athens for his
   trial, but escaped to Peloponnesos, where we shall hear from
   him again. Meanwhile the command of the Athenian force in
   Sicily was left practically in the hands of Nikias. Now Nikias
   could always act well when he did act; but it was very hard to
   make him act; above all on an errand which he hated. One might
   say that Syracuse was saved through the delays of Nikias. He
   now went off to petty expeditions in the west of Sicily, under
   cover of settling matters at Segesta. ... The Syracusans by
   this time quite despised the invaders. Their horsemen rode up
   to the camp of the Athenians at Katanê, and asked them if they
   had come into Sicily merely to sit down there as colonists.
   ... The winter (B. C. 415-414) was chiefly spent on both sides
   in sending embassies to and fro to gain allies. Nikias also
   sent home to Athens, asking for horsemen and money, and the
   people, without a word of rebuke, voted him all that he asked.
   ... But the most important embassy of all was that which the
   Syracusans sent to Corinth and Sparta. Corinth zealously took
   up the cause of her colony and pleaded for Syracuse at Sparta.
   And at Sparta Corinth and Syracuse found a helper in the
   banished Athenian Alkibiadês, who was now doing all that he
   could against Athens. ... He told the Spartans to occupy a
   fortress in Attica, which they soon afterwards did, and a
   great deal came of it. But he also told them to give vigorous
   help to Syracuse, and above all things to send a Spartan
   commander. The mere name of Sparta went for a great deal in
   those days; but no man could have been better chosen than the
   Spartan who was sent. He was Gylippos, the deliverer of
   Syracuse. He was more like an Athenian than a Spartan, quick
   and ready of resource, which few Spartans were. ... And now at
   last, when the spring came (414) Nikias was driven to do
   something. ... The Athenians ... occupied all that part of the
   hill which lay outside the walls of Syracuse. They were joined
   by their horsemen, Greek and Sikel, and after nearly a year,
   the siege of Syracuse really began. The object of the
   Athenians now was to build a wall across the hill and to carry
   it down to the sea on both sides. Syracuse would thus be
   hemmed in. The object of the Syracusans was to build a
   cross-wall of their own, which should hinder the Athenian wall
   from reaching the two points it aimed at; This they tried more
   than once; but in vain. There were several fights on the hill,
   and at last there was a fight of more importance on the lower
   ground by the Great Harbour. ... The Syracusans were defeated,
   as far as fighting went; but they gained far more than they
   lost. For Lamachos was killed, and with him all vigour passed
   away from the Athenian camp. At the same moment the Athenian
   fleet sailed into the Great Harbour, and a Syracusan attack on
   the Athenian works on the hill was defeated. Nikias remained
   in command of the invaders; but he was grievously sick, and
   for once in his life his head seems to have been turned by
   success. He finished the wall on the south side; but he
   neglected to finish it on the north side also, so that
   Syracuse was not really hemmed in. But the hearts of the
   Syracusans sank. ... It was at this darkest moment of all that
   deliverance came. ... A Corinthian ship, under its captain
   Gongylos, sailed into the Little Harbour. He brought the news
   that other ships were on their way from Peloponnesos to the
   help of Syracuse, and, yet more, that a Spartan general was
   actually in Sicily, getting together a land force for the same
   end. As soon as the good news was heard, there was no more talk
   of surrender. ... And one day the Athenian camp was startled
   by the appearance of a Lacedæmonian herald, offering them a
   truce of five days, that they might get them out of Sicily
   with bag and baggage.
{176}
   Gylippos was now on the hill. He of course did not expect that
   the Athenian army would really go away in five days. But it
   was a great thing to show both to the besiegers and to the
   Syracusans that the deliverer had come, and that deliverance
   was beginning. Nikias had kept such bad watch that Gylippos
   and his troops had come up the hill and the Syracusans had
   come out and met them, without his knowledge. The Spartan, as
   a matter of course, took the command of the whole force; he
   offered battle to the Athenians, which they refused; he then
   entered the city. The very next day he began to carry out his
   scheme. This was to build a group of forts near the western
   end of the hill, and to join them to the city by a wall
   running east and west, which would hinder the Athenians from
   ever finishing their wall to the north. Each side went on
   building, and some small actions took place. ... Another
   winter (B. C. 414-413) now came on, and with it much sending
   of envoys. Gylippos went about Sicily collecting fresh troops.
   ... Meanwhile Nikias wrote a letter to the Athenian people.
   ... This letter came at a time when the Lacedæmonian alliance
   had determined to renew the war with Athens, and when they
   were making everything ready for an invasion of Attica. To
   send out a new force to Sicily was simple madness. We hear
   nothing of the debates in the Athenian assembly, whether
   anyone argued against going on with the Sicilian war, and
   whether any demagogue laid any blame on Nikias. But the
   assembly voted that a new force equal to the first should be
   sent out under Dêmosthenês, the best soldier in Athens, and
   Eurymedon. ... Meanwhile the Syracusans were strengthened by
   help both in Sicily and from Peloponnesos. Their main object
   now was to strike a blow at the fleet of Nikias before the new
   force came. ... It had been just when the Syracusans were most
   downcast that they were cheered by the coming of the
   Corinthians and of Gylippos. And just now that their spirits
   were highest, they were dashed again by the coming of
   Dêmosthenês and Eurymedon. A fleet as great as the first,
   seventy-five ships, carrying 5,000 heavy-armed and a crowd of
   light troops of every kind, sailed into the Great Harbour with
   all warlike pomp. The Peloponnesians were already in Attica;
   they had planted a Peloponnesian garrison there, which brought
   Athens to great straits; but the fleet was sent out to
   Syracuse all the same. Dêmosthenês knew what to do as well as
   Lamachos had known. He saw that there was nothing to be done
   but to try one great blow, and, if that failed, to take the
   fleet home again. ... The attack was at first successful, and
   the Athenians took two of the Syracusan forts. But the
   Thespian allies of Syracuse stood their ground, and drove the
   assailants back. Utter confusion followed. ... The last chance
   was now lost, and Dêmosthenês was eager to go home. But Nikias
   would stay on. ... When sickness grew in the camp, when fresh
   help from Sicily and the great body of the allies from
   Peloponnesos came into Syracuse, he at last agreed to go. Just
   at that moment the moon was eclipsed. ... Nikias consulted his
   soothsayers, and he gave out that they must stay twenty-nine
   days, another full revolution of the moon. This resolve was
   the destruction of the besieging army. ... It was felt on both
   sides that all would turn on one more fight by sea, the
   Athenians striving to get out of the harbour, and the
   Syracusans striving to keep them in it. The Syracusans now
   blocked up the mouth of the harbour by mooring vessels across
   it. The Athenians left their position on the hill, a sign that
   the siege was over, and brought their whole force down to the
   shore. It was no time now for any skillful manoeuvres; the
   chief thing was to make the sea-fight as much as might be like
   a land-fight, a strange need for Athenians. ... The last fight
   now began, 110 Athenian ships against 80 of the Syracusans and
   their allies. Never before did so many ships meet in so small
   a space. ... The fight was long and confused; at last the
   Athenians gave way and fled to the shore. The battle and the
   invasion were over. Syracuse was not only saved; she had begun
   to take vengeance on her enemies. ... The Athenians waited one
   day, and then set out, hoping to make their way to some safe
   place among the friendly Sikels in the inland country. The
   sick had to be left behind. ... On the sixth day, after
   frightful toil, they determined to change their course. ...
   They set out in two divisions, that of Nikias going first.
   Much better order was kept in the front division and by the
   time Nikias reached the river, Dêmosthenês was six miles
   behind. ... In the morning a Syracusan force came up with the
   frightful news that the whole division of Dêmosthenês were
   prisoners. ... The Athenians tried in vain to escape in the
   night. The next morning they set out, harassed as before, and
   driven wild by intolerable thirst. They at last reached the
   river Assinaros, which runs by the present town of Noto. There
   was the end. ... The Athenians were so maddened by thirst
   that, though men were falling under darts and the water was
   getting muddy and bloody, they thought of nothing but
   drinking. ... No further terms were made; most of the horsemen
   contrived to cut their way out; the rest were made prisoners.
   Most of them were embezzled by Syracusans as their private
   slaves; but about 7,000 men out of the two divisions were led
   prisoners into Syracuse. They were shut up in the
   stone-quarries, with no further heed than to give each man
   daily half a slave's allowance of food and drink. Many died;
   many were sold; some escaped, or were set free; the rest were
   after a while taken out of the quarries and set to work. The
   generals had made no terms for themselves. Hermokratês wished
   to keep them as hostages against future Athenian attempts
   against Sicily. Gylippos wished to take them in triumph to
   Sparta. The Corinthians were for putting them to death; and so
   it was done. ... So ended the Athenian invasion of Sicily, the
   greatest attempt ever made by Greeks against Greeks, and that
   which came to the most utter failure."

      _E. A. Freeman, The Story of Sicily, pages 117-137._

      ALSO IN:
      _Thucydides, History;
      translated by B. Jowett, books 6-7 (volume 1)._

      See, also, SYRACUSE: B. C. 415-413.

{177}

ATHENS: B. C. 413-412.
   Consequences of the Sicilian Expedition.
   Spartan alliance with the Persians.
   Plotting of Alcibiades.
   The Decelian War.

   "At Athens, where, even before this, everyone had been in the
   most anxious suspense, the news of the loss of the expedition
   produced a consternation, which was certainly greater than
   that at Rome after the battle of Cannae, or that in our own
   days, after the battle of Jena. ... 'At least 40,000 citizens,
   allies and slaves, had perished; and among them there may
   easily have been 10,000 Athenian citizens, most of whom
   belonged to the wealthier and higher classes. The flower of
   the Athenian people was destroyed, as at the time of the
   plague. It is impossible to say what amount of public property
   may have been lost; the whole fleet was gone.' The
   consequences of the disaster soon shewed themselves. It was to
   be foreseen that Chios, which had long been wavering, and
   whose disposition could not be trusted, would avail itself of
   this moment to revolt; and the cities in Asia, from which
   Athens derived her large revenues, were expected to do the
   same. It was, in fact, to be foreseen, that the four islands
   of Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and Rhodes, would instantly revolt.
   The Spartans were established at Decelea, in Attica itself,
   and thence ravaged the country far and wide: so that it was
   impossible to venture to go to the coast without a strong
   escort. Although there were many districts in which no Spartan
   was seen from one year's end to the other, yet there was no
   safety anywhere, except in fortified places, 'and the
   Athenians were constantly obliged to guard the walls of their
   city; and this state of things had already been going on for
   the last twelve months.' In this fearful situation, the
   Athenian people showed the same firmness as the Romans after
   the battle of Cannae. Had they but had one great man among
   them, to whom the state could have been entrusted, even more
   might perhaps have been done; but it is astonishing that,
   although there was no such man, and although the leading men
   were only second or third-rate persons, yet so many useful
   arrangements were made to meet the necessities of the case.
   ... The most unfortunate circumstance for the Athenians was,
   that Alcibiades, now an enemy of his country, was living among
   the Spartans; for he introduced into the undertakings of the
   Spartans the very element which before they had been
   altogether deficient in, namely energy and elasticity: he
   urged them on to undertakings, and induced them now to send a
   fleet to Ionia. ... Erythrae, Teos, and Miletus, one after
   another, revolted to the Peloponnesians, who now concluded
   treaties with Tissaphernes in the name of the king of
   Persia--Darius was then king--and in his own name as satrap;
   and in this manner they sacrificed to him the Asiatic Greeks.
   ... The Athenians were an object of antipathy and implacable
   hatred to the Persians; they had never doubted that the
   Athenians were their real opponents in Greece, and were afraid
   of them; but they did not fear the Spartans. They knew that
   the Athenians would take from them not only the islands, but
   the towns on the main land, and were in great fear of their
   maritime power. Hence they joined the Spartans; and the latter
   were not ashamed of negotiating a treaty of subsidies with the
   Persians, in which Tissaphernes, in the king's name, promised
   the assistance of the Phoenician fleet; and large subsidies,
   as pay for the army. ... In return for this, they renounced,
   in the name of the Greeks, all claims to independence for the
   Greek cities in Asia."

      _E. C. Niebuhr, Lectures on Ancient History,
      volume 2, lectures. 53 and 54._

      See, also, GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

      ALSO IN:
      _G. Grote, History of Greece, chapter 61 (volume 7)._

ATHENS: B. C. 413-412.
   Revolt of Chios, Miletus, Lesbos and Rhodes from Athens.
   Revolution of Samos.

      See GREECE: B. C. 413.

ATHENS: B. C. 413-411.-
   The Probuli.
   Intrigues of Alcibiades.
   Conspiracy against the Constitution.
   The Four Hundred and the Five Thousand.

   Immediately after the dreadful calamity at Syracuse became
   known, "extraordinary measures were adopted by the people; a
   number of citizens of advanced age were formed into a
   deliberative and executive body under the name of Probuli, and
   empowered to fit out a fleet. Whether this laid the foundation
   for oligarchical machinations or not, those aged men were
   unable to bring back men's minds to their former course; the
   prosecution of the Hermocopidæ had been most mischievous in
   its results; various secret associations had sprung up and
   conspired to reap advantage to themselves from the distress
   and embarrassment of the state; the indignation caused by the
   infuriated excesses of the people during that trial, possibly
   here, as frequently happened in other Grecian states,
   determined the more respectable members of the community to
   guard against the recurrence of similar scenes in future, by
   the establishment of an aristocracy. Lastly, the watchful
   malice of Alcibiades, who was the implacable enemy of that
   populace, to whose blind fury he had been sacrificed, baffled
   all attempts to restore confidence and tranquillity, and there
   is no doubt that, whilst he kept up a correspondence with his
   partisans at home, he did everything in his power to increase
   the perplexity and distress of his native city from without,
   in order that he might be recalled to provide for its safety
   and defence. A favourable opportunity for the execution of his
   plans presented itself in the fifth year of his exile,
   Ol. 92. 1; 411. B. C.; as he had incurred the suspicion of the
   Spartans, and stood high in the favour of Tissaphernes, the
   Athenians thought that his intercession might enable them to
   obtain assistance from the Persian king. The people in Athens
   were headed by one of his most inveterate enemies, Androcles;
   and he well knew that all attempts to effect his return would
   be fruitless, until this man and the other demagogues were
   removed. Hence Alcibiades entered into negotiations with the
   commanders of the Athenian fleet at Samos, respecting the
   establishment of an oligarchical constitution, not from any
   attachment to that form of government in itself, but solely
   with the view of promoting his own ends. Phrynichus and
   Pisander were equally insincere in their co-operation with
   Alcibiades. ... Their plan was that the latter should
   reconcile the people to the change in the constitution which
   he wished to effect, by promising to obtain them the
   assistance of the great king; but they alone resolved to reap
   the benefit of his exertions. Pisander took upon himself to
   manage the Athenian populace. It was in truth no slight
   undertaking to attempt to overthrow a democracy of a hundred
   and twenty years' standing, and of intense development; but
   most of the able bodied citizens were absent with the fleet,
   whilst such as were still in the city were confounded by the
   imminence of the danger from without; on the other hand, the
   prospect of succour from the Persian king doubtless had some
   weight with them, and they possibly felt some symptoms of
   returning affection for their former favourite Alcibiades.
   Nevertheless, Pisander and his accomplices employed craft and
   perfidy to accomplish their designs; the people were not
   persuaded or convinced, but entrapped into compliance with
   their measures. Pisander gained over to his purpose the above
   named clubs, and induced the people to send him with ten
   plenipotentiaries to the navy at Samos. In the mean time the
   rest of the conspirators prosecuted the work of remodelling
   the constitution."

      _W. Wachsmuth, History Antiquities of the Greeks,
      volume 2, pages 252-255._

{178}

   The people, or an assembly cleverly made up and manipulated to
   represent the people, were induced to vote all the powers of
   government into the hands of a council of Four Hundred, of
   which council the citizens appointed only five members. Those
   five chose ninety-five more, to make one hundred, and each of
   that hundred then chose three colleagues. The conspirators
   thus easily made up the Four Hundred to their liking, from
   their own ranks. This council was to convene an assembly of
   Five Thousand citizens, whenever it saw fit to do so. But when
   news of this constitutional change reached the army at Samos,
   where the Athenian headquarters for the Ionian war were fixed,
   the citizen soldiers refused to submit to it--repudiated it
   altogether--and organized themselves as an independent state.
   The ruling spirit among them was Thrasybulus, and his
   influence brought about a reconciliation with Alcibiades, then
   an exile sheltered at the Persian court. Alcibiades was
   recalled by the army and placed at its head. Presently a
   reaction at Athens ensued, after the oligarchical party had
   given signs of treasonable communication with Sparta, and in
   June the people assembled in the Pnyx and reasserted their
   sovereignty. "The Council was deposed, and the supreme
   sovereignty of the state restored to the people--not, however,
   to the entire multitude; for the principle was retained of
   reserving full civic rights to a committee of men of a certain
   amount of property; and, as the lists of the Five Thousand had
   never been drawn up, it was decreed, in order that the desired
   end might be speedily reached, to follow the precedent of
   similar institutions in other states and to constitute all
   Athenians able to furnish themselves with a complete military
   equipment from their own resources, full citizens, with the
   rights of voting and participating in the government. Thus the
   name of the Five Thousand had now become a very inaccurate
   designation; but it was retained, because men had in the last
   few months become habituated to it. At the same time, the
   abolition of pay for civic offices and functions was decreed,
   not merely as a temporary measure, but as a fundamental
   principle of the new commonwealth, which the citizens were
   bound by a solemn oath to maintain. This reform was, upon the
   whole, a wise combination of aristocracy and democracy; and,
   according to the opinion of Thucydides, the best constitution
   which the Athenians had hitherto possessed. On the motion of
   Critias, the recall, of Alcibiades was decreed about the same
   time; and a deputation was despatched to Samos, to accomplish
   the union between army and city."

      _E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 5._

   Most of the leaders of the Four Hundred fled to the Spartan
   camp at Decelia. Two were taken, tried and executed.

      _Thucydides, History, book 8, section 48-97._

      See, also, GREECE: B. C. 413-412.

      ALSO IN:
      _V. Duruy, History of Greece, chapter 26 (volume 3)._

ATHENS: B. C. 411-407.
   Victories at Cynossema and Abydos.
   Exploits of Alcibiades.
   His triumphal return.
   His appointment to command.
   His second deposition and exile.

      See GREECE: B. C. 411-407.

ATHENS: B. C. 406.
   The Peloponnesian War: Battle and victory of Arginusae.
   Condemnation and execution of the Generals.

      See GREECE: B. C. 406;
      and above: B. C. 424-406.

ATHENS: B. C. 405.
   The Peloponnesian War:
   Decisive defeat at Aigospotamoi.

      See GREECE: B. C. 405.

ATHENS: B. C. 404.
   The Surrender to Lysander.

   After the battle of Ægospotami (August, B. C. 405), which
   destroyed their navy, and cut off nearly all supplies to the
   city by sea, as the Spartans at Decelea had long cut off
   supplies upon the land side, the Athenians had no hope. They
   waited in terror and despair for their enemies to close in
   upon them. The latter were in no haste, for they were sure of
   their prey. Lysander, the victor at Ægospotami, came leisurely
   from the Hellespont, receiving on his way the surrender of the
   cities subject or allied to Athens, and placing Spartan
   harmosts and garrisons in them, with the local oligarchs
   established uniformly in power. About November he reached the
   Saronic gulf and blockaded the Athenian harbor of Piræus,
   while an overwhelming Peloponnesian land force, under the
   Lacedæmonian king Pausanias, arrived simultaneously in Attica
   and encamped at the gates of the city. The Athenians had no
   longer any power except the power to endure, and that they
   exercised for more than three months, mainly resisting the
   demand that their Long Walls--the walls which protected the
   connection of the city with its harbors--should be thrown
   down. But when famine had thinned the ranks of the citizens
   and broken the spirit of the survivors, they gave up. "There
   was still a high-spirited minority who entered their protest
   and preferred death by famine to such insupportable disgrace.
   The large majority, however, accepted them [the terms] and the
   acceptance was made known to Lysander. It was on the 16th day
   of the Attic month Munychion,--about the middle or end of
   March,--that this victorious commander sailed into the
   Peiræus, twenty-seven years, almost exactly, after the
   surprise of Platæa by the Thebans, which opened the
   Peloponnesian War. Along with him came the Athenian exiles,
   several of whom appear to have been serving with his army and
   assisting him with their counsel."

      _G. Grote, History of Greece, part 2, chapter 65 (volume 8)._

   The Long Walls and the fortifications of Piræus were
   demolished, and then followed the organization of an
   oligarchical government at Athens, resulting in the reign of
   terror under "The Thirty."

      _E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 4, chapter 5._

      ALSO IN:
      _Xenophon, Hellenics, book 2, chapter 2._

      _Plutarch, Lysander._

{179}

ATHENS: B. C. 404-403.
   The tyranny of the Thirty.
   The Year of Anarchy.

   In the summer of B. C. 404, following the siege and surrender
   of Athens, and the humiliating close of the long Peloponnesian
   War, the returned leaders of the oligarchical party, who had
   been in exile, succeeded with the help of their Spartan
   friends, in overthrowing the democratic constitution of the
   city and establishing themselves in power. The revolution was
   accomplished at a public assembly of citizens, in the presence
   of Lysander, the victorious Lacedæmonian admiral, whose fleet
   in the Piraeus lay ready to support his demands. "In this
   assembly, Dracontidas, a scoundrel upon whom repeated
   sentences had been passed, brought forward a motion, proposing
   the transfer of the government into the hands of Thirty
   persons; and Theramenes supported this proposal which he
   declared to express the wishes of Sparta. Even now, these
   speeches produced a storm of indignation; after all the acts
   of violence which Athens had undergone, she yet contained men
   outspoken enough to venture to defend the constitution, and to
   appeal to the fact that the capitulation sanctioned by both
   parties contained no provision as to the internal affairs of
   Athens. But, hereupon, Lysander himself came forward and spoke
   to the citizens without reserve, like one who was their
   absolute master. ... By such means the motion of Dracontidas
   was passed; but only a small number of unpatriotic and
   cowardly citizens raised their hands in token of assent. All
   better patriots contrived to avoid participation in this vote.
   Next, ten members of the government were chosen by Critias and
   his colleagues [the Critias of Plato's Dialogues, pupil of
   Socrates, and now the violent and blood-thirsty leader of the
   anti-democratic revolution], ten by Theramenes, the
   confidential friend of Lysander, and finally ten out of the
   assembled multitude, probably by a free vote; and this board
   of Thirty was hereupon established as the supreme government
   authority by a resolution of the assembly present. Most of the
   members of the new government had formerly been among the Four
   Hundred, and had therefore long pursued a common course of
   action." The Thirty Tyrants so placed in power were masters of
   Athens for eight months, and executed their will without
   conscience or mercy, having a garrison of Spartan soldiers in
   the Acropolis to support them. They were also sustained by a
   picked body of citizens, "the Three Thousand," who bore arms
   while other citizens were stripped of every weapon. Large
   numbers of the more patriotic and high-spirited Athenians had
   escaped from their unfortunate city and had taken refuge,
   chiefly at Thebes, the old enemy of Athens, but now
   sympathetic in her distress. At Thebes these exiles organized
   themselves under Thrasybulus and Anytus, and determined to
   expel the tyrants and to recover their homes. They first
   seized a strong post at Phyle, in Attica, where they gained in
   numbers rapidly, and from which point they were able in a few
   weeks to advance and occupy the Piræus. When the troops of The
   Thirty came out to attack them, they drew back to the adjacent
   height of Munychia and there fought a battle which delivered
   their city from the Tyrants. Critias, the master-spirit of the
   usurpation, was slain; the more violent of his colleagues took
   refuge at Eleusis, and Athens, for a time, remained under the
   government of a new oligarchical Board of Ten; while
   Thrasybulus and the democratic liberators maintained their
   headquarters at Munychia. All parties waited the action of
   Sparta. Lysander, the Spartan general, marched an army into
   Attica to restore the tyranny which was of his own creating;
   but one of the two Spartan kings, Pausanias, intervened,
   assumed the command in his own person, and applied his efforts
   to the arranging of peace between the Athenian parties. The
   result was a restoration of the democratic constitution of the
   Attic state, with some important reforms. Several of The
   Thirty were put to death,--treacherously, it was said,--but an
   amnesty was extended to all their partisans. The year in which
   they and The Ten controlled affairs was termed in the official
   annals of the city the Year of Anarchy, and its magistrates
   were not recognized.

      _E. Curtius, History of Greece,
      book 4, chapter 5, and book 5, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _Xenophon, Hellenics, book 2, chapter 3-4._

      _C. Sankey, The Spartan and Theban Supremacies.
      chapter 2-3._

ATHENS: B. C. 395-387.
   Confederacy against Sparta.
   Alliance with Persia.
   The Corinthian War.
   Conon's rebuilding of the Long Walls.
   Athenian independence restored.
   The Peace of Antalcidas.

      See GREECE: B. C. 399-387.

ATHENS: B. C. 378-371.
   Brief alliance with Thebes against Sparta.

      See GREECE: B. C. 379-371.

ATHENS: B. C. 378-357.
   The New Confederacy and the Social War.

   Upon the Liberation of Thebes and the signs that began to
   appear of the decline of Spartan power--during the year of the
   archonship of Nausinicus, B. C. 378-7, which was made
   memorable at Athens by various movements of political
   regeneration,--the organization of a new Confederacy was
   undertaken, analogous to the Confederacy of Delos, formed a
   century before. Athens was to be, "not the ruling capital, but
   only the directing city in possession of the primacy, the seat
   of the federal council. ... Callistratus was in a sense the
   Aristides of the new confederation and doubtless did much to
   bring about an agreement; it was likewise his work that, in
   place of the 'tributes' of odious memory, the payments
   necessary to the existence of the confederation were
   introduced under the gentler name of 'contributions.' ...
   Amicable relations were resumed with the Cyclades, Rhodes and
   Perinthus; in other words, the ancient union of navies was at
   once renewed upon a large scale and in a wide extent. Even
   such states joined it as had hitherto never stood in
   confederate relations with Athens, above all Thebes."

      _E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 6, chapter 1_.

   This second confederacy renewed much of the prosperity and
   influence of Athens for a brief period of about twenty years.
   But in 357 B. C., four important members of the Confederacy,
   namely, Chios, Cos, Rhodes, and Byzantium leagued themselves
   in revolt, with the aid of Mausolus, prince of Caria, and an
   inglorious war ensued, known as the Social War, which lasted
   three years. Athens was forced at last to assent to the
   secession of the four revolted cities and to recognize their
   independence, which greatly impaired her prestige and power,
   just at the time when she was called upon to resist the
   encroachments of Philip of Macedonia.

      _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 42._

ATHENS: B. C. 370-362.
   Alliance with Sparta against Thebes.
   Battle of Mantinea.

      See GREECE: B. C. 371-362.

{180}

ATHENS: B. C. 359-338.
   The collision with Philip of Macedon.
   The Policy of Demosthenes and Policy of Phocion.

   "A new period opens with the growth of the Macedonian power
   under Philip (359-336 B. C.) We are here chiefly concerned to
   notice the effect on the City-State [of Athens], not only of
   the strength and policy of this new power, but also of the
   efforts of the Greeks themselves to counteract it. At the time
   of Philip's accession the so-called Theban supremacy had just
   practically ended with the death of Epaminondias. There was
   now a kind of balance of power between the three leading
   States, Sparta, Athens, and Thebes, no one of which was
   greatly stronger than the others; and such a balance could
   easily be worked upon by any great power from without. Thus
   when Macedon came into the range of Greek politics, under a
   man of great diplomatic as well as military capacity, who,
   like a Czar of to-day, wished to secure a firm footing on the
   sea-board of the Ægean [see GREECE: B. C. 359-358], she found
   her work comparatively easy. The strong imperial policy of
   Philip found no real antagonist except at Athens. Weak as she
   was, and straitened by the break-up of her new confederacy,
   Athens could still produce men of great talent and energy; but
   she was hampered by divided counsels. Two Athenians of this
   period seem to represent the currents of Greek political
   thought, now running in two different directions. Demosthenes
   represents the cause of the City-State in this age, of a
   union, that is, of perfectly free Hellenic cities against the
   common enemy. Phocion represents the feeling, which seems to
   have been long growing up among thinking men at Athens, that
   the City-State was no longer what it had been, and could no
   longer stand by itself; that what was needed was a general
   Hellenic peace, and possibly even an arbiter from without, an
   arbiter not wholly un-Hellenic like the Persian, yet one who
   might succeed in stilling the fatal jealousies of the leading
   States. ... The efforts of Demosthenes to check Philip fall
   into two periods divided by the peace of Philocrates in 346 B.
   C. In the first of these he is acting chiefly with Athens
   alone; Philip is to him not so much the common enemy of Greece
   as the dangerous rival of Athens in the north. His whole mind
   was given to the internal reform of Athens so as to strengthen
   her against Philip. In her relation to other Greek States he
   perhaps hardly saw beyond a balance of power. ... After 346
   his Athenian feeling seems to become more distinctly Hellenic.
   But what could even such a man as Demosthenes do with the
   Hellas of that day? He could not force on the Greeks a real
   and permanent union; he could but urge new alliances. His
   strength was spent in embassies with this object, embassies
   too often futile. No alliance could save Greece from the
   Macedonian power, as subsequent events plainly showed. What
   was needed was a real federal union between the leading
   States, with a strong central controlling force; and
   Demosthenes' policy was hopeless just because Athens could
   never be the centre of such a union, nor could any other city.
   Demosthenes is thus the last, and in some respects the most
   heroic champion of the old Greek instinct for autonomy. He is
   the true child of the City-State, but the child of its old age
   and decrepitude. He still believes in Athens, and it is on
   Athens that all his hopes are based. He looks on Philip as one
   who must inevitably be the foe alike of Athens and of Greece.
   He seems to think that he can be beaten off as Xerxes was, and
   to forget that even Xerxes almost triumphed over the divisions
   of the Greek States, and that Philip is a nearer, a more
   prominent, and a far less barbarian foe. ... Phocion was the
   somewhat odd exponent of the practical side of a school of
   thought which had been gaining strength in Greece for some
   time past. This school was now brought into prominence by the
   rise of Macedon, and came to have a marked influence on the
   history of the City-State. It began with the philosophers, and
   with the idea that the philosopher may belong to the world as
   well as to a particular city. ... Athens was far more open to
   criticism now than in the days of Pericles; and a cynical
   dislike betrays itself in the Republic for the politicians of
   the day and their tricks, and a longing for a strong
   government of reason. ... Aristotle took the facts of city
   life as they were and showed how they might be made the most
   of. ... To him Macedon was assuredly not wholly barbarian; and
   war to the death with her kings could not have been to him as
   natural or desirable as it seemed to Demosthenes. And though
   he has nothing to tell us of Macedon, we can hardly avoid the
   conclusion that his desire was for peace and internal reform,
   even if it were under the guarantee of the northern power. ...
   Of this philosophical view of Greek politics Phocion was in a
   manner the political exponent. But his policy was too much a
   negative one; it might almost be called one of indifferentism,
   like the feeling of Lessing and Goethe in Germany's most
   momentous period. So far as we know, Phocion never proposed an
   alliance of a durable kind, either Athenian or Hellenic, with
   Macedon; he was content to be a purely restraining influence.
   Athens had been constantly at war since 432; her own resources
   were of the weakest; there was little military skill to be
   found in her, no reserve force, much talk, but little solid
   courage. Athens was vulnerable at various points, and could
   not possibly defend more than one at a time, therefore Phocion
   despaired of war, and the event proved him right. The
   faithfulness of the Athenians towards him is a proof that they
   also instinctively felt that he was right. But he was wanting
   on the practical and creative side, and never really dominated
   either Athens, Greece, or Philip. ... A policy of resistance
   found the City-State too weak to defend itself; a policy of
   inaction would land it in a Macedonian empire which would
   still further weaken its remaining vitality. The first policy,
   that of Demosthenes, did actually result in disaster and the
   presence of Macedonian garrisons in Greek cities. The second
   policy then took its place, and initiated a new era for
   Greece. After the fatal battle of Chæronea (338 B. C.) Philip
   assumed the position of leader of the Greek cities."

      _W. W. Fowler, The City-State of the Greeks and Romans,
      chapter 10._

      See, also, GREECE: 357-336.

ATHENS: B. C. 340.
   Alliance with Byzantium against Philip of Macedon.

      See GREECE: B. C. 340.

{181}

ATHENS: B. C. 336-322.
   End of the Struggle with the Macedonians.
   Fall of Democracy.
   Death of Demosthenes.
   Athenian decline.

   "An unexpected incident changes the whole aspect of things.
   Philip falls the victim of assassination; and a youth, who as
   yet is but little known, is his successor. Immediately
   Demosthenes institutes a second alliance of the Greeks; but
   Alexander suddenly appears before Thebes; the terrible
   vengeance which he here takes, instantly destroys the league;
   Demosthenes, Lycurgus, and several of their supporters,
   are required to be delivered up: but Demades is at that
   time able to settle the difficulty and to appease the king.
   His strength was therefore enfeebled as Alexander departed for
   Asia; he begins to raise his head once more when Sparta
   attempts to throw off the yoke: but under Antipater he is
   overpowered. Yet it was about this very time that by the most
   celebrated of his discourses he gained the victory over the
   most eloquent of his adversaries; and Æschines was forced to
   depart from Athens. But this seems only to have the more
   embittered his enemies, the leaders of the Macedonian party;
   and they soon found an opportunity of preparing his downfall.
   When Harpalus, a fugitive from the army of Alexander, came
   with his treasures to Athens, and the question arose, whether
   he could be permitted to remain there, Demosthenes was accused
   of having been corrupted by his money, at least to be silent.
   This was sufficient to procure the imposition of a fine; and
   as this was not paid, he was thrown into prison. From thence
   he succeeded in escaping; but to the man who lived only for
   his country, exile was no less an evil than imprisonment. He
   resided for the most part in Ægina and at Trœzen, from whence
   he looked with moist eyes toward the neighbouring Attica.
   Suddenly and unexpectedly a new ray of light broke through the
   clouds. Tidings were brought, that Alexander was dead. The
   moment of deliverance seemed at hand; the excitement pervaded
   every Grecian state; the ambassadors of the Athenians passed
   through the cities; Demosthenes joined himself to the number
   and exerted all his eloquence and power to unite them against
   Macedonia. In requital for such services, the people decreed
   his return; and years of sufferings were at last followed by a
   day of exalted compensation. A galley was sent to Ægina to
   bring back the advocate of liberty. ... It was a momentary
   glimpse of the sun, which still darker clouds were soon to
   conceal. Antipater and Craterus were victorious; and with them
   the Macedonian party in Athens: Demosthenes and his friends
   were numbered among the accused, and at the instigation of
   Demades were condemned to die. ... Demosthenes had escaped to
   the island Calauria in the vicinity of Trœzen; and took refuge
   in the temple of Neptune. It was to no purpose that Archias,
   the satellite of Antipater, urged him to surrender himself
   under promise of pardon. He pretended he wished to write
   something; bit the quill, and swallowed the poison contained
   in it."

      _A. H. L. Heeren, Reflections on the Politics of Ancient
      Greece, translated by G. Bancroft, pages 278-280._

      See, also, on the "Lamian War," the suppression of
      Democracy at Athens, and the expulsion of poor citizens,
      GREECE: B. C. 323-322.

   "With the decline of political independence, ... the mental
   powers of the nation received a fatal blow. No longer knit
   together by a powerful esprit de corps, the Greeks lost the
   habit of working for the common weal; and, for the most part,
   gave themselves up to the petty interests of home life and
   their own personal troubles. Even the better disposed were too
   much occupied in opposing the low tone and corruption of the
   times, to be able to devote themselves, in their moments of
   relaxation, to a free and speculative consideration of things.
   What could be expected in such an age, but that philosophy
   would take a decidedly practical turn, if indeed it were
   studied at all? And yet such were the political antecedents of
   the Stoic and Epicurean systems of philosophy. ... Stoic
   apathy, Epicurean self-satisfaction, and Sceptic
   imperturbability, were the doctrines which responded to the
   political helplessness of the age. They were the doctrines,
   too, which met with the most general acceptance. The same
   political helplessness produced the sinking of national
   distinctions in the feeling of a common humanity, and the
   separation of morals from politics which characterise the
   philosophy of the Alexandrian and Roman period. The barriers
   between nations, together with national independence, had been
   swept away. East and West, Greeks and barbarians, were united
   in large empires, being thus thrown together, and brought into
   close contact on every possible point. Philosophy might teach
   that all men were of one blood, that all were equally citizens
   of one empire, that morality rested on the relation of man to
   his fellow men, independently of nationalities and of social
   ranks; but in so doing she was only explicitly stating truths
   which had been already realised in part, and which were in
   part corollaries from the existing state of society."

      _E. Zeller, The Stoics, Epicureans, and Sceptics,
      pages 16-18_.

   "What we have said concerning the evidence of comedy about the
   age of the first Diadochi amounts to this: Menander and his
   successors--they lasted barely two generations--printed in a
   few stereotypes a small and very worthless society at Athens.
   There was no doubt a similar set of people at Corinth, at
   Thebes, possibly even in the city of Lycurgus. These people,
   idle, for the most part rich, and in good society, spent their
   earlier years in debauchery, and their later in sentimental
   reflections and regrets. They had no serious object in life,
   and regarded the complications of a love affair as more
   interesting than the rise and fall of kingdoms or the gain and
   loss of a nation's liberty. They were like the people of our
   day who spend all their time reading novels from the
   libraries, and who can tolerate these eternal variations in
   twaddle not only without disgust but with interest. They were
   surrounded with slaves, on the whole more intelligent and
   interesting, for in the first place slaves were bound to
   exercise their brains, and in the second they had a great
   object--liberty--to give them a keen pursuit in life. The
   relations of the sexes in this set or portion of society were
   bad, owing to the want of education in the women, and the want
   of earnestness in the men. As a natural consequence a class
   was found, apart from household slaves, who took advantage of
   these defects, and, bringing culture to fascinate unprincipled
   men, established those relations which brought estragements,
   if not ruin, into the home life of the day."

      _J. P. Mahaffy, Greek Life and Thought, pages 123-124_.

{182}

   "The amount of Persian wealth poured into Greece by the
   accidents of the conquest, not by its own industries, must
   have produced a revolution in prices not since equalled except
   by the influx of the gold of the Aztecs and Incas into Spain.
   I have already pointed out how this change must have pressed
   upon poor people in Greece who did not share in the plunder.
   The price of even necessary and simple things must have often
   risen beyond their means. For the adventurers brought home
   large fortunes, and the traders and purveyors of the armies
   made them; and with these Eastern fortunes must have come in
   the taste for all the superior comforts and luxuries which
   they found among the Persian grandees. Not only the
   appointments of the table, in the way of plate and pottery,
   but the very tastes and flavours of Greek cookery must have
   profited by comparison with the knowledge of the East. So also
   the furniture, especially in carpets and hangings, must have
   copied Persian fashion, just as we still affect oriental
   stuffs and designs. It was not to be expected that the example
   of so many regal courts and so much royal ceremony should not
   affect those in contact with them. These influences were not
   only shown in the vulgar 'braggart captain,' who came to show
   off his sudden wealth in impudent extravagance among his old
   townspeople, but in the ordinary life of rich young men. So I
   imagine the personal appointments of Alcibiades, which were
   the talk of Greece in his day, would have appeared poor and
   mean beside those of Aratus, or of the generation which
   preceded him. Pictures and statues began to adorn private
   houses, and not temples and public buildings only--a change
   beginning to show itself in Demosthenes's day, but coming in
   like a torrent with the opening of Greece to the Eastern
   world. It was noticed that Phocion's house at Athens was
   modest in size and furniture, but even this was relieved from
   shabbiness by the quaint wall decoration of shining plates of
   bronze--a fashion dating from prehistoric times, but still
   admired for its very antiquity."

      _J. P. Mahaffy, Greek Life and Thought, pages 105-106._

   "The modern historians of Greece are much divided on the
   question where a history of Hellas ought to end. Curtius stops
   with the battle of Chaeroncia and the prostration of Athens
   before the advancing power of Macedon. Grote narrates the
   campaigns of Alexander, but stops short at the conclusion of
   the Lamian War, when Greece had in vain tried to shake off the
   supremacy of his generals. Thirlwall brings his narrative down
   to the time of Mummius, the melancholy sack of Corinth and the
   constitution of Achaia as a Roman province. Of these divergent
   views we regard that of the German historian as the most
   correct. ... The historic sense of Grote did not exclude
   prejudices, and in this case he was probably led astray by
   political bias. At the close of his ninety-sixth chapter,
   after mentioning the embassies sent by the degenerate
   Athenians to King Ptolemy, King Lysimachus, and Antipater, he
   throws down his pen in disgust, 'and with sadness and
   humiliation brings his narrative to a close.' Athens was no
   longer free and no longer dignified, and so Mr. Grote will
   have done with Greece at the very moment when the new Comedy
   was at its height, when the Museum was founded at Alexandria,
   when the plays of Euripides were acted at Babylon and Cabul,
   and every Greek soldier of fortune carried a diadem in his
   baggage. Surely the historian of Greece ought either to have
   stopped when the iron hand of Philip of Macedon put an end to
   the liberties and the political wranglings of Hellas, or else
   persevered to the time when Rome and Parthia crushed Greek
   power between them, like a ship between two icebergs. No doubt
   his reply would be, that he declined to regard the triumph
   abroad of Macedonian arms as a continuation of the history of
   Hellas. ... The truth is, that the history of Greece consists
   of two parts, in every respect contrasted one with the other.
   The first recounts the stories of the Persian and
   Peloponnesian wars, and ends with the destruction of Thebes
   and the subjugation of Athens and Sparta. The Hellas of which
   it speaks is a cluster of autonomous cities in the
   Peloponnesus, the Islands, and Northern Greece, together with
   their colonies scattered over the coasts of Italy, Sicily,
   Thrace, the Black Sea, Asia Minor, and Africa. These cities
   care only to be independent, or at most to lord it over one
   another. Their political institutions, their religious
   ceremonies, their customs, are civic and local. Language,
   commerce, a common Pantheon, and a common art and poetry are
   the ties that bind them together. In its second phase, Greek
   history begins with the expedition of Alexander. It reveals to
   us the Greek as everywhere lord of the barbarian, as foundling
   kingdoms and federal systems, as the instructor of all mankind
   in art and science, and the spreader of civil and civilized
   life over the known world. In the first period of her history
   Greece is forming herself, in her second she is educating the
   world. We will venture to borrow from the Germans a convenient
   expression, and call the history of independent Greece the
   history of Hellas, that of imperial Greece the history of
   Hellenism. ... The Athens of Pericles was dictator among the
   cities which had joined her alliance. Corinth, Sparta, Thebes,
   were each the political head of a group of towns, but none of
   the three admitted these latter to an equal share in their
   councils, or adopted their political views. Even in the
   Olynthian League, the city of Olynthus occupied a position
   quite superior to that of the other cities. But the Greek
   cities had not tried the experiment of an alliance on equal
   terms. This was now attempted by some of the leading cities of
   the Peloponnese, and the result was the Achaean League, whose
   history sheds a lustre on the last days of independent Greece,
   and whose generals will bear comparison with the statesmen of
   any Greek Republic [sec GREECE: B. C. 280-146]. ... On the
   field of Sellasia the glorious hopes of Cleomenes were
   wrecked, and the recently reformed Sparta was handed over to a
   succession of bloodthirsty tyrants, never again to emerge from
   obscurity. But to the Achaeans themselves the interference of
   Macedon was little less fatal. Henceforth a Macedonian
   garrison occupied Corinth, which had been one of the chief
   cities of the League; and King Antigonus Doson was the
   recognized arbiter in all disputes of the Peloponnesian
   Greeks. ... In Northern Greece a strange contrast presented
   itself. The historic races of the Athenians and Boeotians
   languished in peace, obscurity, and luxury. With them every
   day saw something added to the enjoyments and elegancies of
   life, and every day politics drifted more and more into the
   background. On the other hand, the rude semi-Greeks of the
   West, Aetolians, Acarnanians, and Epirotes, to whose manhood
   the repulse of the Gauls was mainly due, came to the front and
   showed the bold spirit of Greeks divorced from the finer
   faculties of the race. The Acarnanians formed a league
   somewhat on the plan of the Achaean.
{183}
   But they were overshadowed by their neighbors the Aetolians,
   whose union was of a different character. It was the first
   time that there had been formed in Hellas a state framed in
   order to prey upon its neighbours. ... In the course of the
   Peloponnesian War Greek religion began to lose its hold on the
   Greeks. This was partly the work of the sophists and
   philosophers, who sought more lofty and moral views of Deity
   than were furnished by the tales of popular mythology. Still
   more it resulted from growing materialism among the people,
   who saw more and more of their immediate and physical needs,
   and less and less of the underlying spiritual elements in
   life. But though philosophy and materialism had made the
   religion of Hellas paler and feebler, they had not altered its
   nature or expanded it. It still remained essentially national,
   almost tribal. When, therefore, Greeks and Macedonians
   suddenly found themselves masters of the nations of the East,
   and in close contact with a hundred forms of religion, an
   extraordinary and rapid change took place in their religions
   ideas. In religion, as in other matters, Egypt set to the
   world the example of prompt fusion of the ideas of Greeks and
   natives. ... Into Greece proper, in return for her population
   which flowed out, there flowed in a crowd of foreign deities.
   Isis was especially welcomed at Athens, where she found many
   votaries. In every cult the more mysterious elements were made
   more of, and the brighter and more materialistic side passed
   by. Old statues which had fallen somewhat into contempt in the
   days of Pheidias and Praxiteles were restored to their places
   and received extreme veneration, not as beautiful, but as old
   and strange. On the coins of the previous period the
   representations of deities had been always the best that the
   die-cutter could frame, taking as his models the finest
   contemporary sculpture; but henceforth we often find them
   strange, uncouth figures, remnants of a period of struggling
   early art, like the Apollo at Amyclae, or the Hera of Samos.
   ... In the intellectual life of Athens there was still left
   vitality enough to formulate the two most complete expressions
   of the ethical ideas of the times, the doctrines of the Stoics
   and the Epicureans, towards one or the other of which all
   educated minds from that day to this have been drawn. No doubt
   our knowledge of these doctrines, being largely drawn from the
   Latin writers and their Greek contemporaries, is somewhat
   coloured and unjust. With the Romans a system of philosophy
   was considered mainly in its bearing upon conduct, whence the
   ethical elements in Stoicism and Epicureanism have been by
   their Roman adherents so thrust into the foreground, that we
   have almost lost sight of the intellectual elements, which can
   have had little less importance in the eyes of the Greeks.
   Notwithstanding, the rise of the two philosophies must be held
   to mark a new era in the history of thought, an era when the
   importance of conduct was for the first time recognized by the
   Greeks. It is often observed that the ancient Greeks were more
   modern than our own ancestors of the Middle Ages. But it is
   less generally recognized how far more modern than the Greeks
   of Pericles were the Greeks of Aratus. In very many respects
   the age of Hellenism and our own age present remarkable
   similarity. In both there appears a sudden increase in the
   power over material nature, arising alike from the greater
   accessibility of all parts of the world and from the rapid
   development of the sciences which act upon the physical forces
   of the world. In both this spread of science and power acts
   upon religion with a dissolving and, if we may so speak,
   centrifugal force, driving some men to take refuge in the most
   conservative forms of faith, some to fly to new creeds and
   superstitions, some to drift into unmeasured scepticism. In
   both the facility of moving from place to place, and finding a
   distant home, tends to dissolve the closeness of civic and
   family life, and to make the individual rather than the family
   or the city the unit of social life. And in the family
   relations, in the character of individuals, in the state of
   morality, in the condition of art, we find at both periods
   similar results from the similar causes we have mentioned."

      _P. Gardner, New Chapters in Greek History, chapter 15._

ATHENS: B. C. 317-316.
   Siege by Polysperchon.
   Democracy restored.
   Execution of Phocion.
   Demetrius of Phaleron at the head of the government.

      See GREECE: B. C. 321-312.

ATHENS: B.C. 307-197.
   Under Demetrius Poliorcetes and the Antigonids.

      See GREECE: B. C.307-197.

ATHENS: B. C. 288-263.
   Twenty years of Independence.
   Siege and subjugation by Antigonus Gonatas.

   When Demetrius Poliorcetes lost the Macedonian throne, B. C.
   288, his fickle Athenian subjects and late worshippers rose
   against his authority, drove his garrisons from the Museum and
   the Piræus and abolished the priesthood they had consecrated
   to him. Demetrius gathered an army from some quarter and laid
   siege to the city, but without success. The Athenians went so
   far as to invite Pyrrhus, the warrior king of Epirus, to
   assist them against him. Pyrrhus came and Demetrius retired.
   The dangerous ally contented himself with a visit to the
   Acropolis as a worshipper, and left Athens in possession,
   undisturbed, of her freshly gained freedom. It was enjoyed
   after a fashion for twenty years, at the end of which period,
   B. C. 268, Antigonus Gonatas, the son of Demetrius, having
   regained the Macedonian crown, reasserted his claim on Athens,
   and the city was once more besieged. The Lacedæmonians and
   Ptolemy of Egypt both gave some ineffectual aid to the
   Athenians, and the siege, interrupted on several occasions,
   was prolonged until B. C. 263, when Antigonus took possession
   of the Acropolis, the fortified Museum and the Piræus as a
   master (see MACEDONIA, &c.: B. C. 277-244). This was sometimes
   called the Chremonidean War, from the name of a patriotic
   Athenian who took the most prominent part in the long defence
   of his city.

      _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 61._

ATHENS: B. C. 229.
   Liberation by the Achaian League.

      See GREECE: B. C. 280-146.

ATHENS: B. C. 200.
   Vandalism of the second Macedonian Philip.

   In the year B. C. 200 the Macedonian king, Philip, made an
   attempt to surprise Athens and failed. "He then encamped in
   the outskirts, and proceeded to wreak his vengeance on the
   Athenians, as he had indulged it at Thermus and Pergamus. He
   destroyed or defaced all the monuments of religion and of art,
   all the sacred and pleasant places which adorned the suburbs.
   The Academy, the Lycenm, and Cynosarges, with their temples,
   schools, groves and gardens, were all wasted with fire. Not
   even the sepulchres were spared."

      _C. Thirlwall, History of Greece, chapter 64._

{184}

ATHENS: B. C. 197-A. D. 138.
   Under Roman rule.

   "Athens ... affords the disheartening picture of a
   commonwealth pampered by the supreme power, and financially as
   well us morally ruined. By rights it ought to have found
   itself in a flourishing condition. ... No city of antiquity
   elsewhere possessed a domain of its own, such as was Attica,
   of about 700 square miles. ... But even beyond Attica they
   retained what they possessed, as well after the Mithridatic
   War, by favour of Sulla, as after the Pharsalian battle, in
   which they had taken the side of Pompeius, by the favour of
   Cæsar;--he asked them only how often they would still ruin
   themselves and trust to be saved by the renown of their
   ancestors. To the city there still belonged not merely the
   territory, formerly possessed by Haliartus, in Boeotia, but
   also on their own coast Salamis, the old starting-point of
   their dominion of the sea, and in the Thracian Sea the
   lucrative islands Scyros, Lemnos, and Imbros, as well as Delos
   in the Aegean. ... Of the further grants, which they had the
   skill to draw by flattery from Antoninus, Augustus, against
   whom they had taken part, took from them certainly Aegina and
   Eretria in Euboea, but they were allowed to retain the smaller
   islands of the Thracian Sea. ... Hadrian, moreover, gave to
   them the best part of the great island of Cephallenia in the
   Ionian Sea. It was only by the Emperor Severus, who bore them
   no good will, that a portion of these extraneous possessions
   was withdrawn from them. Hadrian further granted to the
   Athenians the delivery of a certain quantity of grain at the
   expense of the empire, and by the extension of this privilege,
   hitherto reserved for the capital, acknowledged Athens, as it
   were, as another metropolis. Not less was the blissful
   institute of alimentary endowments, which Italy had enjoyed
   since Trajan's time, extended by Hadrian to Athens, and the
   capital requisite for this purpose certainly presented to the
   Athenians from his purse. ... Yet the community was in
   constant distress."

      _T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 8, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. P. Mahaffy, The Greek World under Roman Sway._

      See, also, GREECE: B. C. 146-A. D. 180.

ATHENS: B. C. 87-86.
   Siege and capture by Sulla.
   Massacre of citizens.
   Pillage and depopulation.
   Lasting injuries.

   The early successes of Mithridates of Pontus, in his savage
   war with the Romans, included a general rising in his favor
   among the Greeks [see MITHRIDATIC WARS], supported by the
   fleets of the Pontic king and by a strong invading army.
   Athens and the Piræus were the strongholds of the Greek
   revolt, and at Athens an adventurer named Aristion, bringing
   from Mithridates a body-guard of 2,000 soldiers, made himself
   tyrant of the city. A year passed before Rome, distracted by
   the beginnings of civil war, could effectively interfere. Then
   Sulla came (B. C. 87) and laid siege to the Piræus, where the
   principal Pontic force was lodged, while he shut up Athens by
   blockade. In the following March, Athens was starved to such
   weakness that the Romans entered almost unopposed and killed
   and plundered with no mercy; but the buildings of the city
   suffered little harm at their hands. The siege of the Piræus
   was carried on for some weeks longer, until Sulla had driven
   the Pontic forces from every part except Munychia, and that
   they evacuated in no long time.

      _W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 7, chapter 17._

   "Athens was ... taken by assault. ... The majority of the
   citizens was slain; the carnage was so fearfully great as to
   become memorable even in that age of bloodshed; the private
   movable property was seized by the soldiery, and Sylla assumed
   some merit to himself for not committing the rifled houses to
   the flames. ... The fate of the Piræus, which he utterly
   destroyed, was more severe than that of Athens. From Sylla's
   campaign in Greece the commencement of the ruin and
   depopulation of the country is to be dated. The destruction of
   property caused by his ravages in Attica was so great that Athens
   from that time lost its commercial as well as its political
   importance. The race of Athenian citizens was almost
   extirpated, and a new population, composed of a heterogeneous
   mass of settlers, received the right of
   citizenship."

      _G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 1._

ATHENS: A. D. 54 (?).
   The Visit of St. Paul.
   Planting of Christianity.

   "When the Jews of Thessalonica had knowledge that the word of
   God was proclaimed of Paul at Berea also, they came thither
   likewise, stirring up and troubling the multitude. And then
   immediately the brethren sent forth Paul to go as far as to
   the sea: and Silas and Timotheus abode there still. But they
   that conducted Paul brought him as far as Athens; and
   receiving a commandment unto Silas and Timotheus that they
   should come to him with all speed, they departed. Now while
   Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within
   him, as he beheld the city full of idols. So he reasoned in
   the synagogue with the Jews, and the devout persons, and in
   the market place every day with them that met with him. And
   certain also of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers
   encountered him. And some said, what would this babbler say?
   other some, He seemeth to be a setter forth of strange gods:
   because he preached Jesus and the resurrection. And they took
   hold of him, and brought him unto the Areopagus, saying, May
   we know what this new teaching is, which is spoken by thee?
   For thou bringest certain strange things to our ears: we would
   know therefore what these things mean. (Now all the Athenians
   and the strangers sojourning there spent their time in nothing
   else, but either to tell or to hear some new thing.) And Paul
   stood in the midst of the Areopagus, and said, Ye men of
   Athens, in all things I perceive that ye are somewhat
   superstitious. For as I passed along and observed the objects
   of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription,
   'To an Unknown God.' What therefore ye worship in ignorance,
   this set I forth unto you. ... Now when they heard of the
   resurrection of the dead, some mocked; but others said, We
   will hear thee concerning this yet again. Thus Paul went out
   from among them. Howbeit certain men clave unto him, and
   believed: among whom also was Dionysius the Areopagite, and a
   woman named Damaris, and others with them."

      _Acts of the Apostles, Revised Version, chapter 17_.

{185}

   "Consider the difficulties which must have beset the planting
   of the Church in Athens. If the burning zeal of the great
   Apostle ever permitted him to feel diffidence in addressing an
   assembly, he may well have felt it when he addressed on Mars'
   Hill for the first time an Athenian crowd. No doubt the Athens
   of his time was in her decay, inferior in opulence and
   grandeur to many younger cities. Yet even to a Jew, provided
   he had received some educational impressions beyond the
   fanatical shibboleths of Pharisaism, there was much in that
   wonderful centre of intelligence to shake his most inveterate
   prejudices and inspire him with unwilling respect. Shorn
   indeed of her political greatness, deprived even of her
   philosophical supremacy, she still shone with a brilliant
   afterglow of æsthetic and intellectual prestige. Her monuments
   flashed on the visitor memories recent enough to dazzle his
   imagination. Her schools claimed and obtained even from
   Emperors the homage due to her unique past. Recognising her as
   the true nurse of Hellenism and the chief missionary of human
   refinement, the best spirits of the age held her worthy of
   admiring love not unmixed with awe. As the seat of the most
   brilliant and popular university, young men of talent and
   position flocked to her from every quarter, studied for a time
   within her colonnades, and carried thence the recollection of
   a culture which was not always deep, not always erudite, but
   was always and genuinely Attic. To subject to the criticism of
   this people a doctrine professing to come direct from God, a
   religion and not a philosophy, depending not on argument but
   on revelation, was a task of which the difficulties might seem
   insuperable. When we consider what the Athenian character was,
   this language will not seem exaggerated. Keen, subtle,
   capricious, satirical, sated with ideas, eager for novelty,
   yet with the eagerness of amused frivolity, not of the
   truth-seeker: critical by instinct, exquisitely sensitive to
   the ridiculous or the absurd, disputatious, ready to listen,
   yet impatient of all that was not wit, satisfied with
   everything in life except its shortness, and therefore hiding
   all references to this unwelcome fact under a veil of
   complacent euphemism--where could a more uncongenial soil be
   found for the seed of the Gospel? ... To an Athenian the Jew
   was not so much an object of hatred (as to the Roman), nor
   even of contempt (as to the rest of mankind), as of absolute
   indifference. He was simply ignored. To the eclectic
   philosophy which now dominated the schools of Athens, Judaism
   alone among all human opinions was as if non-existent. That
   Athenians should be convinced by the philosophy of a Jew would
   be a proposition expressible in words but wholly destitute of
   meaning. On the other hand, the Jew was not altogether
   uninfluenced by Greek thought. Wide apart as the two minds
   were, the Hebraic proved not insensible to the charm of the
   Hellenic; witness the Epistle to the Hebrews, witness Philo,
   witness the intrusion of Greek methods of interpretation even
   into the text-books of Rabbinism. And it was Athens, as the
   quintessence of Hellas, Athens as represented by Socrates, and
   still more by Plato, which had gained this subtle power. And
   just as Judæa alone among all the Jewish communities retained
   its exclusiveness wholly unimpaired by Hellenism, so Athens,
   more than any Pagan capital, was likely to ignore or repel a
   faith coming in the garb of Judaism. And yet within less than
   a century we find this faith so well established there as to
   yield to the Church the good fruits of martyrdom in the person
   of its bishop, and of able defences in the person of three of
   its teachers. The early and the later fortunes of the Athenian
   Church are buried in oblivion; it comes but for a brief period
   before the scene of history. But the undying interest of that
   one dramatic moment when Paul proclaimed a bodily resurrection
   to the authors of the conception of a spiritual immortality,
   will always cause us to linger with a strange sympathy over
   every relic of the Christianity of Athens."

      _C. T. Cruttwell, A Literary History of Early
      Christianity, volume 1, book 3, chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. J. Conybeare and J. S. Howson, Life and Letters of
      St. Paul, volume 1, chapter 10._

      _F. C. Baur, Paul, part 1, chapter 7 (volume l)_.

   On the inscription,

      See _E. de Pressensé, The Early Years of Christianity:
      The Apostolic Era, book 2, chapter 1._

ATHENS: A. D. 125-134.
   The works of Hadrian.

   The Emperor Hadrian interested himself greatly in the
   venerable decaying capital of the Greeks, which he visited, or
   resided in, for considerable periods, several times, between
   A. D. 125 and 134. These visits were made important to the
   city by the great works of rebuilding which he undertook and
   supervised. Large parts of the city are thought to have been
   reconstructed by him, "in the open and luxurious style of
   Antioch and Ephesus." One quarter came to be called
   "Hadrianapolis," as though he had created it. Several new
   temples were erected at his command; but the greatest of the
   works of Hadrian at Athens was the completing of the vast
   national temple, the Olympieum, the beginning of which dated
   back to the age of Pisistratus, and which Augustus had put his
   hand to without finishing.

      _C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 66._

ATHENS: A. D. 267.
   Capture of, by the Goths.

      See GOTHS: A. D. 258-267.

ATHENS: A. D. 395.
   Surrender to Alaric and the Goths.

   When the Goths under Alaric invaded and ravaged Greece, A. D.
   395, Athens was surrendered to them, on terms which saved the
   city from being plundered. "The fact that the depredations of
   Alaric hardly exceeded the ordinary license of a rebellious
   general, is ... perfectly established. The public buildings
   and monuments of ancient splendour suffered no wanton
   destruction from his visit; but there can be no doubt that
   Alaric and his troops levied heavy contributions on the city
   and its inhabitants."

      _G. Finlay, Greece under the Romans, chapter 2, section 8._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 30

      See, also, GOTHS: A. D. 395, ALARIC'S INVASION OF GREECE.

ATHENS: A. D. 529.
   Suppression of the Schools by Justinian.

   "The Attic schools of rhetoric and philosophy maintained their
   superior reputation from the Peloponnesian War to the reign of
   Justinian. Athens, though situate in a barren soil, possessed
   a pure air, a free navigation, and the monuments of ancient
   art. That sacred retirement was seldom disturbed by the
   business of trade or government; and the last of the Athenians
   were distinguished by their lively wit, the purity of their
   taste and language, their social manners, and some traces, at
   least in discourse, of the magnanimity of their fathers. In
   the suburbs of the city, the Academy of the Platonists, the
   Lycæum of the Peripatetics, the Portico of the Stoics and the
   Garden of the Epicureans were planted with trees and decorated
   with statues; and the philosophers, instead of being immured
   in a cloister, delivered their instructions in spacious and
   pleasant walks, which, at different hours, were consecrated to
   the exercises of the mind and body. The genius of the founders
   still lived in those venerable seats. ...
{186}
   The schools of Athens were protected by the wisest and most
   virtuous of the Roman princes. ... Some vestige of royal
   bounty may be found under the successors of Constantine. ...
   The golden chain, as it was fondly styled, of the Platonic
   succession, continued ... to the edict of Justinian [A. D.
   529] which imposed a perpetual silence on the schools of
   Athens, and excited the grief and indignation of the few
   remaining votaries of Greek science and superstition."

      _E. Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, chapter 40.

ATHENS: A. D. 1205.
   The founding of the Latin Dukedom.

   "The portion of Greece lying to the south of the kingdom of
   Saloniki was divided by the Crusaders [after their conquest of
   Constantinople, A. D. 1204--see BYZANTINE EMPIRE: A. D.
   1203-1204] among several great feudatories of the Empire of
   Romania. ... The lords of Boudonitza, Salona, Negropont, and
   Athens are alone mentioned as existing to the north of the
   isthmus of Corinth, and the history of the petty sovereigns of
   Athens can alone be traced in any detail. ... Otho de la
   Roche, a Burgundian nobleman, who had distinguished himself
   during the siege of Constantinople, marched southward with the
   army of Boniface the king-marquis, and gained possession of
   Athens in 1205. Thebes and Athens had probably fallen to his
   share in the partition of the Empire, but it is possible that
   the king of Saloniki may have found means to increase his
   portion, in order to induce him to do homage to the crown of
   Saloniki for this addition. At all events, it appears that
   Otho de la Roche did homage to Boniface, either as his
   immediate superior, or as viceroy for the Emperor of Romania.
   ... Though the Byzantine aristocracy and dignified clergy were
   severe sufferers by the transference of the government into
   the hands of the Franks, the middle classes long enjoyed peace
   and security. ... The social civilization of the inhabitants,
   and their ample command of the necessaries and many of the
   luxuries of life, were in those days as much superior to the
   condition of the citizens of Paris and London as they are now
   inferior. ... The city was large and wealthy, the country
   thickly covered with villages, of which the ruins may still be
   traced in spots affording no indications of Hellenic sites.
   ... The trade of Athens was considerable, and the luxury of
   the Athenian ducal court was celebrated in all the regions of
   the West where chivalry flourished."

      _G. Finlay, History of Greece from its Conquest by the
      Crusaders, chapter 7._

      ALSO IN:
      _C. C. Felton, Greece, Ancient and Modern: 4th Course.
      lecture 5._

ATHENS: A. D. 1311-1456.
   Under the Catalans and the Florentines.

      See CATALAN GRAND COMPANY.

ATHENS: A. D. 1456.
   The Turks in possession.

   Athens was not occupied by the Turks until three years after
   the conquest of Constantinople (see CONSTANTINOPLE: A. D.
   1453). In the meantime the reign of the Florentine dukes of
   the house of Acciaioli came to a tragical close. The last of
   the dukes, Maurice Acciaioli died, leaving a young son and a
   young widow, the latter renowned for her beauty and her
   talents. The duchess, whom the will of her husband had made
   regent, married a comely Venetian named Palmerio, who was said
   to have poisoned his wife in order to be free to accept her
   hand. Thereupon a nephew of the late duke, named Franco,
   stirred up insurrections at Athens and fled to Constantinople
   to complain to the sultan, Mahomet II. "The sultan, glad of
   all pretexts that coloured his armed intervention in the
   affairs of these principalities, ordered Omar, son of
   Tourakhan, chief of the permanent army of the Peloponnesus, to
   take possession of Athens, to dethrone the duchess and to
   confine her sons in his prisons of the citadel of Megara."
   This was done; but Palmerio, the duchess's husband, made his
   way to the sultan and interceded in her behalf. "Mahomet, by
   the advice of his viziers, feigned to listen equally to the
   complaints of Palmerio, and to march to reestablish the
   legitimate sovereignty. But already Franco, entering Megara
   under the auspices of the Ottomans, had strangled both the
   duchess and her son. Mahomet, advancing in turn to punish him
   for his vengeance, expelled Franco from Athens on entering it,
   and gave him, in compensation, the inferior and dependent
   principality of Thebes, in Boeotia. The sultan, as lettered as
   he was warlike, evinced no less pride and admiration than
   Sylla at the sight of the monuments of Athens. 'What
   gratitude,' exclaimed he before the Parthenon and the temple
   of Theseus, 'do not religion and the Empire owe to the son of
   Tourakhan, who has made them a present of these spoils of the
   genius of the Greeks.'"

      _A. Lamartine, History of Turkey, book 13, section 10-12._

ATHENS: A. D. 1466.
   Capture and plundering by the Venetians.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1454-1479.

ATHENS: A. D. 1687.
   Siege, bombardment and capture by the Venetians.
   Destructive explosion in the Parthenon.

      See TURKS: A. D. 1684-1696.

ATHENS: A. D. 1821-1829.
   The Greek revolution and war of independence.
   Capture by the Turks.

      See GREECE: A. D. 1821-1829.

----------ATHENS: End--------------

ATHERTON GAG, The.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1836.

ATHLONE, Siege of (A. D. 1691).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

ATHRAVAS.

      See MAGIANS.

ATIMIA.
   The penalty of Atimia, under ancient Athenian law, was the
   loss of civic rights.

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

ATIMUCA, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: TIMUCUA.

ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (May-September).
   Sherman's advance to the city.
   Its siege and capture.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
      A. D. 1864 (MAY: GEORGIA); and (MAY-SEPTEMBER: GEORGIA).

ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (September).
   Exclusive military occupation of the city.
   Removal of inhabitants.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER: GEORGIA).

ATLANTA: A. D. 1864 (November).
   Destruction of the city.

      See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1864
      (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER: GEORGIA).

----------ATLANTA: End----------

ATLANTIC OCEAN:
   The name.

   The Atlantic Ocean is mentioned by that name in a single
   passage of Herodotus; "but it is clear, from the incidental
   way in which it [the name] is here introduced, that it was one
   well known in his day."

      _E. H. Bunbury, History of Ancient Geography,
      chapter 7, section 1, note._

   For a sketch of the history of the modern use of the name,

      See PACIFIC OCEAN.

{187}

ATREBATES, The.
   This name was borne by a tribe in ancient Belgic Gaul, which
   occupied modern Artois and part of French Flanders, and, also,
   by a tribe or group of tribes in Britain, which dwelt in a
   region between the Thames and the Severn. The latter was
   probably a colony from the former.

      See BELGÆ;
      also BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

ATROPATENE.--MEDIA ATROPATENE.

   "Atropatene, as a name for the Alpine land in the northwest of
   Iran (now Aderbeijan), came into use in the time of the Greek
   Empire [Alexander's]; at any rate we cannot trace it earlier.
   'Athrapaiti' means 'lord of fire;' 'Athrapata,' 'one protected
   by fire;' in the remote mountains of this district the old
   fire worship was preserved with peculiar zeal under the
   Seleucids."

      _M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 7, chapter 4._

   Atropatene "comprises the entire basin of Lake Urumiyeh,
   together with the country intervening between that basin and
   the high mountain chain which curves round the southwestern
   corner of the Caspian."

      _G. Rawlinson, Five Great Monarchies: Media, chapter 1._

   Atropatene was "named in honour of the satrap Atropates, who
   had declared himself king after Alexander's death."

      _J. P. Mahaffy, Story of Alexander's Empire, chapter 13._

ATSINAS.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: BLACKFEET.

ATTABEGS.

      See ATABEGS.

ATTACAPAN FAMILY, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: ATTACAPAN FAMILY.

ATTAMAN, or HETMAN.

      See COSSACKS.

ATTECOTTI, The.

      See OTADENI;
      also, BRITAIN, CELTIC TRIBES.

ATTIC SALT.

   Thyme was a favorite condiment among the ancient Greeks,
   "which throve nowhere else so well as in Attica. Even salt was
   seasoned with thyme. Attic salt, however, is famed rather in
   the figurative than in the literal sense, and did not form an
   article of trade."

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

ATTIC TALENT.

      See TALENT.

ATTIC WAR, The.

      See TEN YEARS' WAR.

ATTICA.

   "It forms a rocky peninsula, separated from the mainland by
   trackless mountains, and jutting so far out into the Eastern
   Sea that it lay out of the path of the tribes moving from
   north to south. Hence the migratory passages which agitated
   the whole of Hellas left Attica untouched, and for this reason
   Attic history is not divided into such marked epochs as that of
   Peloponnesus; it possesses a superior unity, and presents an
   uninterrupted development of coalitions of life native in
   their origin to the land. ... On the other hand Attica was
   perfectly adapted by nature for receiving immigrants from the
   sea. For the whole country, as its name indicates, consists of
   coast-land; and the coast abounds in harbours, and on account of
   the depth of water in the roads is everywhere accessible;
   while the best of its plains open towards the coast and invite
   the mariner to land. The first landings by which the
   monotonous conditions of the age of the Pelasgians were
   interrupted where those of the Phoenicians, who domesticated
   the worship of Aphrodite, as well as that of the Tyrian Melcar
   on the coasts. Afterwards the tribes of the shores of Asia Minor
   came across; in the first place the Carians, who introduced
   the worship of the Carian Zeus and Posidon, and were followed
   by Cretans, Lycians, Dardanians and Old Ionians. The
   population became mixed. ... This first epoch of the national
   history the ancients connected with the name of Cecrops. It
   forms the transition from the life of rural districts and
   villages to that of a state. Attica has become a land with
   twelve citadels, in each of which dwells a chieftain or king,
   who has his domains, his suite, and his subjects. Every
   twelfth is a state by itself, with its separate public hall
   and common hearth. If under these circumstances a common
   national history was to be attained to, one of the twelve
   towns, distinguished by special advantages of situation, would
   have to become the capital. And to such a position undeniable
   advantages entitled the city whose seat was in the plain of
   the Cephisus. ... Into the centre of the entire plain advances
   from the direction of Hymettus a group of rocky heights, among
   them an entirely separate and mighty block which, with the
   exception of a narrow access from the west, offers on all
   sides vertically precipitous walls, surmounted by a broad
   level sufficiently roomy to afford space for the sanctuaries
   of the national gods and the habitations of the national
   rulers. It seems as if nature had designedly placed this rock
   in this position as the ruling castle and the centre of the
   national history. This is the Acropolis of Athens, among the
   twelve castles of the land that which was preëminently named
   after the national king Cecrops. ... So far from being
   sufficiently luxuriant to allow even the idle to find easy
   means of sustenance, the Attic soil was stony, devoid of a
   sufficient supply of water, and for the most part only adapted
   to the cultivation of barley; everywhere ... labour and a
   regulated industry were needed. But this labour was not
   unremunerative. Whatever orchard and garden fruits prospered
   were peculiarly delicate and agreeable to the taste; the
   mountain-herbs were nowhere more odourous than on Hymettus;
   and the sea abounded with fish. The mountains, not only by the
   beauty of their form invest the whole scenery with a certain
   nobility, but in their depths lay an abundance of the most
   excellent building-stone and silver ore; in the lowlands was
   to be found the best kind of clay for purposes of manufacture.
   The materials existed for all arts and handicrafts; and
   finally Attica rejoiced in what the ancients were wise enough
   to recognize as a special favour of Heaven, a dry and
   transparent atmosphere, by its peculiar clearness productive
   of bodily freshness, health and elasticity, while it sharpened
   the senses, disposed the soul to cheerfulness and aroused and
   animated the powers of the mind. Such were the institutions of
   the land which was developing the germs of its peculiar
   history at the time when the [Dorian] migrations were
   agitating the whole mainland. Though Attica was not herself
   overrun by hostile multitudes, yet about the same time she
   admitted manifold accessions of foreign population in smaller
   groups. By this means she enjoyed all the advantages of an
   invigorating impulse without exposing herself to the evils of
   a violent revolution. ... The immigrants who domesticated
   themselves in Attica were ... chiefly families of superior
   eminence, so that Attica gained not only in numbers of
   population, but also in materials of culture of every
   description."

      _E. Curtius, History of Greece, book 2, chapter 2._

      ALSO IN:
      _J. I. Lockhart, Attica and Athens._

      See also. ATHENS: THE BEGINNING.

{188}

ATTILA'S CONQUESTS AND EMPIRE.

      See HUNS.

ATTIOUANDARONK, The.

      See AMERICAN ABORIGINES: HURONS. &c.

ATTYADÆ, The.

   The first dynasty of the kings of Lydia, claimed to be sprung
   from Attys, son of the god Manes.

      _M. Duncker, History of Antiquity, book 4, chapter 17._

AUBAINE, The right of.

   "A prerogative by which the Kings of France claimed the
   property of foreigners who died in their kingdom without being
   naturalized." It was suppressed by Colbert, in the reign of
   Louis XIV.

      _J. A. Blanqui, History of Political Economy in Europe,
      page 285._

AUCH:
   Origin of the name.

      See AQUITAINE: THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

AUCKLAND, Lord, The Indian Administration of.

      See INDIA: A. D. 1836-1845.

AUDENARDE.

      See OUDINARDE.

AUDIENCIAS.

   "For more than two centuries and a half the whole of South
   America, except Brazil, settled down under the colonial
   government of Spain, and during the greater part of that time
   this vast territory was under the rule of the Viceroys of Peru
   residing at Lima. The impossibility of conducting an efficient
   administration from such a centre ... at once became apparent.
   Courts of justice called Audiencias were, therefore,
   established in the distant provinces, and their presidents,
   sometimes with the title of captains-general, had charge of
   the executive under the orders of the Viceroys. The Audiencia
   of Charcas (the modern Bolivia) was established in 1559. Chile
   was ruled by captains-general, and an Audiencia was
   established at Santiago in 1568. In New Grenada the president
   of the Audiencia, created in 1564, was also captain-general.
   The Audiencia of Quito, also with its president as
   captain-general, dated from 1542; and Venezuela was under a
   captain-general."

      _C. R. Markham, Colonial History of South America.
      (Narrative and Critical History of America,
      volume 8, page 295)._

AUERSTADT, Battle of.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER).

AUGEREAU, Marshal, Campaigns of.

      See
      FRANCE: A. D. 1797 (SEPTEMBER);
      GERMANY: A. D. 1806 (OCTOBER);
      SPAIN: A. D. 1809 (FEBRUARY-JUNE);
      and RUSSIA: A. D. 1812 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER);
      1813 (AUGUST), (OCTOBER), (OCTOBER-DECEMBER).

AUGHRIM, OR AGHRIM, Battle of (A. D. 1691).

      See IRELAND: A. D. 1689-1691.

AUGSBURG: Origin.

      See AUGUSTA VINDELICORUM.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 955.
   Great defeat of the Hungarians.

      See HUNGARIANS: A. D. 934-955.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1530.
   Sitting of the Diet.
   Signing and reading of the Protestant Confession of Faith.
   The Imperial Decree condemning the Protestants.

      See PAPACY: A. D. 1530-1531.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1555.
   The Religious Peace concluded.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1552-1561.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1646.
   Unsuccessful siege by Swedes and French.

      See GERMANY; A. D. 1646-1648.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1686-1697.
   The League and the War of the League.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1686;
      and FRANCE: A. D. 1689-1690, and after.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1703.
   Taken by the French.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1703.

AUGSBURG: A. D. 1801-1803.

   One of six free cities which survived the Peace of Luneville.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1801-1803.

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

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1805-1806.

----------AUGSBURG: End----------

AUGURS.--PONTIFICES.--FETIALES.

   "There was ... enough of priesthood and of priests in Rome.
   Those, however, who had business with a god resorted to the
   god, and not to the priest. Every suppliant and inquirer
   addressed himself directly to the divinity; ... no
   intervention of a priest was allowed to conceal or to obscure
   this original and simple relation. But it was no easy matter
   to hold converse with a god. The god had his own way of
   speaking, which was intelligible only to those acquainted with
   it; but one who did rightly understand it knew not only how to
   ascertain, but also how to manage, the will of the god, and
   even in case of need to overreach or to constrain him. It was
   natural, therefore, that the worshipper of the god should
   regularly consult such men of skill and listen to their
   advice; and thence arose the corporations or colleges of men
   specially skilled in religious lore, a thoroughly national
   Italian institution, which had a far more important influence
   on political development than the individual priests or
   priesthoods. These colleges have been often, but erroneously,
   confounded with the priesthoods. The priesthoods were charged
   with the worship of a specific divinity. ... Under the Roman
   constitution and that of the Latin communities in general
   there were originally but two such colleges: that of the
   augurs and that of the pontifices. The six augurs were skilled
   in interpreting the language of the gods from the flight of
   birds; an art which was prosecuted with great earnestness and
   reduced to a quasi-scientific system. The five 'bridge
   builders' (pontifices) derived their name from their function,
   as sacred as it was politically important, of conducting the
   building and demolition of the bridge over the Tiber. They
   were the Roman engineers, who understood the mystery of
   measures and numbers; whence there devolved upon them also the
   duties of managing the calendar of the state, of proclaiming
   to the people the time of new and full moon and the days of
   festivals, and of seeing that every religious and every
   judicial act took place on the right day. ... Thus they
   acquired (although not probably to the full extent till after
   the abolition of the monarchy) the general oversight of Roman
   worship and of whatever was connected with it. [The president
   of their college was called the Pontifex Maximus.] ... They
   themselves described the sum of their knowledge as 'the
   science of things divine and human.' ... By the side of these
   two oldest and most eminent corporations of men versed in
   spiritual lore may be to some extent ranked the college of the
   twenty state-heralds (fetiales, of uncertain derivation)
   destined as a living repository to preserve traditionally the
   remembrance of the treaties concluded with neighboring
   communities, to pronounce an authoritative opinion on alleged
   infractions of treaty rights, and in case of need to demand
   satisfaction and declare war."

      _T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book I, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. Guhl and W. Koner, Life of the Greeks and Romans,
      section 103._

      See, also, AUSPICES, and FETIALES.

{189}

AUGUSTA TREVIRORUM.

      See TUÈVES, ORIGIN OF.

AUGUSTA VEROMANDUORUM.
   Modern St. Quentin.

      See BELGÆ.

AUGUSTA VINDELICORUM.

   "Augusta Vindelicorum is the modern Augsburg, founded, it may
   be supposed, about the year 740 [B. C. 14] after the conquest
   of Rhætia by Drusus. ... The Itineraries represent it as the
   centre of the roads from Verona, Sirmium, and Treviri."

      _C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 36, note._

AUGUSTODUNUM.

   The Emperor Augustus changed the name of Bibracte in Gaul to
   Augustodunum, which time has corrupted, since to Autun.

AUGUSTONEMETUM.

      See GERGOVIA OF THE ARVERNI.

AUGUSTUS.--AUGUSTA:
   The Title.

   "Octavius [see ROME: B. C. 31-14] had warily declined any of
   the recognized designations of sovereign rule. Antonius had
   abolished the dictatorship; his successor respected the
   acclamations with which the people had greeted this decree.
   The voices which had saluted Cæsar with the title of king were
   peremptorily commanded to be dumb. Yet Octavius was fully
   aware of the influence which attached to distinctive titles of
   honour. While he scrupulously renounced the names upon which
   the breath of human jealousy had blown, he conceived the
   subtler policy of creating another for himself, which
   borrowing its original splendour from his own character,
   should reflect upon him an untarnished lustre. ... The epithet
   Augustus ... had never been borne by any man before. ... But
   the adjunct, though never given to a man, had been applied to
   things most noble, most venerable and most divine. The rites
   of the gods were called august, the temples were august; the
   word itself was derived from the holy auguries by which the
   divine will was revealed; it was connected with the favour and
   authority of Jove himself. ... The illustrious title was
   bestowed upon the heir of the Cæsarian Empire in the middle of
   the month of January, 727 [B. C. 27], and thenceforth it is by
   the name of Augustus that he is recognized in Roman history."

      _C. Merivale, History of the Romans, chapter 30._

   "When Octavianus had firmly established his power and was now
   left without a rival, the Senate, being desirous of
   distinguishing him by some peculiar and emphatic title,
   decreed, in B. C. 27, that he should be styled Augustus, an
   epithet properly applicable to some object demanding respect
   and veneration beyond what is bestowed upon human things. ...
   This being an honorary appellation ... it would, as a matter
   of course, have been transmitted by inheritance to his
   immediate descendants. ... Claudius, although he could not be
   regarded as a descendant of Octavianus, assumed on his
   accession the title of Augustus, and his example was followed
   by all succeeding rulers ... who communicated the title of
   Augusta to their consorts."

      _W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity., chapter 5._

      See, also, ROME: B. C. 31-A. D. 14.

AULA REGIA, The.

      See CURIA REGIS OF THE NORMAN KINGS.

AULDEARN, Battle of (A. D. 1645).

      See SCOTLAND: A. D. 1644-1645.

AULERCI, The.

   The Aulerci were an extensive nation in ancient Gaul which
   occupied the country from the lower course of the Seine to the
   Mayenne. It was subdivided into three great tribes--the
   Aulerci Cenomanni, Aulerci Diablintes and Aulerci Eburovices.

      _Napoleon III., History of Cæsar, book 3, chapter 2._

AULIC COUNCIL, The.

      See GERMANY: A. D. 1493-1519.

AUMALE, Battle of (1592).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1591-1593.

AUNEAU, Battle of (1587).

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1584-1589.

AURANGZEB, Moghul Emperor, or Padischah of India, A. D.
1658-1707.

AURAY, Battle of (1365).

      See BRITTANY: A. D. 1341-1365.

AURELIAN, Roman Emperor. A. D.270-275.

AURELIAN ROAD, The.

   One of the great Roman roads of antiquity, which ran from Rome
   to Pisa and Luna.

      _T. Mommsen, History of Rome, book 4, chapter 11._

AURELIO, King of Leon and the Asturias, or Oviedo, A. D. 768-774.

AURUNCANS, The.

      See AUSONIANS;
      also OSCANS.

AUSCI, The.

      See AQUITAINE, THE ANCIENT TRIBES.

AUSGLEICH, The.

      See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867.

AUSONIANS, OR AURUNCANS, The.

   A tribe of the ancient Volscians, who dwelt in the lower
   valley of the Liris, and who are said to have been
   exterminated by the Romans, B. C. 314.

      _W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 3, chapter 10._

      See, also, OSCANS.

AUSPICES, Taking the.

   "The Romans, in the earlier ages of their history, never
   entered upon any important business whatsoever, whether public
   or private, without endeavouring, by means of divination, to
   ascertain the will of the gods in reference to the
   undertaking. ... This operation was termed 'sumere auspicia;'
   and if the omens proved unfavourable the business was
   abandoned or deferred. ... No meeting of the Comitia Curiata
   nor of the Comitia Centuriata could be held unless the
   auspices had been previously taken. ... As far as public
   proceedings were concerned, no private individual, even among
   the patricians, had the right of taking auspices. This duty
   devolved upon the supreme magistrate alone. ... In an army
   this power belonged exclusively to the commander-in-chief; and
   hence all achievements were said to be performed under his
   auspices, even although he were not present. ... The objects
   observed in taking these auspices were birds, the class of
   animals from which the word is derived ('Auspicium ab ave
   spicienda'). Of these, some were believed to give indications
   by their flight ... others by their notes or cries ... while a
   third class consisted of chickens ('pulli') kept in cages.
   When it was desired to obtain an omen from these last, food
   was placed before them, and the manner in which they comported
   themselves was closely watched. ... The manner of taking the
   auspices previous to the Comitia was as follows:--The
   magistrate who was to preside at the assembly arose
   immediately after midnight on the day for which it had been
   summoned, and called upon an augur to assist him. ... With his
   aid a region of the sky and a space of ground, within which
   the auspices were observed, were marked out by the divining
   staff ('lituus') of the augur. ... This operation was
   performed with the greatest care. ... In making the necessary
   observations, the president was guided entirely by the augur,
   who reported to him the result."

      _W. Ramsay, Manual of Roman Antiquity., chapter 4._

      ALSO IN:
      _W. Ihne, History of Rome, book 6, chapter 13._

      See, also, AUGUR.

{190}

AUSTERLITZ, Battle of.

      See FRANCE: A. D. 1805 (MARCH-DECEMBER).

AUSTIN, Stephen F., and the settlement of Texas.

      See TEXAS: A. D. 1819-1835.

AUSTIN CANONS, OR CANONS OF ST. AUGUSTINE.

   "About the middle of the 11th century an attempt had been made
   to redress the balance between the regular and secular clergy,
   and restore to the latter the influence and consideration in
   spiritual matters which they had, partly by their own fault,
   already to a great extent lost. Some earnest and thoughtful
   spirits, distressed at once by the abuse of monastic
   privileges and by the general decay of ecclesiastical order,
   sought to effect a reform by the establishment of a stricter
   and better organized discipline in those cathedral and other
   churches which were served by colleges of secular priests. ...
   Towards the beginning of the twelfth century the attempts at
   canonical reform issued in the form of what was virtually a
   new religious order, that of the Angustinians, or Canons
   Regular of the order of S. Angustine. Like the monks and
   unlike the secular canons, from whom they were carefully
   distinguished, they had not only their table and dwelling but
   all things in common, and were bound by a vow to the
   observance of their rule, grounded upon a passage in one of
   the letters of that great father of the Latin Church from whom
   they took their name. Their scheme was a compromise between
   the old fashioned system of canons and that of the monastic
   confraternities; but a compromise leaning strongly towards the
   monastic side. ... The Austin canons, as they were commonly
   called, made their way across the channel in Henry's reign."

      _K. Norgate, England under the Angevin Kings,
      volume 1, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. L. Cutts, Scenes and Characters of the Middle Age.,
      chapter 3._

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1601-1800.
   Discovery and early exploration.
   The founding of the penal colonies at Sydney and Norfolk Island.

   "Australia has had no Columbus. It is even doubtful if the
   first navigators who reached her shores set out with any idea
   of discovering a great south land. At all events, it would
   seem, their achievements were so little esteemed by themselves
   and their countrymen that no means were taken to preserve
   their names in connexion with their discoveries. Holland long
   had the credit of bringing to light the existence of that
   island-continent, which until recent years was best known by
   her name. In 1861, however, Mr. Major, to whom we are indebted
   for more recent research upon the subject, produced evidence
   which appeared to demonstrate that the Portuguese had reached
   the shores of Australia in 1601, five years before the Dutch
   yacht Duyphen, or Dove,--the earliest vessel whose name has
   been handed down,--sighted, about March, 1606, what is
   believed to have been the coast near Cape York, Mr. Major, in
   a learned paper read before the Society of Antiquaries in
   1872, indicated the probability that the first discovery was
   made 'in or before the year 1531.' The dates of two of the six
   maps from which Mr. Major derives his information are 1531 and
   1542. The latter clearly indicates Australia, which is called
   Jave la Grande. New Zealand is also marked."

      _F. P. Labilliere, Early History of the Colony of Victoria,
      chapter 1._

   In 1606, De Quiros, a Spanish navigator, sailing from Peru,
   across the Pacific, reached a shore which stretched so far
   that he took it to be a continent. "He called the place
   'Tierra Australis de Espiritu Santo,' that is 'Southern Land
   of the Holy Spirit.' It is now known that this was not really
   a continent, but merely one of the New Hebrides Islands, and
   more than a thousand miles away from the mainland. ... In
   after years, the name he had invented was divided into two
   parts; the island he had really discovered being called
   Espiritu Santo, while the continent he thought he had
   discovered was called Terra Australis. This last name was
   shortened by another discoverer--Flinders--to the present term
   Australia." After the visit to the Australian coast of the
   small Dutch ship, the "Dove," it was touched, during the next
   twenty years, by a number of vessels of the same nationality.
   "In 1622 a Dutch ship, the 'Leeuwin,' or 'Lioness,' sailed
   along the southern coast, and its name was given to the
   southwest cape of Australia. ... In 1628 General Carpenter
   sailed completely round the large Gulf to the north, which has
   taken its name from this circumstance. Thus, by degrees, all
   the northern and western, together with part of the southern
   shores, came to be roughly explored, and the Dutch even had
   some idea of colonizing this continent. ... During the next
   fourteen years we hear no more of voyages to Australia; but in
   1642 Antony Van Diemen, the Governor of the Dutch possessions
   in the East Indies, sent out his friend Abel Jansen Tasman,
   with two ships, to make discoveries in the South Seas." Tasman
   discovered the island which he called Van Diemen's Land, but
   which has since been named in his own honor--Tasmania. "This
   he did not know to be an island; he drew it on his maps as if
   it were a peninsula belonging to the mainland of Australia."
   In 1699, the famous buccaneer, William Dampier, was given the
   command of a vessel sent out to the southern seas, and he
   explored about 900 miles of the northwestern coast of
   Australia; but the description which he gave of the country
   did not encourage the adventurous to seek fortune in it. "We
   hear of no further explorations in this part of the world
   until nearly a century after; and, even then, no one thought
   of sending out ships specially for the purpose. But in the
   year 1770 a series of important discoveries were indirectly
   brought about. The Royal Society of London, calculating that
   the planet Venus would cross the disc of the sun in 1769,
   persuaded the English Government to send out an expedition to
   the Pacific Ocean for the purpose of making observations on
   this event which would enable astronomers to calculate the
   distance of the earth from the sun. A small vessel, the
   'Endeavour,' was chosen; astronomers with their instruments
   embarked, and the whole placed under the charge of" the
   renowned sailor, Captain James Cook. The astronomical purposes
of the expedition were satisfactorily accomplished at Otaheite,
   and Captain Cook then proceeded to an exploration of the
   shores of New Zealand and Australia.
{191}
   Having entered a fine bay on the south-eastern
   coast of Australia, "he examined the country for a few miles
   inland, and two of his scientific friends--Sir Joseph Banks
   and Dr. Solander--made splendid collections of botanical
   specimens. From this circumstance the place was called Botany
   Bay, and its two head-lands received the names of Cape Banks
   and Cape Solander. It was here that Captain Cook ... took
   possession of the country on behalf of His Britannic Majesty,
   giving it the name 'New South Wales,' on account of the
   resemblance of its coasts to the southern shores of Wales.
   Shortly after they had set sail from Botany Bay they observed
   a small opening in the land, but Cook did not stay to examine
   it, merely marking it on his chart as Port Jackson, in honour
   of his friend Sir George Jackson. ... The reports brought home
   by Captain Cook completely changed the beliefs current in
   those days with regard to Australia. ... It so happened that,
   shortly after Cook's return, the English nation had to deal
   with a great difficulty in regard to its criminal population.
   In 1776 the United States declared their independence, and the
   English then found they could no longer send their convicts
   over to Virginia, as they had formerly done. In a short time
   the gaols of England were crowded with felons. It became
   necessary to select a new place of transportation; and, just
   as this difficulty arose, Captain Cook's voyages called
   attention to a land in every way suited for such a purpose,
   both by reason of its fertility and of its great distance.
   Viscount Sydney, therefore, determined to send out a party to
   Botany Bay, in order to found a convict settlement there; and
   in May, 1787, a fleet was ready to sail." After a voyage of
   eight months the fleet arrived at Botany Bay, in January,
   1788. The waters of the Bay were found to be too shallow for a
   proper harbour, and Captain Phillip, the appointed Governor of
   the settlement, set out, with three boats, to search for
   something better. "As he passed along the coast he turned to
   examine the opening which Captain Cook had called Port
   Jackson, and soon found himself in a winding channel of water,
   with great cliffs frowning overhead. All at once a magnificent
   prospect opened on his eyes. A harbour, which is, perhaps, the
   most beautiful and perfect in the world, stretched before him
   far to the west, till it was lost on the distant horizon. It
   seemed a vast maze of winding waters, dotted here and there
   with lovely islets. ... Captain Phillip selected, as the place
   most suitable to the settlement, a small inlet, which, in
   honour of the Minister of State, he called Sydney Cove. It was
   so deep as to allow vessels to approach within a yard or two
   of the shore." Great difficulties and sufferings attended the
   founding of the penal settlement, and many died of actual
   starvation as well as of disease; but in twelve years the
   population had risen to between 6,000 and 7,000 persons.
   Meantime a branch colony had been established on Norfolk
   Island. In 1702 Governor Phillip, broken in health, had
   resigned, and in 1795 he had been succeeded by Governor
   Hunter. "When Governor Hunter arrived, in 1795, he brought
   with him, on board his ship, the 'Reliance,' It young surgeon,
   George Bass, and a midshipman called Matthew Flinders. They
   were young men of the most admirable character. ... Within a
   month after their arrival they purchased a small boat about
   eight feet in length, which they christened the 'Tom Thumb.'
   Its crew consisted of themselves and a boy to assist." In this
   small craft they began a survey of the coast, usefully
   charting many miles of it. Soon afterwards, George Bass, in an
   open whale-boat, pursued his explorations southwards, to the
   region now called Victoria, and through the straits which bear
   his name, thus discovering the fact that Van Diemen's Land, or
   Tasmania, is an island, not a peninsula. In 1798, Bass and
   Flinders, again associated and furnished with a small sloop,
   sailed round and surveyed the entire coast of Van Diemen's
   Land. Bass now went to South America and there disappeared.
   Flinders was commissioned by the British Government in 1800 to
   make an extensive survey of the Australian coasts, and did so.
   Returning to England with his maps, he was taken prisoner on
   the way by the French and held in captivity for six years,
   while the fruits of his labor were stolen. He died a few years
   after being released.

      _A. and G. Sutherland, History of Australia, chapter 1-3._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. Rusden, History of Australia, chapter 1-3 (volume 1)._

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1800-1840.
   Beginning of the Prosperity of New South Wales.
   Introduction of sheep-farming.
   The founding of Victoria and South Australia.

   "For twenty years and more no one at home gave a thought to
   New South Wales, or 'Botany Bay,' as it was still erroneously
   called, unless in vague horror and compassion for the poor
   creatures who lived there in exile and starvation. The only
   civilizing element in the place was the presence of a devoted
   clergyman named Johnson, who had voluntarily accompanied the
   first batch of convicts. ... Colonel Lachlan Macquarie entered
   on the office of governor in 1810, and ruled the settlement
   for twelve years. His administration was the first turning
   point in its history. ... Macquarie saw that the best and
   cheapest way of ruling the convicts was to make them freemen
   as soon as possible. Before his time, the governors had looked
   on the convicts as slaves, to be worked for the profit of the
   government and of the free settlers. Macquarie did all he
   could to elevate the class of emancipists, and to encourage
   the convicts to persevere in sober industry in the hope of one
   day acquiring a respectable position. He began to discontinue
   the government farms, and to employ the convicts in
   road-making so as to extend the colony in all directions. When
   he came to Sydney, the country more than a day's ride from the
   town was quite unknown. The growth of the settlement was
   stopped on the west by a range called the Blue Mountains,
   which before his time no one had succeeded in crossing. But in
   1813, there came a drought upon the colony: the cattle, on
   which everything depended, were unable to find food. Macquarie
   surmised that there must be plenty of pasture on the plains
   above the Blue Mountains: he sent an exploring party, telling
   them that a pass must be discovered. In a few months, not only
   was this task accomplished, and the vast and fertile pastures
   of Bathurst reached, but a road 130 miles long was made,
   connecting them with Sydney. The Lachlan and Macquarie rivers
   were traced out to the west of the Blue Mountains.
{192}
   Besides this, coal was found at the mouth of the Hunter river,
   and the settlement at Newcastle formed. ... When it became
   known that the penal settlement was gradually becoming a free
   colony, and that Sydney and its population were rapidly
   changing their character, English and Scotch people soon
   bethought them of emigrating to the new country. Macquarie
   returned home in 1822, leaving New South Wales four times as
   populous, and twenty times as large as when he went out, and
   many years in advance of what it might have been under a less
   able and energetic governor. The discovery of the fine
   pastures beyond the Blue Mountains settled the destiny of the
   colony. The settlers came up thither with their flocks long
   before Macquarie's road was finished; and it turned out that
   the downs of Australia were the best sheep-walks in the world.
   The sheep thrives better there, and produces finer and more
   abundant wool, than anywhere else. John Macarthur, a
   lieutenant in the New South Wales corps, had spent several
   years in studying the effect of the Australian climate upon
   the sheep; and he rightly surmised that the staple of the
   colony would be its fine wool. In 1803, he went to England and
   procured some pure Spanish merino sheep from the flock of
   George III. ... The Privy Council listened to his wool
   projects, and he received a large grant of land. Macarthur had
   found out the true way to Australian prosperity. When the
   great upland pastures were discovered, the merino breed was
   well established in the colony; and the sheep-owners, without
   waiting for grants, spread with their flocks over immense
   tracts of country. This was the beginning of what is called
   squatting. The squatters afterwards paid a quit-rent to the
   government and thus got their runs, as they called the great
   districts where they pastured their flocks, to a certain
   extent secured to them. ... Hundreds upon hundreds of square
   miles of the great Australian downs were now explored and
   stocked with sheep for the English wool-market. ... It was in
   the time of Macquarie's successor, Sir Thomas Brisbane, that
   the prospects of New South Wales became generally known in
   England. Free emigrants, each bringing more or less capital
   with him, now poured in; and the demand for labour became
   enormous. At first the penal settlements were renewed as
   depots for the supply of labour, and it was even proposed that
   the convicts should be sold by auction on their arrival; but
   in the end the influx of free labourers entirely altered the
   question. In Brisbane's time, and that of his successor, Sir
   Ralph Darling, wages fell and work became scarce in England;
   and English working men now turned their attention to
   Australia. Hitherto the people had been either convicts or
   free settlers of more or less wealth, and between these
   classes there was great bitterness of feeling, each, naturally
   enough, thinking that the colony existed for their own
   exclusive benefit. The free labourers who now poured in
   greatly contributed in course of time to fusing the population
   into one. In Brisbane's time, trial by jury and a free press
   were introduced. The finest pastures in Australia, the Darling
   Downs near Moreton Bay, were discovered and settled [1825].
   The rivers which pour into Moreton Bay were explored: one of
   them was named the Brisbane, and a few miles from its mouth
   the town of the same name was founded. Brisbane is now the
   capital of the colony of Queensland: and other explorations in
   his time led to the foundation of a second independent colony.
   The Macquarie was traced beyond the marshes, in which it was
   supposed to lose itself, and named the Darling: and the Murray
   river was discovered [1829]. The tracing out of the Murray
   river by the adventurous traveller Sturt, led to a colony on
   the site which he named South Australia. In Darling's time,
   the Swan River Colony, now called Western Australia, was
   commenced. Darling ... was the first to sell the land at a
   small fixed price, on the system adopted in America. ...
   Darling returned to England in 1831; and the six-years
   administration of his successor, Sir Richard Bourke, marks a
   fresh turning-point in Australian history. In his time the
   colony threw off two great offshoots. Port Phillip, on which
   now stands the great city of Melbourne, had been discovered in
   1802, and in the next year the government sent hither a
   convict colony. This did not prosper, and this fine site was
   neglected for thirty years. When the sudden rise of New South
   Wales began, the squatters began to settle to the west and
   north of Port Phillip; and the government at once sent an
   exploring party, who reported most favourably of the country
   around. In 1836, Governor Bourke founded a settlement in this
   new land, which had been called, from its rich promise,
   Australia Felix: and under his directions the site of a
   capital was laid out, to be called Melbourne, in honour of the
   English Prime Minister. This was in 1837, so that the
   beginning of the colony corresponds nearly with that of Queen
   Victoria's reign; a circumstance which afterwards led to its
   being named Victoria. Further west still, a second new colony
   arose about this time on the site discovered by Sturt in 1829.
   This was called South Australia, and the first governor
   arrived there at the end of the year 1836. The intended
   capital was named Adelaide, in honour of the Queen of William
   IV. Both the new colonies were commenced on a new system,
   called from its inventor the Wakefield system, but the
   founders of South Australia were able to carry it out most
   effectually, because they were quite independent of the
   experience and the prejudices of the Sydney government. Mr.
   Wakefield was an ingenious man and a clever writer. ... His
   notion was that the new colonies ought to be made 'fairly to
   represent English society.' His plan was to arrest the strong
   democratic tendencies of the new community, and to reproduce
   in Australia the strong distinction of classes which was found
   in England. He wanted the land sold as dear as land-owners:
   and the produce of the land was to be applied in tempting
   labourers to emigrate with the prospect of better wages than
   they got at home. A Company was easily formed to carry out
   these ideas in South Australia. ... Like the settlement of
   Carolina as framed by Locke and Somers, it was really a plan
   for getting the advantages of the colony into the hands of the
   non-labouring classes: and by the natural laws of political
   economy, it failed everywhere. Adelaide became the scene of an
   Australian 'bubble.' The land-jobbers and money-lenders made
   fortunes: but the people who emigrated, mostly belonging to
   the middle and upper classes, found the scheme to be a
   delusion. Land rapidly rose in value, and as rapidly sank; and
   lots for which the emigrants had paid high prices became
   almost worthless. The labourers emigrated elsewhere, and so
   did those of the capitalists who had anything left. ... The
   depression of South Australia, however, was but temporary. It
   contains the best corn land in the whole island: and hence it
   of course soon became the chief source of the food supply of
   the neighbouring colonies, besides exporting large quantities
   of corn to England. It contains rich mines of copper, and
   produces large quantities of wool."

      _E. J. Payne, History of European Colonies, chapter 12._

      ALSO IN:
      _G. W. Rusden, History of Australia, volume 1-2._

{193}

AUSTRALIA: A.D. 1839-1855.
   Progress of the Port Phillip District.
   Its Separation from New South Wales and erection into the
   colony of Victoria.
   Discovery of Gold.
   Constitutional organization of the colony.

   "In 1839 the population of Port Phillip amounted to nearly
   6,000, and was being rapidly augmented from without. The sheep
   in the district exceeded half a million, and of cattle and
   horses the numbers were in proportion equally large. The place
   was daily growing in importance. The Home Government therefore
   decided to send an officer, with the title of Superintendent,
   to take charge of the district, but to act under the Governor
   of New South Wales. Charles Joseph La Trobe, Esq., was
   appointed to this office. ... He arrived at Melbourne on the
   30th September, 1839. Soon after this all classes of the new
   community appear to have become affected by a mania for
   speculation. ... As is always the case when speculation takes
   the place of steady industry, the necessaries of life became
   fabulously dear. Of money there was but little, in
   consideration of the amount of business done, and large
   transactions were effected by means of paper and credit. From
   highest to lowest, all lived extravagantly. ... Such a state
   of things could not last forever. In 1842, by which time the
   population had increased to 24,000, the crash came. ... From
   this depression the colony slowly recovered, and a sounder
   business system took the place of the speculative one. ... All
   this time, however, the colony was a dependency of New South
   Wales, and a strong feeling had gained ground that it suffered
   in consequence. ... A cry was raised for separation. The
   demand was, as a matter of course, resisted by New South
   Wales, but as the agitation was carried on with increased
   activity, it was at last yielded to by the Home authorities.
   The vessel bearing the intelligence arrived on the 11th
   November, 1850. The news soon spread, and great was the
   satisfaction of the colonists. Rejoicings were kept up in
   Melbourne for five consecutive days. ... Before, however, the
   separation could be legally accomplished, it was necessary
   that an Act should be passed in New South Wales to settle
   details. ... The requisite forms were at length given effect
   to, and, on the 1st July, 1851, a day which has ever since
   been scrupulously observed as a public holiday, it was
   proclaimed that the Port Phillip district of New South Wales
   had been erected into a separate colony to be called Victoria,
   after the name of Her Most Gracious Majesty. At the same time
   the Superintendent, Mr. C. J. La Trobe, was raised to the rank
   of Lieutenant-Governor. At the commencement of the year of
   separation the population of Port Phillip numbered 76,000, the
   sheep 6,000,000, the cattle 380,000. ... In a little more than
   a month after the establishment of Victoria as an independent
   colony, it became generally known that rich deposits of gold
   existed within its borders. ... The discovery of gold ... in
   New South Wales, by Hargreaves, in February, 1851, caused
   numbers to emigrate to that colony. This being considered
   detrimental to the interests of Victoria, a public meeting was
   held in Melbourne on the 9th of June, at which a
   'gold-discovery committee' was appointed, which was authorized
   to offer rewards to any that should discover gold in remunerative
   quantities within the colony. The colonists were already on
   the alert. At the time this meeting was held, several parties
   were out searching for, and some had already found gold. The
   precious metal was first discovered at Clunes, then in the
   Yarra ranges at Anderson's Creek, soon after at Buninyong and
   Ballarat, shortly afterwards at Mount Alexander, and
   eventually at Bendigo. The deposits were found to be richer
   and to extend over a wider area than any which had been
   discovered in New South Wales. Their fame soon spread to the
   adjacent colonies, and thousands hastened to the spot. ...
   When the news reached home, crowds of emigrants from the
   United Kingdom hurried to our shores. Inhabitants of other
   European countries quickly joined in the rush. Americans from
   the Atlantic States were not long in following. Stalwart
   Californians left their own gold-yielding rocks and placers to
   try their fortunes at the Southern Eldorado. Last of all,
   swarms of Chinese arrived, eager to unite in the general
   scramble for wealth. ... The important position which the
   Australian colonies had obtained in consequence of the
   discovery of gold, and the influx of population consequent
   thereon, was the occasion of the Imperial Government
   determining in the latter end of 1852 that each colony should
   be invited to frame such a Constitution for its government as
   its representatives might deem best suited to its own peculiar
   circumstances. The Constitution framed in Victoria, and
   afterwards approved by the British Parliament, was avowedly
   based upon that of the United Kingdom. It provided for the
   establishment of two Houses of Legislature, with power to make
   laws, subject to the assent of the Crown as represented
   generally by the Governor of the colony; the Legislative
   Council, or Upper House, to consist of 30, and the Legislative
   Assembly, or Lower House, to consist of 60 members. Members of
   both Houses to be elective and to possess property
   qualifications. Electors of both Houses to possess either
   property or professional qualifications [the property
   qualification of members and electors of the Lower House has
   since been abolished]. ... The Upper House not to be
   dissolved, but five members to retire every two years, and to
   be eligible for re-election. The Lower House to be dissolved
   every five years [since reduced to three], or oftener, at the
   discretion of the Governor. Certain officers of the
   Government, four at least of whom should have seats in
   Parliament, to be deemed 'Responsible Ministers.' ... This
   Constitution was proclaimed in Victoria on the 23d November,
   1855."

      _H. H. Hayter, Notes on the Colony of Victoria, chapter 1._

      ALSO IN:
      _F. P. Labilliere, Early History of the Colony of
      Victoria, volume 2._

      _W. Westgarth, First Twenty Years of the Colony of
      Victoria._

{194}

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1859.
   Separation of the Moreton Bay District from New South Wales.
   Its erection into the colony of Queensland.

   "Until December, 1859, the north-west portion of the Fifth
   Continent was known as the Moreton Bay district, and belonged
   to the colony of New South Wales; but at that date it had
   grown so large that it was erected into a separate and
   independent colony, under the name of Queensland. It lies
   between latitude 10° 43' South and 29° South, and longitude
   138° and 153° East, bounded on the north by Torres Straits; on
   the north-east by the Coral Sea; on the east by the South
   Pacific; on the south by New South Wales and South Australia;
   on the west by South Australia and the Northern Territory; and
   on the north-west by the Gulf of Carpentaria. It covers an
   area ... twenty times as large as Ireland, twenty-three times
   as large as Scotland, and eleven times the extent of England.
   ... Numerous good harbours are found, many of which form the
   outlets of navigable rivers. The principal of these [is]
   Moreton Bay, at the head of which stands Brisbane, the capital
   of the colony. ... The mineral wealth of Queensland is very
   great, and every year sees it more fully developed. ... Until
   the year 1867, when the Gympie field was discovered, gold
   mining as an industry was hardly known."

      _C. H. Eden, The Fifth Continent, chapter 10._

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1885-1892.
   Proposed Federation of the Colonies.

   "It has been a common saying in Australia that our fellow
   countrymen in that part of the world did not recognise the
   term 'Australian;' each recognised only his own colony and the
   empire. But the advocates of combination for certain common
   purposes achieved a great step forward in the formation of a
   'Federal Council' in 1885. It was to be only a 'Council,' its
   decisions having no force over any colony unless accepted
   afterwards by the colonial Legislature. Victoria, Queensland,
   Tasmania, and West Australia joined, New South Wales, South
   Australia, and New Zealand standing out, and, so constituted,
   it met twice. The results of the deliberations were not
   unsatisfactory, and the opinion that the move was in the right
   direction rapidly grew. In February of 1890 a Federation
   Conference, not private but representative of the different
   Governments, was called at Melbourne. It adopted an address to
   the Queen declaring the opinion of the conference to be that
   the best interests of the Australian colonies require the
   early formation of a union under the Crown into one
   Government, both legislative and executive. Events proceed
   quickly in Colonial History. In the course of 1890 the
   hesitation of New South Wales was finally overcome; powerful
   factors being the weakening of the Free Trade position at the
   election of 1890, the report of General Edwards on the
   Defences, and the difficulties about Chinese immigration. A
   Convention accordingly assembled at Sydney in March, 1891,
   which agreed upon a Constitution to be recommended to the
   several Colonies."

      _A. Caldecott, English Colonization and Empire,
      chapter 7, section 2._

   "On Monday, March 2nd, 1891, the National Australasian
   Convention met at the Parliament House, Sydney, New South
   Wales, and was attended by seven representatives from each
   Colony, except New Zealand, which only sent three. Sir Henry
   Parkes (New South Wales) was elected President of the
   Convention, and Sir Samuel Griffith (Queensland),
   Vice-President. A series of resolutions, moved by Sir Henry
   Parkes, occupied the attention of the Convention for several
   days. These resolutions set forth the principles upon which
   the Federal Government should be established, which were to
   the effect that the powers and privileges of existing Colonies
   should be kept intact, except in cases where surrender would
   be necessary in order to form a Federal Government; that
   intercolonial trade and intercourse should be free; that power
   to impose Customs duties should rest with the Federal
   Government and Parliament; and that the naval and military
   defence of Australia should be entrusted to the Federal Forces
   under one command. The resolutions then went on to approve of
   a Federal Constitution which should establish a Federal
   Parliament to consist of a Senate and a House of
   Representatives; that a Judiciary, to consist of a Federal
   Supreme Court, to be a High Court of Appeal for Australia,
   should be established; and that a Federal Executive,
   consisting of a Governor-General, with responsible advisers,
   should be constituted. These resolutions were discussed at
   great length, and eventually were adopted. The resolutions
   were then referred to three Committees chosen from the
   delegates, one to consider Constitutional Machinery and the
   distribution of powers and functions; one to deal with matters
   relating to Finance, Taxation, and Trade Regulations; and the
   other to consider the question of the establishment of a
   Federal Judiciary. A draft Bill, to constitute the
   'Commonwealth of Australia,' was brought up by the first
   mentioned of these Committees, and after full consideration
   was adopted by the Convention, and it was agreed that the Bill
   should be presented to each of the Australian Parliaments for
   approval and adoption. On Thursday, April 9th. the Convention
   closed its proceedings. The Bill to provide for the Federation
   of the Australasian colonies entitled 'A Bill to constitute a
   Commonwealth of Australia,' which was drafted by the National
   Australasian Convention, has been introduced into the
   Parliaments of most of the colonies of the group, and is still
   (October, 1892), under consideration. In Victoria it has
   passed the Lower House with some amendments."

      _Statesman's Year-book, 1893, page 308._

AUSTRALIA: A. D. 1890.
   New South Wales and Victoria.

   "New South Wales bears to Victoria a certain statistical
   resemblance. The two colonies have [1890] about the same
   population, and, roughly speaking, about the same revenues,
   expenditure, debt and trade. In each, a great capital collects
   in one neighbourhood more than a third of the total
   population. ... But ... considerable differences lie behind
   and are likely to develop in the future. New South Wales, in
   the opinion of her enemies, is less enterprising than
   Victoria, and has less of the go-ahead spirit which
   distinguishes the Melbourne people. On the other hand she
   possesses a larger territory, abundant supplies of coal, and
   will have probably, in consequence, a greater future. Although
   New South Wales is three and a half times as large as
   Victoria, and has the area of the German Empire and Italy
   combined, she is of course much smaller than the three other
   but as yet less important colonies of the Australian continent
   [namely Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia].
{195}
   As the country was in a large degree settled by assisted
   emigrants, of whom something like half altogether have been
   Irish, while the English section was largely composed of
   Chartists, ... the legislation of New South Wales has
   naturally shown signs of its origin. Manhood suffrage was
   carried in 1858; the abolition of primogeniture in 1862; safe
   and easy transfer of land through the machinery of the Torrens
   Act in the same year; and also the abolition of state aid to
   religion. A public system of education was introduced, with
   other measures of democratic legislation. ... Public
   education, which in Victoria is free, is still paid for by
   fees in New South Wales, though children going to or returning
   from school are allowed to travel free by railway. In general
   it may be said that New South Wales legislation in recent
   times has not been so bold as the legislation of Victoria. ...
   The land of New South Wales has to a large extent come into
   the hands of wealthy persons who are becoming a territorial
   aristocracy. This has been the effect firstly of grants and of
   squatting legislation, then of the perversion of the Act of
   1861 [for 'Free Selection before Survey'] to the use of those
   against whom it had been aimed, and finally of natural
   causes--soil, climate and the lack of water. ... The traces of
   the convict element in New South Wales have become very slight
   in the national character. The prevailing cheerfulness,
   running into fickleness and frivolity, with a great deal more
   vivacity than exists in England, does not suggest in the least
   the intermixture of convict blood. It is a natural creation of
   the climate, and of the full and varied life led by colonists
   in a young country. ... A population of an excellent type has
   swallowed up not only the convict element, but also the
   unstable and thriftless element shipped by friends in Britain
   to Sydney or to Melbourne. The ne'er-do-weels were either
   somewhat above the average in brains, as was often the case
   with those who recovered themselves and started life afresh,
   or people who drank themselves to death and disappeared and
   left no descendants. The convicts were also of various
   classes; some of them were men in whom crime was the outcome
   of restless energy, as, for instance, in many of those
   transported for treason and for manslaughter; while some were
   people of average morality ruined through companions, wives,
   or sudden temptation, and some persons of an essentially
   depraved and criminal life. The better classes of convicts, in
   a new country, away from their old companions and old
   temptations, turned over a new leaf, and their abilities and
   their strong vitality, which in some cases had wrought their
   ruin in the old world, found healthful scope in subduing to
   man a new one. Crime in their cases was an accident, and would
   not be transmitted to the children they left behind them. On
   the other hand, the genuine criminals, and also the drunken
   ne'er-do-weels, left no children. Drink and vice among the
   'assigned servants' class of convicts, and an absence of all
   facilities for marriage, worked them off the face of the
   earth, and those who had not been killed before the gold
   discovery generally drank themselves to death upon the
   diggings."

      _Sir C. W. Dilke, Problems of Greater Britain,
      part 2, chapter 2._

AUSTRASIA AND NEUSTRIA, OR NEUSTRASIA.

   "It is conjectured by Luden, with great probability, that the
   Ripuarians were originally called the 'Eastern' people to
   distinguish them from the Salian Franks who lived to the West.
   But when the old home of the conquerors on the right bank of
   the Rhine was united with their new settlements in Gaul, the
   latter, as it would seem, were called Neustria or Neustrasia
   (New Lands); while the term Austrasia came to denote the
   original seats of the Franks, on what we now call the German
   bank of the Rhine. The most important difference between them
   (a difference so great as to lead to their permanent
   separation into the kingdoms of France and Germany by the
   treaty of Verdun) was this: that in Neustria the Frankish
   element was quickly absorbed by the mass of Gallo-Romanism by
   which it was surrounded; while in Austrasia, which included
   the ancient seats of the Frankish conquerors, the German
   element was wholly predominant. The import of the word
   Austrasia (Austria, Austrifrancia) is very fluctuating. In its
   widest sense it was used to denote all the countries
   incorporated into the Frankish Empire, or even held in
   subjection to it, in which the German language and population
   prevailed; in this acceptation it included therefore the
   territory of the Alemanni, Bavarians, Thuringians, and even
   that of the Saxons and Frises. In its more common and proper
   sense it meant that part of the territory of the Franks
   themselves which was not included in Neustria. It was
   subdivided into Upper Austrasia on the Moselle, and Lower
   Austrasia on the Rhine and Meuse. Neustria (or, in the fulness
   of the monkish Latinity, Neustrasia) was bounded on the north
   by the ocean, on the south by the Loire, and on the southwest
   [southeast?] towards Burgundy by a line which, beginning
   below Gien on the Loire, ran through the rivers Loing and
   Yonne, not far from their sources, and passing north of
   Auxerre and south of Troyes, joined the river Aube above
   Arcis."

      _W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 3._

   "The northeastern part of Gaul, along the Rhine, together with
   a slice of ancient Germany, was already distinguished, as we
   have seen, by the name of the Eastern Kingdom, or Oster-rike,
   Latinized into Austrasia. It embraced the region first
   occupied by the Ripumarian Franks, and where they still lived
   the most compactly and in the greatest number. ... This was,
   in the estimation of the Franks, the kingdom by eminence,
   while the rest of the north of Gaul was simply not
   it--'ne-oster-rike,' or Neustria. A line drawn from the mouth
   of the Scheldt to Cambrai, and thence across the Marne at
   Chateau-Thierry to the Aube of Bar-sur-Aube, would have
   separated the one from the other, Neustria comprising all the
   northwest of Gaul, between the Loire and the ocean, with the
   exception of Brittany. This had been the first possession of
   the Salian Franks in Gaul. ... To such an extent had they been
   absorbed and influenced by the Roman elements of the
   population, that the Austrasians scarcely considered them
   Franks, while they, in their turn, regarded the Austrasians as
   the merest untutored barbarians."

      _P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul,
      book 3, chapter 13, with note._

      ALSO IN:
      _E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe,
      chapter 5, section 5._

      See, also, FRANKS (MEROVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 511-752.